WAN Show 16/9/23

[Lupusvir]

Linus put up a survey on how many people could tell the difference between their videos before the hiatus and after the hiatus. (Related to GN's discovery on LMG.) Unsurprisingly, not many people could tell the difference. I bring this up because of Linus's decision to put up the survey and his attitude around it. I think LMG is still untrustworthy, especially after the whole conundrum with GN. Him putting up this survey and saying how we don't know a lot about what's going on is disconcerting. What's disconcerting about this isn't the fact that he is right, it's the fact that's a given. Since that's with all, if not most, large corporations. Regardless of how transparent they are. There will always be something about the internal workings we don't know. Therefore, the need to put up that survey is not necessary. It's led me to believe Linus only put up that survey to see if he could pull the same stunt again. Specifically, so he could be more subtle with the stunt so he could get away better with it.

 

What enforces these conclusions is how he talked about the employee videos. The ones where LMG employees talked about working at LMG. He said they were weaponized against him. While this was the case, the response to stop making them; Tells me he isn't confident that he could fix the mistake he made. I draw this conclusion because he should be able to continue to make those kinds of videos. Especially if he's actually learned from the mistake he made. But, the fact that he has said there will be no more. Tells me that he might've not learned from the mistake he made. Therefore, it's highly probable he will pull the same stunt again in the future. He'll just be more subtle about it.

[filpo]

16 minutes ago, Lupusvir said:

about the internal workings we don't know.

Maybe it's good we don't know. They may be protecting us from something (I doubt it but maybe)

 

17 minutes ago, Lupusvir said:

Linus put up a survey on how many people could tell the difference between their videos before the hiatus and after the hiatus. (Related to GN's discovery on LMG.) Unsurprisingly, not many people could tell the difference.

What they said in their 'plan' video is that they aren't gonna change the videos. They're gonna change how they deal with things internally. Doesn't mean it has to be different on the surface. I liked how they did videos before it anyways. The timeline of their 'Here's the plan' vid kinda sums up how they're not gonna change anything that we're gonna notice in the videos that much. But they're changing and most likely changed how they're doing things internally and how they deal with it

20 minutes ago, Lupusvir said:

It's led me to believe Linus only put up that survey to see if he could pull the same stunt again

Possibly, but just because his names on the company doesn't mean he was single-handedly in charge of all the wrong doings

[TetraSky]

Many of the changes will be so minuscule we wouldn't notice anyway.

It's mostly fact checking and a few other things BEFORE posting videos. Basically what they should've been doing since the get go.

[manikyath]

2 hours ago, Lupusvir said:

Him putting up this survey and saying how we don't know a lot about what's going on is disconcerting. What's disconcerting about this isn't the fact that he is right, it's the fact that's a given.

he knows he's right about what the outcome of the poll would be, because he can read comments and see how well videos are performing. despite what it seems like on the surface, linus isnt an idiot.

2 hours ago, Lupusvir said:

Therefore, the need to put up that survey is not necessary. It's led me to believe Linus only put up that survey to see if he could pull the same stunt again.

the purpose of the survey is to have something to base his argument on, that the way they produce videos will essentially stay the same, only the "chain of responsibility" to make sure the video is based in fact is what changes. he could just say "you lot know those were made before the break, right?" but without showing what the actual thoughts of the community at large are, you'd be here complaining about how he has no idea what his community thinks.. while in fact, he clearly does.

 

the point isnt that "he's right", the point is that he wanted to use it as an example to show the change in production is much smaller than what is preceived. it's essentially only a tool to show confirmation bias in the community.

 

2 hours ago, Lupusvir said:

He said they were weaponized against him. While this was the case, the response to stop making them; Tells me he isn't confident that he could fix the mistake he made

again.. yes.. but no. the reason they're gonna stop making them, is because the concept of the videos is that it's a means for the employees to publicly speak their own mind about working at LMG.. but if those employee's words are then pulled WAY out of context that's not only a bad look for LMG, it's a bad look for the employee, and most importantly it makes the employee the center of a debate they may not want any stake in to begin with. not making the videos is a way to protect their employees against the drama you lot are making. i dont think it's the right choice, i think it's the only choice they realisticly have.

 

2 hours ago, Lupusvir said:

Therefore, it's highly probable he will pull the same stunt again in the future.

i'm curious now.. what stunt? what did i miss?

