Comment on New California ghost gun lawsuit takes aim at company that sells 3-D printer filament
percent@infosec.pub 1 week ago
Polymaker did not respond to requests for comment.
Statements like these always seem deceiving to me. Like, how much time did you give them? Some of these people race to get their story out too quickly, without giving a reasonable amount of time for a response.
What if they respond later? I guess they could update the article, but that’s still after people have already read it and formed their opinions based on the original contents.
jake_jake_jake_@lemmy.world 1 week ago
This is very normal, and not meant to be deceiving. If the group who didn’t respond to the request does respond after the article was published, that will be removed and a statement that reads something like “Polymaker (insert title or department) responded after initial publishing with this statement” and that statement will follow after. From a journalistic integrity standpoint it shows that they wanted to get both sides of a story, especially if one side was interviewed or quoted. The alternative of not stating that comment was requested is we read the article and wonder if Polymaker ever got a chance to speak their side.
percent@infosec.pub 1 week ago
But that’s kinda my point: I still don’t know if they had a chance to speak their side before the article was published, nor do I know if they will.
It’s really just a nitpick on my part. If they plan to publish a follow-up article about the response, then it would seem a bit more honest to just add one word: “yet”
Darkonion@lemmy.world 1 week ago
I have seen sometimes where the author of the article will include the amount of time given for a response to give context. I like that quite a bit. On the other hand, some companies make it exceedingly difficult to contact them or throw you into a maze of powerless and uninformed underlings.