I'm going to ignore your implication that other problems I mentioned are unimportant.
Supposition:
"If she eventually succeeds in convincing a three-judge panel that the trial was unfair"
Aren't news supposed to be about what happened, not about what might happen if something else happens? I could understand if the story was about the trial, but it isn't.
Which brings me to the manufactured context part. The story is about resignation from Reddit. I understand that sometimes you need to provide more information about the subject so your reader fully understands what's going on. However, information about the lawsuit against an entirely different company under different circumstances does nothing of this sort. The only seeming reason it's included (and takes almost half the space) is because it supports meta-narrative NYT chose to pursue.
If she eventually succeeds in convincing a three-judge panel that the trial was unfair, Kleiner (and Silicon Valley, symbolically) would be on trial again.
This is self-evidently true.
You might not like that Pao's trial keeps appearing in the Times story about Pao's resignation, but the giant petition for her ouster chose to lead itself off with it. It's materially part of the real context of the story.
The statement is true, but what it speaks about is a what-if scenario.
You might not like that Pao's trial keeps appearing in the Times story about Pao's resignation, but the giant petition for her ouster chose to lead itself off with it. It's materially part of the real context of the story.
I'm not saying that NYT should be prohibited from mentioning the lawsuit. I'm saying that it's not directly related, and definitely not related enough to take up half the article.
That is a weird quote. Is it normal for articles mentioning past trials to say "if a mistrial is declared, the trial was invalid"? Seems like an out of place, almost tautological piece of information. Maybe if something like a motion for a mistrial was filed, but why state a fact like that just randomly? It only serves to apply doubt to the validity of the trial outcome, with no apparent basis (I don't really know anything about the trial myself).
Supposition:
"If she eventually succeeds in convincing a three-judge panel that the trial was unfair"
Aren't news supposed to be about what happened, not about what might happen if something else happens? I could understand if the story was about the trial, but it isn't.
Which brings me to the manufactured context part. The story is about resignation from Reddit. I understand that sometimes you need to provide more information about the subject so your reader fully understands what's going on. However, information about the lawsuit against an entirely different company under different circumstances does nothing of this sort. The only seeming reason it's included (and takes almost half the space) is because it supports meta-narrative NYT chose to pursue.