[IrishDiem]

I got that stage of the video, paused, came here. Because I knew someone would be complaining about it. And I am glad to see that @Lupusvir has not disappointed. 
 

We know that the videos are filmed and released in varying orders and timelines. This came up after the stepping down as CEO video - everyone said he looked happier but it was filmed weeks beforehand. This is not new and he knows people like Lupisvir project onto what they see with no regard to the facts. 

And not doing the staff videos protects them - can Lupus imagine how look felt seeing his facial expressions twisted by Tech Judas? Never mind all the other staff utterly twisted by the fake journo Steve. 

The poll was not a stunt - it was a practical lesson on how "viewers" like Lupusvir get things so wrong. 

But I want to see the videographer staff reaction to their demands for slower production times leading to LTT failing down the algorithm rankings. Sure, they get a few extra hours to do things but less people see the prettier pictures. 

[manikyath]

52 minutes ago, IrishDiem said:

Tech Judas

i'm gonna borrow that.. that's a brilliant meme.

53 minutes ago, IrishDiem said:

slower production times leading to LTT failing down the algorithm rankings. Sure, they get a few extra hours to do things but less people see the prettier pictures. 

the algorithm is a weird beast, it's most likely the change in consistency that's had the biggest impact, as opposed to the change in pace, if that makes sense.

[IrishDiem]

1 hour ago, manikyath said:

i'm gonna borrow that.. that's a brilliant meme.

Thanks and you are welcome to it - at the time, and to keep with the biblical references, I also said that the GN video was so incorrectly angry that even Lots wife was saying it was too damn salty. 

 

 

1 hour ago, manikyath said:

the algorithm is a weird beast, it's most likely the change in consistency that's had the biggest impact, as opposed to the change in pace, if that makes sense.

Agree with that and we will see if it recovers. I was interested in the videographers complaining about not having enough time though. Writers and Editors I get - they wanted to be more accurate but I cant see the videographers wanting more time for their art making any difference as they arent editing or controlling much of the flow of the videos. 

[angelwolf71885]

The only real reason LMG is stopping the employee feedback videos is because of liability it’s hard conclusive evidence that something is wrong and it’s important information for the public to have how indignant Linus got when he repeated several times “ what do you think is gonna happen “ several times in a row and after talking about how they were used against LMG Linus burst out with “ then we won’t do them any more “ this reeks of intimidation of employees and Linus just trying to take his ball and go home I wonder what happened to the employees that did speak out in those videos or spoke up during the “ hiatus “ it’s time to unionize LMG

[norskfyr]

2 hours ago, angelwolf71885 said:

 it’s time to unionize LMG

That isn't your, or our, call to make.

[IrishDiem]

4 hours ago, angelwolf71885 said:

it’s time to unionize LMG

So many people need to understand that its a full employee right and they can do it now if they want. Its Canada. - The dos and don’ts of unionization | CFIB (cfib-fcei.ca)

But no-one is addressing this part. If an employee takes part in a video like this and has their words, ideas, hopes, and aspirations for their work turned into an assassination piece about their own job and puts their own job at risk - why would they do that in future? Given that every staff interview and interaction on camera now has to go through the filter of "will Steve lose his shit if I say this" or "will this be twisted in future?" who would want to do the video now. And a union would actually advocate against employees being videoed like this now cause the union will see that their comments can be used to attack the company and put the employee at risk of poor mental health - what union will allow a video like that in future?

[Vilacom]

14 hours ago, angelwolf71885 said:

The only real reason LMG is stopping the employee feedback videos is because of liability it’s hard conclusive evidence that something is wrong and it’s important information for the public to have how indignant Linus got when he repeated several times “ what do you think is gonna happen “ several times in a row and after talking about how they were used against LMG Linus burst out with “ then we won’t do them any more “ this reeks of intimidation of employees and Linus just trying to take his ball and go home I wonder what happened to the employees that did speak out in those videos or spoke up during the “ hiatus “ it’s time to unionize LMG

Said this in my post in off topic, gonna say it here again.

Unionization DOES NOT CHANGE ANYTHING ABOUT THIS.  Unions advocate for employee benefits and provide structure and advocacy when disciplinary actions are initiated, a union doesn’t mean you get to do whatever you want and can’t be touched for it.  

