> The document, which was widely condemned as misogynistic and scientifically inaccurate
Citation needed? Have The Guardian actually read the memo?
They are re-iterating misconceptions based on Gizmodos original story, where Gizmodo
deliberately gave a misleading report, removed sources and incorrectly presented an internal memo for internal discussion as an "anti-diversity manifesto".
Even a cursory glance of the actual memo would have shown that none of these allegations hold. Less so that they were "widely condemned" by anyone who had actually read the memo.
I has honestly expected The Guardian to hold higher standards.
Citation needed? Have The Guardian actually read the memo?
They are re-iterating misconceptions based on Gizmodos original story, where Gizmodo deliberately gave a misleading report, removed sources and incorrectly presented an internal memo for internal discussion as an "anti-diversity manifesto".
Even a cursory glance of the actual memo would have shown that none of these allegations hold. Less so that they were "widely condemned" by anyone who had actually read the memo.
I has honestly expected The Guardian to hold higher standards.