this post was submitted on 16 Jan 2024
109 points (95.8% liked)

World News

39041 readers
2803 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world

Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
quinten@lemmy.world
NewsAutoMod@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
Tenthrow@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
lemmyAtom@lemmy.world
FlyingSquid@lemmy.world
109
Following review, Business Insider stands by reports on wife of ex-Harvard president's critic (www.cp24.com)
submitted 10 months ago by undercrust@lemmy.ca to c/world@lemmy.world
13 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Alternative Title: Billionaire hypocrite Bill Ackman embarrassed after he fails to do satisfactory due diligence before opening his big mouth, again

top 13 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Excrubulent@slrpnk.net 15 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (4 children)

So... I only clicked on this because the title was so convoluted I wanted to see what kind of situation made sense of it.

This single headline has five layers of linguistic recursion. You have to hold all five in your head in order to make any sense of it, and they've hidden even more actors within the folds of each clause.

Just on the first attempt to read it, there is:

  1. A woman

  2. Who is married to a critic

  3. Who

  4. Who was the president of Harvard

  5. Business Insider

  6. reported on the critic (1)

  7. A review was conducted on Business Insider (5)'s report (6)

  8. The review (7) did not cause Business Insider (5) to retract the report (6)

Is that right? The first paragraph says it's actually a woman who is married to a critic of the ex-president of Harvard, but it's still a confusing mess. Why are all these details headline worthy?

I've tried reading the article but it just keeps on piling on the actors, and every sentence has a similarly obfuscatory construction, and if you get deep enough in you find the review (7) was conducted by yet another party that Business Insider (5) won't disclose.

What was the content of that report? Where can I find it? Why should anyone care about this? The author doesn't seem interested in these basic questions of the story. It reads like middle school gossip, and is about as gripping.

This is someone who wants to hide that they don't have much to actually say, if I had to guess. If the facts of the case were something they wanted to explain clearly, then they could do that. If this is an actual attempt to convey information then this person should not be a journalist.

I smelled bullshit and as I dug into the article, that smell only got worse. If anyone actually knows what's going on here I am still vaguely curious, but not enough to wade through all this.

[–] SeaJ@lemm.ee 22 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Haven't read the article but from previous news, the previous Harvard president (the first black female Harvard president) was basically forced to resign because she failed to say that a student calling for genocide would be a violation of school policy during a congressional hearing. One of the main guys trying to get her pushed out claimed she plagiarized parts of her doctoral thesis. Business Insider looked into that guy's wife's thesis and found that some of it was plagiarized. He whined that they should not be targeting him or his wife.

Business Insider double checked it and his wife definitely plagiarized parts of her thesis.

[–] Excrubulent@slrpnk.net 6 points 10 months ago

Okay, see this actually makes sense of this - it's a deeply politicised back & forth of people running smear campaigns on one another, and they're arguing over whether either was a justifiable smear, and this article is so breathlessly relating the latest tidbits that it fails to inform the reader of any of the context in a way that can be followed.

Also as I understand it the issue she was effectively forced to resign over was the plagiarism one, not the antisemitism one.

You said she failed to say it was a "violation of school policy". After reading into this issue, I can see a number of right wing publications wording it in this exact same way, but that wasn't the question she was answering.

She wasn't asked whether it violated school policy in general - if Harvard has a policy against hate speech then surely calling for genocide is against it - but whether it violated the policy against bullying and harrassment in specific. That's a different question.

The nuance that is left out here, which both women I saw questioned attempted to explain before being shouted down by the Republican asker, is that harrassment is a set of actions, not words. If someone were to approach a specific person and aggressively say "good morning" every morning for a period of time, that could be harrassment. If someone were to call for genocide in the privacy of their own dorm room amongst other people who shared their awful beliefs, that would not be harrassment or bullying of anyone because no person in particular is being targetted by those words in particular. It's certainly hate speech, but it's not harrassment. If you said it to someone's face, particularly a Jewish person, that could easily be bullying and harrassment.

In other words, it very much depends on the situation, which was exactly their answer.

Hence the overly specific question of whether it is against the harrassment policy gets transmuted into the much more general question of whether it violates any policy, and they can use this to claim she said something she didn't. It sounds like the Republican who was aggressively grilling them on this issue chose her words very carefully to target this ambiguity so that it could be misrepresented. Similar to the plagiarism accusations, it's not like they give two shits when their side is guilty of it, so they'll happily confuse the issue in order to weaponise it against their opponents.

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

From the article:

Business Insider would not say who conducted the review of its work.

This article is reporting on a what is basically a press statement by another news outlet, though given the story, that top-line response is the real story. No one really cares what's in the report, the facts of the original reporting aren't in question, the real story is simply that they rejected the billionaire's attempt to pressure them to quash it and/or punish the writers.

[–] Excrubulent@slrpnk.net 1 points 10 months ago

Okay, well that's actually quite a simple summary, and would've fit a headline quite nicely, I appreciate it. I have no idea why this article is so infuriatingly obtuse.

[–] LesserAbe@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

You can just say "this headline is convoluted"

[–] Excrubulent@slrpnk.net 2 points 10 months ago

I had to do something to heal the psychic wounds I got from trying to read this.

[–] vintageballs@feddit.de 11 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

PSA: Business insider belongs to Axel Springer, the German pendant to Murdoch. Take everything you read from any of their publications with a 1MT brick of salt.

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 1 points 10 months ago

This is definitely not in service of Murdoch-aligned politics. BI highlighted a rightwing billionaire's hypocrisy and after the billionaire complained to his fellow rich people at AS they put out a statement saying "our reporting is good and we won't be quashing it".