 

[Absentia13]

Yea, his attitude towards it was pretty stupid IMO. You can't state you're doing all these things in new videos and then basically mock people who praised them inadvertently not knowing that some of them weren't new. All while basically wiping out all of your statements like "LOL they were ok all along...." when you acknowledged they weren't. I know some of them weren't new, but obviously they didn't release them unchecked. 

 

A few things:

1) Even though they were filmed and completed doesn't mean that they weren't gone through again (I guarantee they were) to ensure that there were no glaring errors. 

2) Not all videos LTT posted had errors. If those 6 didn't, I'm not surprised. 

3) The first review video that was posted was functionally useless in that they compared like 9 GPUs where other channels did 40 or 50. And yet LTT has 2-5x the number of people working on it. 

 

Also Terren is either quitting/quit or refused to get on camera because although he was in the video to deflect some of the blame from Linus himself, he hasn't made a public comment since. Very weird. 

[wanderingfool2]

19 hours ago, Vilacom said:

Unionization DOES NOT CHANGE ANYTHING ABOUT THIS.  Unions advocate for employee benefits and provide structure and advocacy when disciplinary actions are initiated, a union doesn’t mean you get to do whatever you want and can’t be touched for it.  

Depending, some unions have massive powers and are to the point of being like Mafia style tactics.  I've walked in on an union worker who was playing cards before and asked him why they weren't working.  Their response was they hit the "mandated quota" and weren't required to do more.  I had known them before the unions merged, and I can tell you they were a lot more efficient (despite the fact that they would still goof around before).  It's just after the merge they now goofed around so much more that they actually could take a few hours off at the end of the day and still meet the quota.

 

The merged unions were too strong, in that the heads weren't able to negotiate anything else (those workers were a vital portion of the business and they knew it)

 

4 hours ago, Absentia13 said:

1) Even though they were filmed and completed doesn't mean that they weren't gone through again (I guarantee they were) to ensure that there were no glaring errors. 

Well the attempt to show citations I think shows that they probably did go back and touch things up...with that said their choice of video to come back with still had glaring errors in it.

 

They couldn't even put their best foot forward, or if they did then it shows they learned nothing.

[zaprqn]

On 9/17/2023 at 3:40 PM, manikyath said:

again.. yes.. but no. the reason they're gonna stop making them, is because the concept of the videos is that it's a means for the employees to publicly speak their own mind about working at LMG.. but if those employee's words are then pulled WAY out of context that's not only a bad look for LMG, it's a bad look for the employee, and most importantly it makes the employee the center of a debate they may not want any stake in to begin with. not making the videos is a way to protect their employees against the drama you lot are making. i dont think it's the right choice, i think it's the only choice they realisticly have.

 

i'm curious now.. what stunt? what did i miss?

i'm also curious about your statement that it was taken WAY out of context, maybe im just dull but whats the different context that all the employees saying they wanted more time with their videos could have been? You are implying that GN somehow twisted what was said to some insane degree when they did no such thing, they just alluded to what LMGs own employees seem to have an issue with the way of doing things, an issue that Linus was seemingly totally oblivious to at the time, not acknowledging it and acting like this is the only way to go, when even his wife admits that they don't have to do it anymore.

 

And it really shows Linus' state of mind instead of taking this criticism about the crunch culture as a reason as to what leads to their mistakes, it seems that the lesson he learns is that he has to just hide/suppress honesty because it was being "weaponized". It wasn't weaponized, if anything it was an attempt at a wake up call that seems to have went passed him given his actions, which will only lead to future problems. Linus has shown again and again that he is above criticism.

 

The stunt probably refers to going back to just shoveling content for the sake of content, instead of focusing on quality control and not making mistakes in the first place, because these corrections seems damaging and often insufficient way of actually making things right, when it can lead to major losses both monetary and brand damage in cases like the pwnage mouse, when the corrections were made days later when most of the views have been made, and most people wouldnt go back to rewatch it to see that there was major errors that influenced the conclusions viewed by millions before even the corrections were made.

[manikyath]

1 hour ago, zaprqn said:

maybe im just dull but whats the different context that all the employees saying they wanted more time with their videos could have been?

the context is the question asked in the video. it's not a plea for more time, it's in response to "what would you change?" taking away that context hugely changes the tone. if i were asked on my job, my response would also be 'less workload', as would be for most people i imagine. but if i'd go on record as saying "getting more time per task" and then a competitor using that as indication to advertise that my boss makes us rush.. is factually inaccurate and rather distasteful.

