[mohanmcgeek]

> I wish journalists would stop simply reprinting intentionally misleading company spin like this without any attempt to refute it.

That's exactly what reporters _should not_ do. Why would i want them to mix their opinions in when reporting an actual statment from the company.

People are perfectly capable of forming their own opinions.

[ballenf]

You report that "Amazon 'claims to absorb costs' but gave no specifics when asked". Or something to the effect.

Don't print a company claim without doing some digging to back up or refute it.

Or if you do make it clear that you (the reporter) made no effort to back up the claim.

[slg]

Exactly. I am not asking for the reporters' opinion. I am asking for the reporter to try to reveal the truth to the reader. That is their job. Their job isn't to reprint press releases. They should ask for clarification and evidence.

There needs to be a greater degree of skepticism in the way the media covers powerful people, companies, and organizations. Amazon saying something doesn't mean that statement is true. It is the reporter's job to determine if it is true before passing that statement along to the reader. When the reporter is unable to confirm it as truth, the reporter should denote that lack of confirmation before repeating the statement. When the reporter can confirm something is false, such as the implication that fuel price increases are permanent, the reporter should note that as a lie.

[UglyToad]

Flat Earth News is a good book that digs into why news outlets pushing PR statements verbatim (alongside other problems) became a thing.

Basically fewer journalists with more column inches to fill using syndicated pieces and barely editing them mean the same company release can appear across all the platforms with minimal contextualisation.