I report the non-response directly after reporting how long I gave them to respond, it's not in any way misleading or underhanded.
You are free to think that I didn't give them enough time to respond, since "enough time" is subjective. But the amount of time I did give them was objectively reported.
It's now been the best part of 4 business days, and they still haven't responded, nor indicated an intent to respond. There's no way I was going to let them delay me indefinitely.
1. You didn't have to ask them for any comment, that was a courtesy on your part.
2. A weekend is very short time to give comment. If it's on such short notice, you'd generally call them to ask your questions on the phone or swiftly set up written correspondence.
3. One or two weeks, or even more, is a common time schedule for comments from the party being investigated when it comes to investigative journalism.
4. There is probably less than 0% chance that any other investigator would have published the scoop before you.
Sometimes "it's just reporting the facts" can be done with a lean in itself. You may disagree, that's fine too of course, but this isn't a plain jane "Rabbit did not immediately respond with comments" it has a timeline omitting some facts like like starting on a Friday and is intermixed with commentary on the reachout. Not anything that's false, just also not maybe as neutral as it set out to be. Also not the end of the world, it's still a good article overall.
fwiw, my article does not set out to be "neutral". It reflects my research-backed personal opinions of Rabbit Inc. and their products (strong negative sentiment) and it would be disingenuous of me to leave that out.
Nonetheless, I reject the idea that saying "July 12th" instead of "Friday" is lying by omission.
It wouldn't be instead of, rather both. I.e. Friday doesn't have full context nor does July 12th. It also wouldn't have to get rid of the other personal commentary, just not put it in the section about having reached out for comment. That said you're more than right in that nothing says the article must set out to be neutral.
At least you're honest about it being a hit piece and not a journalistic endeavor, but you should at least feel a little shame about your own shitty behavior.
Same issue as saying "the [party] didn't immediately respond". It's technically accurate and objective, but to me personally, it has an undertone of pointing out "just another shady way" this entity that's reported on is acting - when really it isn't.
You might disagree, because you might know what situation might prompt such an event, because you're a journalist, which is fine. But also, you're not writing for journalists; you're writing for the general public, such as myself.
Speaking for myself, if the article was written specifically for me, I'd consider such statements to be a blunder on the journalist's part, at best, and a very deliberate literary technique to ellicit a stronger emotional reaction, at worst. You're ofc not writing for me, but maybe you find the feedback interesting nevertheless.
You are free to think that I didn't give them enough time to respond, since "enough time" is subjective. But the amount of time I did give them was objectively reported.
It's now been the best part of 4 business days, and they still haven't responded, nor indicated an intent to respond. There's no way I was going to let them delay me indefinitely.