More interesting, I think, is why a "reporter" reported as fact something that they didn't witness and had no way to verify except from the words of one very biased source. And what added value this kind of "reporting" provides - if we wanted to know what Zuckerberg wants to say, we can read the press release?
This is all too common a pattern nowdays - instead of reporting something that happens the press reports something that somebody (usually extremely biased and frequently anonymous) said about something that might happen, or, as frequently turns out later, didn't happen. It's much easier and cheaper, but its contribution to the society is net negative.
This is all too common a pattern nowdays - instead of reporting something that happens the press reports something that somebody (usually extremely biased and frequently anonymous) said about something that might happen, or, as frequently turns out later, didn't happen. It's much easier and cheaper, but its contribution to the society is net negative.