But is it because of discrimination directly on race/sex or discrimination based on networks or something else, and is the actual factor involved what most people think of when we talk about “bro culture”?
"Companies participating in the Laudato Si Challenge will receive $100,000 in seed funding in exchange for a 6% to 8% equity investment, and expert mentorship."
Why should a journalist be required to write an article, trial or not? What if they take the trial and it turns out it's not really worth writing about it at all?
I don't see a problem with making an offer of a free trial of the service in exchange for an article. I can see how a company may not want to spend thousands to demo a consumable service to a journalist and possibly end up with nothing to show about it.
Of course the journalist is absolutely free to decline the offer.
Of course the company would not like a negative review, but they could always place an advertisement. Clearly they want to buy the appearance of objectivity, and they have gone about it very clumsily. It is amusing that in so doing they have turned it into the story, but it is a bit disturbing that they think they can get away with it - and with good reason, apparently.
