Looking at it again when I checked it out after seeing it on redacted, the Post edited the article further, changing the em dash (—) to a comma before the ‘gold standard’ part. Now it looks like it says it’s the gold standard even more. The only reason to remove something like that is to decrease the emphasis on it and make everything seem more fluid. It’s definitely intentional, and the screenshot of this post proves what the original said.
On that note, redacted has a revolving door of articles now all echoing the same headlines which are all based on this one hit piece. Bad science isn’t better than no science, it’s worse.
I edit work professionally, and the aim is always to impart the information clearly so there’s no misinterpretation of what’s being said.
This one sentence seems like a critical detail to get right, and I’d have debated even adding the “gold standard” bit at all. Just detail the method used and leave it at that.
But I don’t expect WaPo to respect the intelligence of the audience.
Looking at it again when I checked it out after seeing it on redacted, the Post edited the article further, changing the em dash (—) to a comma before the ‘gold standard’ part. Now it looks like it says it’s the gold standard even more. The only reason to remove something like that is to decrease the emphasis on it and make everything seem more fluid. It’s definitely intentional, and the screenshot of this post proves what the original said.
On that note, redacted has a revolving door of articles now all echoing the same headlines which are all based on this one hit piece. Bad science isn’t better than no science, it’s worse.
I edit work professionally, and the aim is always to impart the information clearly so there’s no misinterpretation of what’s being said.
This one sentence seems like a critical detail to get right, and I’d have debated even adding the “gold standard” bit at all. Just detail the method used and leave it at that.
But I don’t expect WaPo to respect the intelligence of the audience.