I just can't see how your explanation of "Maybe his hands are tied" plays out in the real world. It beggars belief that the editorial staff have absolutely no way of controlling advertising on the things that they run. If their advertising department really does have such brutal control, then Snapchat deserves to get a bit of a grubby reputation over it.
I'm also not sure what kind of context would cast opening with 'we are also talking to the NRA about running ads within the story' in a good light. That's presented as a direct quote, not an inference.
If tech.mic is inventing things out of whole cloth here, then Snapchat has grounds for a libel suit.
> I just can't see how your explanation of "Maybe his hands are tied" plays out in the real world.
I don't think that's a good characterization of my position.
> I'm also not sure what kind of context would cast opening with 'we are also talking to the NRA about running ads within the story' in a good light. That's presented as a direct quote, not an inference.
And quotes have never been presented out of context before? All I'm saying is that in a story where both sides have not released any sort of statement clarifying the situation or their position, and there are just emails to go by, I would feel more comfortable if I was able to see the full email when presented with the scenario in question, rather than quotes taken out of the email and presented in the narrative of the article.
> If tech.mic is inventing things out of whole cloth here, then Snapchat has grounds for a libel suit.
That's not the only option though. It could very well be a fairly ambiguous chain of emails, and rational people might disagree on how to interpret them. I don't like having that chance denied me, nor being told how to interpret the situation through limited releases of information.
Edit: See https://techcrunch.com/2017/03/01/leaked-emails-put-spotligh... for Snapchat's statement. It's along the lines of what I figured it would be in my first comment, but that's an obvious way to reply whether true or not, and as I noted, at this point it's all in the hands of Pr departments.
I'm also not sure what kind of context would cast opening with 'we are also talking to the NRA about running ads within the story' in a good light. That's presented as a direct quote, not an inference.
If tech.mic is inventing things out of whole cloth here, then Snapchat has grounds for a libel suit.