There's absolutely nothing wrong with reporting the facts that you do have when you have them and are confident of your sources.

Acknowledging remaining open questions that you don't have answers to yet, is a bonus.

A perfect example of reporting before the fog of war clears would be reporting completely erroneous information as factual. So unless you're suggesting that a Ukrainian fighter jet did NOT in fact strike a target inside Russia, then this isn't the "perfect example" you're looking for.

Males, yeah, that’s how we high five.

No, we don't.

Females I go waaaaaay lighter on. Like a fist bump with your palm.

And the intended recipients are all psychic and can tell that your delivery will be different than every other drunk high-fiver they've previously encountered. Right?

How Lewis cleans up this mammoth of a mess that he has created for himself remains to be seen. Can he do it? One wonders what Jeff Bezos, the billionaire owner of The Post, who must be growing quite tired of constantly seeing his newspaper ensnared in controversy, thinks of the situation. Inside the newsroom, though, the sentiment is plain as day.

“He’s really losing the newsroom on a large scale,” a staffer said, sizing up the state of affairs. “People don’t trust him, don’t believe he has the same values and ethics as our journalists and there are major concerns of how far he would go to censor or shut down coverage.”

Ahh, that makes sense. Thanks.

That attitude/idea can lead to blaming the marginalized group for their own victimhood.

Probably a dumb question, but how so?

I just see it as beating the bully with their own stick. I can't imagine how anyone would see that and conclude that the bully's victims are somehow to blame. Probably lack of imagination on my part, so help me out.

Looks like a prime example of Godwin's Law

https://xkcd.com/1053/

My first thought in situations like this is that maybe he secretly wishes he were a she. It's true just often enough that I think it's worth considering as an option.

And honestly, I don't care if it's true or not. If, whenever a public figure publicly tries to humiliate or demonize some minority group, public discourse immediately starts talking about whether said public figure secretly is, or wants to be, a member of said minority group, then it serves as a deterrent for others wanting to humiliate or demonize minority groups.

A) You're in the closet and don't want people to know? Then don't ridicule people who came out of the closet.

B) Oh, you're not in the closet and don't want people to think you are? What a coincidence. Also, don't ridicule people who came out of the closet.

So, a byproduct of this process is, potentially, greenhouse gases? Yay.

How would they know now? It's the same answer. Stop being a dick.

As I started reading the last sentence, I thought it was going to say, "This effect also works on dogs."

... that made any such interference a criminal offence. If the conduct continued, he added, “my office will not hesitate to act”.

If they've already committed a crime... then what's with the fucking warning? This is why the rich and powerful think that they're above the law. It's because, apparently, they are.