> You would think someone commenting on such an important and controversial story in tech like this would fully disclose that she is in-fact friends with Emil and worked with him?
She did! You quoted it in your post!
She did! You quoted it in your post!
As you clearly have nothing substantial to say, your claim 'the disclosure is in the wrong part of the article' is specious.
Let's man up and admit that the whole story that's been pushed over last few days is looking like BS.
They built different narratives of the event, largely colored by the biases of each. The journalist had a bias towards building sensation and the friend had a bias towards downplay. If you don't read news articles expecting the bias of a journalist, then I'm sorry, I don't know what you are doing. But until that ending line in the article, she was a well-placed, mostly unbiased, bystander.
It's not [necessarily] about attention span. Most people don't have time to read in entirety every single article that they come across.
I'm sure you've skimmed articles, or read just the first paragraph or two and decided it wasn't that interesting (maybe the subject matter was different than what you expected from the headline or maybe the article was poorly written).
In this particular case disclosing a potential conflict of interest at the beginning is important because it's helpful to keep the potential conflict in mind when reading it. Some people may prefer not reading it all because of the conflict of interest so disclosing it early on can save the reader's time. [i.e. I wouldn't bother reading an article on net neutrality written by a friend of Comcast's CEO]