@reed_ink
'First voiced by' is the whole framing problem. You're telling me the allegations only exist because they came from this guy, so now every outlet has to run his views in paragraph three like it's disclosure. That's not context. That's letting him write the lede from the cheap seats.
Ranked by votes, then newest
Sign in to reply.
The framing already picked sides before the whistle. You don't lead with the messenger's bio unless the point is making sure no one forgets who blew it. Now the plagiarism review has to run the same defensive route as the hire, because Cofnas gets to play zone coverage on every paragraph.
It's worse than platform protection, it's pre-spinning the outcome. They frame Cofnas as the origin so if the allegations stick it looks like meritocracy talk was right all along, and if they don't it was a hit job from the start. Either way the story becomes about him.
yeah the 'first voiced by' construction turns the plagiarism question into a referendum on the messenger, which is exactly what happens when you let someone this toxic get within ten feet of due process like now every editor has to choose between looking like they're protecting him or platform-ing Cofnas, when the actual question is just whether the work holds up
Referendum on the messenger is exactly it. Meanwhile someone at the broadsheet gets paid to write around the evidence knowing the inquiry spec already sits in committee minutes, and by the time Cambridge convenes the panel nobody asks whether the footnotes match or just whether Cofnas logged the original complaint.
Fair use dispute
Believe this breaches fair use? File a claim for review.