 

GN didnt twist what was said, he removed the relevant context so it amplified the narrative of the video, which is decidedly not investigative journalism.

[zaprqn]

2 hours ago, manikyath said:

the context is the question asked in the video. it's not a plea for more time, it's in response to "what would you change?" taking away that context hugely changes the tone. if i were asked on my job, my response would also be 'less workload', as would be for most people i imagine. but if i'd go on record as saying "getting more time per task" and then a competitor using that as indication to advertise that my boss makes us rush.. is factually inaccurate and rather distasteful.

 

GN didnt twist what was said, he removed the relevant context so it amplified the narrative of the video, which is decidedly not investigative journalism.

Thats just playing semantics, it in no way changed the context to the degree you implied, so less workload requested by the employees, as a measure to improve quality and consistency(it was even said that they dont feel proud of their work), is WAY different context than GN making the assumption that because the employees feel overworked is why the mistakes happen among other things, what am i missing here?

 

What would the relevant context of this being the question "what would you change?" bring and/or change to the argument made by GN? Because you are making it sound that IF ONLY people knew that was the question being asked they would look at the situation in an entirely different way, while in fact thats the most logical question being asked and mentioning it bears no relevancy to the perception of the argument being made. 

Edited September 20, 2023 by zaprqn

[manikyath]

3 hours ago, zaprqn said:

Thats just playing semantics, it in no way changed the context to the degree you implied

yes, exactly, all of this is semantics. but an employer (or by extension, if applicable, the union) has a certain requirement to protect employees from semantics being used to misquote something they may say. 

 

3 hours ago, zaprqn said:

What would the relevant context of this being the question "what would you change?" bring and/or change to the argument made by GN?

because the framing made by GN creates the appearance that LMG employees are deeply unhappy with the speed at which videos need to be made, i.e. deeply unhappy about their job. or, in case, you missed it.. my point is this:

On 9/17/2023 at 2:40 PM, manikyath said:

it makes the employee the center of a debate they may not want any stake in to begin with.

the "employees speak up" videos were intended as a sort of "safe space you can say what you want" platform, but even if the company itself will not take punitive action.. it's become obvious that the community at large might. in this space the context of "safe space" is gone to begin with, so.. again to quote myself:

On 9/17/2023 at 2:40 PM, manikyath said:

i dont think it's the right choice, i think it's the only choice they realisticly have.

 

workplaces always have friction, people always have frustrations about something, and the ability to voice these frustrations always needs to be handled within the appropriate context. i could probably make a full length 'employees talk' video full of complaints about the place where i currently work. but the context is that i still like my job, and those frustrations are being worked on at a pace suitable to not disturb finished products leaving the door. if at this point someone would come in and pull those negatives out of that context, it would look like:

- i am deeply unhappy at work

- our product is actual shyte

- my boss is an ass

- our customers at large are ungrateful f*cks

 

while none of that is true if the full context is provided:

- some parts of the workflow need some serious finetuning, but there is a general willingness to do so.

- mistakes happen, and we have processes in place to catch mistakes before they leave the door.

- my boss is a great guy.. just tends to forget things in the pile of things he's forgotten, and up until recently there was no process to catch this forgetfulness.

- happy customers tend to be quiet customers, and we should find ways to make happy customers louder.

 

this is why context and semantics are extremely important, especially if one is selling themselves as investigative journalism, and using quotes of a third party they didnt get explicit permission from to include their words in the piece. i would not care about this nearly as much if we werent talking about the needs for investigative journalism, because it's a field with very high standing, which IMO includes some very high demands. demands that were in my opinion not met in this case. and again, this is a case where the only way one might protect their employees from this negativity is by simply not let the public see this internal kitchen.

 

or to put it in the simplest way possible:

Quote

This is why we cant have nice things.

 

 

PS: welcome to the forum

[divito]

On 9/18/2023 at 6:52 AM, angelwolf71885 said:

The only real reason LMG is stopping the employee feedback videos is because of liability it’s hard conclusive evidence that something is wrong and it’s important information for the public to have how indignant Linus got when he repeated several times “ what do you think is gonna happen “ several times in a row and after talking about how they were used against LMG Linus burst out with “ then we won’t do them any more “ this reeks of intimidation of employees and Linus just trying to take his ball and go home I wonder what happened to the employees that did speak out in those videos or spoke up during the “ hiatus “ it’s time to unionize LMG

The logic here is atrocious.

