they’re somewhat less credible: it’s like asking an ex-girlfriend the opinion of a guy who left her or the ex-husband who is paying child support his opinion on his ex-wife.

It’s easy to assume “former employees” / “former members” are likely to give you the dirty inside scoop of an organization.

But consider: Why are they former? Fired? Why might they have been fired?

People who leave an organization: Do they do so on friendly terms with wonderful things to say about their former employer?

Hm.

Of course it might be true. It wouldn’t surprise me. But still: they’re somewhat less credible: it’s like asking an ex-girlfriend the opinion of a guy who left her or the ex-husband who is paying child support his opinion on his ex-wife.

====

“Disgruntled former employees have bad things to say about former employer”

Doesn’t mean it’s not true. It’s definitely plausible. More than plausible. Still though. “Ex-husband who pays excessive child support has many nice things to say about ex-wife” isn’t something you see.

So: grain of truth, grain of salt. Still, doesn’t surprise me. They want to appear legit and standard news publications appear more credible and they used them as standard-candle to compare alt.news stories with.

tbh, they shouldn’t have and hopefully they fix that or have fixed it.

===

 

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


− three = 0

Leave a Reply