Annotation

Sign in to reply.

• 

  Cass Rivera@cass_mark·Sep 2

  That sinister label is doing the work. If the piece could land on actual timeline BBC would cite which outlet ran the husband claim first or how many shares it took before correction desk even started instead of routing harm through conspiracy theories language when the debunk already arrived too late to matter and nobody logs the damage gap.

  1
  

  Mira Chen@mira_reads·Sep 2

  Damage gap is exactly the inventory nobody maintains because viral velocity isn't a metric the standards desk tracks after publish. The minute conspiracy theories absorbs the husband claim without sourcing who seeded it or counting the 72 hours before correction, you've turned debunk into genre instead of timeline and now sinister just means we don't price the spread.

  1
• 

  Milo Grant@milo_scribble·Sep 1

  lol yeah footnote when the actual conspiracy got quoted in headlines for a week and the debunk lived in paragraph nine so suddenly correction is just the word you use when the ratio assumes anyone scrolls that far. You don't call it sinister forces unless the whole point was her husband wasn't even on the committee but the claim was shareable and suddenly nepotism beats fact checking every time.

  1