[zaprqn]

1 hour ago, manikyath said:

yes, exactly, all of this is semantics. but an employer (or by extension, if applicable, the union) has a certain requirement to protect employees from semantics being used to misquote something they may say. 

 

because the framing made by GN creates the appearance that LMG employees are deeply unhappy with the speed at which videos need to be made, i.e. deeply unhappy about their job. or, in case, you missed it.. my point is this:

the "employees speak up" videos were intended as a sort of "safe space you can say what you want" platform, but even if the company itself will not take punitive action.. it's become obvious that the community at large might. in this space the context of "safe space" is gone to begin with, so.. again to quote myself:

 

workplaces always have friction, people always have frustrations about something, and the ability to voice these frustrations always needs to be handled within the appropriate context. i could probably make a full length 'employees talk' video full of complaints about the place where i currently work. but the context is that i still like my job, and those frustrations are being worked on at a pace suitable to not disturb finished products leaving the door. if at this point someone would come in and pull those negatives out of that context, it would look like:

- i am deeply unhappy at work

- our product is actual shyte

- my boss is an ass

- our customers at large are ungrateful f*cks

 

while none of that is true if the full context is provided:

- some parts of the workflow need some serious finetuning, but there is a general willingness to do so.

- mistakes happen, and we have processes in place to catch mistakes before they leave the door.

- my boss is a great guy.. just tends to forget things in the pile of things he's forgotten, and up until recently there was no process to catch this forgetfulness.

- happy customers tend to be quiet customers, and we should find ways to make happy customers louder.

 

this is why context and semantics are extremely important, especially if one is selling themselves as investigative journalism, and using quotes of a third party they didnt get explicit permission from to include their words in the piece. i would not care about this nearly as much if we werent talking about the needs for investigative journalism, because it's a field with very high standing, which IMO includes some very high demands. demands that were in my opinion not met in this case. and again, this is a case where the only way one might protect their employees from this negativity is by simply not let the public see this internal kitchen.

 

or to put it in the simplest way possible:

 

 

PS: welcome to the forum

So multiple employees raising up the same issue does not suggest some systemic problems in the way of doing things and people deciding to speak about it publicly is just them casually venting out non issues, not an attempt to call/force a change by exerting public pressure. A call that was ignored by the way, making such types of honest discussions pointless and stifling any future honesty as futile when it leads to no change. So GN creates an appearance of something by just reporting it, isnt this how reporting should work, they presented an argument its up to the viewer to weight in its merit. 

 

Your idea of investigative journalism just goes to show how deeply flawed and twisted the understanding on what that is suppose to be is in current times. An investigative journalist doesnt need permission or consent to either quote, record or has to contact all sides for comment. They can lie and misrepresent themselves as anything, their only duty is to the truth, and often the only way to expose it is through such means that because were used against the rich and powerful there has been a massive undergoing to paint it as something deeply immoral and unacceptable. Thats why most media today would "investigate" something by asking the sides for comment and just parroting what the statement is, like its fact, without any scrutiny or critical thought allowing for companies/politicians/celebrities to get away with literally everything, so if i may quote you too:

Quote

This is why we cant have nice things.

[manikyath]

24 minutes ago, zaprqn said:

So multiple employees raising up the same issue does not suggest some systemic problems in the way of doing things and people deciding to speak about it publicly is just them casually venting out non issues, not an attempt to call/force a change by exerting public pressure.

exactly, except for one thing: they didnt "decide to speak about it publicly",  they were directly asked about frustrations, and as i've said, every employee of every company everywhere has a big tin can of frustration to peel open when asked. maybe if you pressure LMG to continue employees talk videos, you should also pressure GN to do them in the first place? i bet a lot of the things that exist at LMG exist in similar forms at GN.

26 minutes ago, zaprqn said:

A call that was ignored by the way

do you have any evidence of this? we have no insight into the inner workings of LMG, and what is talked about in meetings. LMG is a big ship, big ships take time to turn.

