That's half of the answer, yes. The other half is that the legacy media outlets were livid that a small newspaper like the Mercury News broke such a massive story. One that they had dismissed for many years. Institutional media traditionally sets the news and the narrative framing those events - like letting the rest of the media know HOW a story should be told and therefore are the gatekeepers of the news. They are the opinion makers and they truly believe that their voice is more legitimate than all others.
Yes, attacking a journalist in this manner was absolutely against the spirit of actual journalism. At the same time, it fits the behavior of corporate newsmakers deciding on what's fact and what's fiction.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
This explains their rage better. History has shown that no one ever takes it lightly when they sleep on their oars while innovative people to take the lead. In the end, they're forced to adapt. Only, these ones decided to focus their resources on resentment first, thereby tarnishing or rather revealing their true image; Attack dogs for corrupt politicians.
Whatever happened to Mercury News? Did they land on their feet?