• Bonehead@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    If the story is “editorialized”, then you don’t know exactly what happened just as much as I do. So your interpretation is just that…an interpretation. But we do know that the doctor was a dick about it after the fact, so he likely was a dick about it when it happened.

    • Kalash@feddit.ch
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Sure, we don’t know what actually happened because everyone interview could have been lying. That’s not the point.

      The headline and first paragraph, which acts as a summary are editorialized. That means they are inentionally hyperbolic and try to make the story as “shocking” as possible, because that gives you clicks.

      Unfortunatly that is all most people read as is evident by this comment section.

        • Kalash@feddit.ch
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          True, my personal feelings about the story do in fact not change how this article was written.

            • Kalash@feddit.ch
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              “identified as” would be more appropriate. But it’s really almost all journalism these days.