27 minutes ago, zaprqn said:

Your idea of investigative journalism just goes to show how deeply flawed and twisted the understanding on what that is suppose to be is in current times. An investigative journalist doesnt need permission or consent to either quote, record or has to contact all sides for comment.

disagree, and you misinterpreted my response. i didnt say they need permission or consent, i say that as an investigative journalist they have the responsibility to ensure they do not take someone's statement and interpet it in a way they may not have meant it to be interpreted. when doing journalism, if you take someone's public perception without their involvement, you have the responsibility to leave that public perception in the form the person intended it. LMG employees have no voice in the entire GN thing. not because of LMG corporate structure, but because any input they might bring into the topic will be torn to shreds by people like you, because you've already formed your opinion, and any attempt of them to claim otherwise will just be plaquated as a means to 'corporate sway public perception'. or should i go to the point where they talk about having increased mental health benefits for LMG employees because a bunch of them have been flooded with death threats since the incident?

29 minutes ago, zaprqn said:

They can lie and misrepresent themselves as anything, their only duty is to the truth

wait what now?

 

29 minutes ago, zaprqn said:

most media today would "investigate" something

most media today isnt investigative journalism, which is okay, because they dont brand themselves as such.

 

the thing is.. every one of your responses is valid if we ignore the context. but that context is extremely important to the end result... which has been my point in this from the very beginning.

[zaprqn]

32 minutes ago, manikyath said:

 

wait what now?

 

They can lie about who they are and what their intentions are, to get out the truth that they are after, shouldn't be so hard to comprehend the meaning without conflating the two.

 

You know like when Linus did their "undercover customer" series, where they obfuscated who they are, and what they were after, they didn't ask for permission to record or to use the footage publicly, all under the guise of trying to find out the truth about how these companies operate.

So was Linus in breach of some journalistic ethics because he didn't ask permission to secretly record and "expose" company employees without consent, or because he didn't reach for comment to the companies before making the videos, because this is what you have alluded to at least twice now, because of some standard that YOU set for GN they weren't conforming to YOUR journalistic standards which differ from the standards GN guides themselves under and that are posted on their website.

[manikyath]

9 minutes ago, zaprqn said:

They can lie about who they are and what their intentions are, to get out the truth that they are after, shouldn't be so hard to comprehend the meaning without conflating the two.

 

You know like when Linus did their "undercover customer" series, where they obfuscated who they are, and what they were after, they didn't ask for permission to record or to use the footage publicly, all under the guise of trying to find out the truth about how these companies operate.

So was Linus in breach of some journalistic ethics because he didn't ask permission to secretly record and "expose" company employees without consent, or because he didn't reach for comment to the companies before making the videos, because this is what you have alluded to at least twice now, because of some standard that YOU set for GN they weren't conforming to YOUR journalistic standards which differ from the standards GN guides themselves under and that are posted on their website.

i'm done trying to make sense of you. my point wasnt lying to those you are investigating, it's the value of presenting yourself as investigative journalism to your audience, and that this means you have a burden of "the full truth" to your audience.

 

the fact you go back to the asking permissions says you didnt bother to read half my post, so i'm done. good luck on the forum bro.

[zaprqn]

1 hour ago, manikyath said:

i'm done trying to make sense of you. my point wasnt lying to those you are investigating, it's the value of presenting yourself as investigative journalism to your audience, and that this means you have a burden of "the full truth" to your audience.

 

the fact you go back to the asking permissions says you didnt bother to read half my post, so i'm done. good luck on the forum bro.

The problem i had with all that, is your proof as to GN somehow being dishonest to their audiences is that they omitted the question "Is it raining?" to the answer "Yes, its raining", and this somehow meant that they are WAY out of context and trying to twist/obscure the truth. Your whole idea was that because they didn't quote verbatim the entirety of the video, that they were hiding "important context" from their audience that otherwise would have had an entirely different take according to you on the matter. Again what tone was hugely changed by not knowing the question asked, multiple people asking for more time to work on videos, is somehow not a plea for more time to work on video, and knowing the question was "what would you change?" would have somehow made this abundantly clear i guess, and GN robbed their audience of this realization presumably.

 

Quote

the context is the question asked in the video. it's not a plea for more time, it's in response to "what would you change?" taking away that context hugely changes the tone

 

You brought up the quoting employees without permission point, and then refused to elaborate whose and which journalistic standards it goes against when you implied that this meant GN are not following said investigative journalism standards, but now suddenly im going back to your own point.

 

Quote

especially if one is selling themselves as investigative journalism, and using quotes of a third party they didnt get explicit permission from to include their words in the piece.

 

But im ok with ending this discussion if you are not up to it. good luck to you too.