I didn’t understand from the phrasing in your initial comment that you were saying ”yeah that could’ve worked, but it wouldn’t have been economically feasible for her to do that just for the sake of an article, so it’s not an actual solution in this context”. So I was genuinely wondering why you thought that wasn’t a real solution. Like you had philosophical objections to doing journalism in that way. But now I’m following.
Why would you not read the entirety of my comment, and miss the context behind “not a real solution”? If you reread it, you’ll see the the gist of it was the same as my follow-up.
