• PitLoversNeedMeds@jlai.lu
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 month ago

    I know, but it removes credibility. It’s minimising and obfuscating, essentially defending the company’s version of the truth instead of the whistleblower.

    • glimse@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 month ago

      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

      • PitLoversNeedMeds@jlai.lu
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        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.

        • glimse@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 month ago

          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

          • PitLoversNeedMeds@jlai.lu
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 month ago

            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.