No, she has been personally harassed due to the area she is working in.
There is credence to having a general distrust in journalism. This has been the case since Yellow Journalism of the 1920s. You're playing the fool if you don't think journalists, even independent ones, aren't promoting an agenda, often one that isn't tangible at that moment of your consumption.
>No, she has been personally harassed due to the area she is working in.
I'm glad you figured it out. The rest of your comment is a strawman.
Tell me the logical fallacy for misattributing a logical fallacy to dismiss a comment.
I'll create one: "reductio ad latinam." The rest of your comment is a reductio ad latinam. A reduction to a latin phrase.
From parent, whose context you've neglected in your dismissal:
>ousta 34 minutes ago
>every newspaper on earth is a propaganda newspaper.
Also, this "harassment" is to be expected from boots-on-the-ground paid Russian trolls. Complaining about it is poking a bear in the nose with a stick and not expecting it to react.
Therefore it's her fault? That's like saying "if you complain about sexual harrasment and get fired it's your fault, you shouldn't have poked the bear".
I hope you see how ignorant that is.
I don't think this is appropriate here, in the least bit. Not only is it distasteful, but it also was a poorly posited example that failed to even make the same connection to "bear poking"
Office worker X wears an attractive dress to work one day. It's within her right to do so and is not breaking any rules. Officer worker Y comes over, drops his trousers and says "Want to poke my bear?".
Journalist X makes a statement about Russia. It's within her right to do so and not breaking any rules. Russian Shill Y comes over and says "Fuck you, here's a torrent of abuse for many months".
In both cases the bear got provoked by something the subject did, by making a statement with her clothes or her words. But you're saying in both cases it's her fault that the bear got provoked and she shouldn't do it?