[hunterb123]

In journalism there is a saying, source your claims.

You don't need a study, but you need some sort of base to the claim.

Your anecdote tells us nothing, I know many non-whites who got rich from crypto.

Not everything requires a study, but when writing an article you should back your click/race-bait claims up with facts if you just HAVE to put them in there. Maybe just leave it out since it wasn't relevant.

[newswasboring]

I'm sorry but I don't think people need to cite sources in every sentence for every word. You are not going to ask them to cite the dictionary for each word, would you? So there is a balance, and I think we are just conflicted on where the balance should land. I think this problem is pretty apparent and you don't. What I can't figure out is are you just rules lawyering at this point or do you actually believe its not a problem.

[hunterb123]

> I'm sorry but I don't think people need to cite sources in every sentence for every word.

Journalists should cite every claim they make, even if it's tacked on and only a sentence long. Especially if it's a bold race-baiting one.

> What I can't figure out is are you just rules lawyering at this point or do you actually believe its not a problem.

It's a baseless racist assertion that can be taken out without detracting from the article.

MSM loves to race bait. Race relations are rough enough, it's irresponsible.

But when you call them out "oh they don't need to source every sentence". Ok.

> You are not going to ask them to cite the dictionary for each word, would you?

A word is not a claim, that is ridiculous. Noone is disputing the word "white" they are disputing that bitcoin only made a handful of whites richer.