It's really not as obvious as you're making it sound. According to google, the most concrete definition of "misogyny" is: "an ingrained prejudice against women."
So immediately there are 2 problems here:
1.) Ellen Pao does not represent all women, nor would all women agree for her to represent them most likely. So dislike of Pao does not conclusively imply a dislike of women in general. Especially when we keep in mind the context of people being upset about a female employee being fired.
2.) Even if we assume that yes, Ellen Pao did represent all women, that still does not imply that the public's sentiments against her were somehow "ingrained" or unjustified. She did decide to ban several subreddits before the latest incident with Victoria (which may or may not have involved Pao). The anger may have been unjustly directed towards her specifically when it should've been directed towards Reddit management in general, but being a lightning rod for bad press has always been an unspoken the function of CEOs. It may not conclusively prove that the anger directed at her was purely due to management issues, but it does cast doubt about it being because she was a woman.
So the issue here is not that something can't be pseudo-objective if enough people agree, it's that the claim is not specific enough to be meaningful, and these kinds of terms are usually just used as social trump cards that discourage questioning, which again, is the opposite of what journalism is supposed to be about.
So immediately there are 2 problems here:
1.) Ellen Pao does not represent all women, nor would all women agree for her to represent them most likely. So dislike of Pao does not conclusively imply a dislike of women in general. Especially when we keep in mind the context of people being upset about a female employee being fired.
2.) Even if we assume that yes, Ellen Pao did represent all women, that still does not imply that the public's sentiments against her were somehow "ingrained" or unjustified. She did decide to ban several subreddits before the latest incident with Victoria (which may or may not have involved Pao). The anger may have been unjustly directed towards her specifically when it should've been directed towards Reddit management in general, but being a lightning rod for bad press has always been an unspoken the function of CEOs. It may not conclusively prove that the anger directed at her was purely due to management issues, but it does cast doubt about it being because she was a woman.
So the issue here is not that something can't be pseudo-objective if enough people agree, it's that the claim is not specific enough to be meaningful, and these kinds of terms are usually just used as social trump cards that discourage questioning, which again, is the opposite of what journalism is supposed to be about.