I give it about five minutes before The Guardian publishes an editorial entitled: "Ellen Pao lawsuit ends but will not slow fight for gender equality in Silicon Valley."
It went so far that the NYT ended up editing stories after they were posted and admitting to changing their strategy to no longer report "just the facts":
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/clay-waters/2015/07/19/ny-ti...
So many outlets uniformly reported that Pao WAS the victim of gender discrimination and she WAS on a crusade to represent women in tech. Not an exaggeration, those thing were actually being said.
I have yet to see any of the outlets that reported this angle backtrack, even after the verdict came out against Pao.
I don't agree with a lot of their editorial opinions, but I can respect their strategy. It is refreshing compared to the NYT and other media organizations that pretend they are unbiased/neutral, while promoting some sort of specific world view.
Every day Jessica Valenti writes something about the Pro Life movement and calls it the "Anti Choice" movement, which is a like Fox News calling banksters "Job Creators."
Syreeta what's her face did a piece the other day about how film stock is racist (she apparently doesn't know how to set her camera aperture properly and blames it on film not being designed to capture black faces).
It's a fucking joke.
I wondered about that article and had a look:
http://www.theguardian.com/money/shortcuts/2015/aug/04/new-c...
If you read through the article, it's clearly a joke to them.
>25C it is, then. Fine, as long as you’re aware that means more men wearing shorts in the office during summer.