The Social Security Administration's chief data officer has publicly blown the whistle, alleging DOGE put hundreds of millions of Social Security records at risk of compromise.
I know, but it removes credibility. It’s minimising and obfuscating, essentially defending the company’s version of the truth instead of the whistleblower.
You are reading the headline as if it was a comment. If it were a comment, yes the quotes make it almost seem sarcastic. But news headlines traditionally have different grammar rules and here it means it’s a quote.
You can argue that the traditions are stupid but within the context of journalism, nothing is wrong with the headline
I guess I am, but it does read as sarcastic and discrediting to me. You don’t see quotation marks when journalists write about employees “quiet quitting” for example, so it does seem one-sided to protect the corporations.
I think they’re indicating that “vulnerable” is the opinion of “whistleblower” and not the writer.
I know, but it removes credibility. It’s minimising and obfuscating, essentially defending the company’s version of the truth instead of the whistleblower.
You are reading the headline as if it was a comment. If it were a comment, yes the quotes make it almost seem sarcastic. But news headlines traditionally have different grammar rules and here it means it’s a quote.
You can argue that the traditions are stupid but within the context of journalism, nothing is wrong with the headline
I guess I am, but it does read as sarcastic and discrediting to me. You don’t see quotation marks when journalists write about employees “quiet quitting” for example, so it does seem one-sided to protect the corporations.
I think you would see that if the headline was directly quoting a CEO. Like
CEO of Nestle Blames “Quiet Quitting”, Calls For Mandatory RTO
But you therefore admit any company can make any statement and if it doesn’t go through the CEO it will omit the quotation marks…?
Because that’s my gripe about all this, companies are given the benefit of the doubt.
No? That’s not what I’m saying. The position of the quotee doesn’t matter at all. Example:
Denmark summons US diplomat over Greenland ‘influence’ attempts
That article headline has exactly one claim, the ‘influence’ claim.
Yet there are two within the one we’re talking about:
“DOGE uploaded live copy of Social Security database”
And
“Vulnerable”
Yet only the latter is in quotation marks. Selective quotation seems intentional and meant to disparage the message being spread here.