> Vilifying it whenever it happens is potentially dangerous and we should really wait to level these accusations until there is actual evidence of wrongdoing.
Everything makes sense except for this. The fact that a business model being broken has caused standards to slip isn't a reason not to point out slipped standards.
Also, the fallacy that there will always be some physical evidence of corruption has to die. Every single business or agency I have ever worked for has formal and informal policies about what can be spoken about in media that has a retention policy, especially if they were liable to FOIA requests. The only way you get evidence of that stuff is through making secret recordings (which is why people don't talk on the phone about this stuff either.)
It's the appearance of corruption that should be penalized, not the ephemeral evidence of it.
>The fact that a business model being broken has caused standards to slip isn't a reason not to point out slipped standards.
What "standards" are you referring to here? Is it standards of the quality of reporting? Has that actually slipped? Where is the evidence for that? If not, is it truly a problem if the standards of appearance have slipped while there is no actual change in the quality of the work?
>Also, the fallacy that there will always be some physical evidence of corruption has to die.
Who said the evidence needed to be physical? I don't need a smoking gun email or a covert recording. Verbal testimony is evidence too. Where are the anecdotes from former NYT journalists about being told to kill stories about corporate partners?
Everything makes sense except for this. The fact that a business model being broken has caused standards to slip isn't a reason not to point out slipped standards.
Also, the fallacy that there will always be some physical evidence of corruption has to die. Every single business or agency I have ever worked for has formal and informal policies about what can be spoken about in media that has a retention policy, especially if they were liable to FOIA requests. The only way you get evidence of that stuff is through making secret recordings (which is why people don't talk on the phone about this stuff either.)
It's the appearance of corruption that should be penalized, not the ephemeral evidence of it.