51–60 of 214 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This isn't the only time s/he's done it, and it reads as unnecessary ad spam—which is frequently looked down upon here. The same thing was downvoted in another thread. And if this user is going to continue doing it, it's going to become very annoying very quickly.
It's not that they posted the summary, it is that they put the link at the end advertising the product. The summary was appreciated.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Some of those reporters are contracted to write five or even 10 posts per day. It's not like a NYT or WSJ reporter spending three weeks or three months on one story. Vice doesn't necessarily fall out of that category either. Smack dab in the middle is the statement: "I still had outstanding questions, which I asked Apple ... The company has not yet responded." The number of times I've read a developing story that h…
I wrote this article, I gave Apple 18 hours to respond. The article has now been out for four hours or so, and it's been close to 24 hours since I originally asked them. Apple RARELY responds to press inquiries and the only time it has reliably spoken to the press was during the recent encryption battle and that's because it desperately needed the public to understand its argument. I understand what you're getting at…
On one hand I get how secrecy works well for Apple, but on the other it gives them less control over Crystallizing Public Opinion and occasionally results in some pretty weak ads for uninspired product(s/ updates), like the 5s parts all coming together: beautiful but meaningless.
What does it say about the world we live in where blogs do more basic journalism than CNN? All that one would have had to do is read the report actually provided. I don't think I'm being too extreme when I say that, apart from maybe PBS, there is no reputable source of news in America. If you don't believe me, pick a random story, watch it as it gets rewritten a million times through Reuters, then check back on the f…
To me it says that people who thought the Internet would kill journalism were wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Wall Street Journal is getting less so. Being a Murdock owned publication it was/is bound to happen. After the purchase, the political coverage has taken a decided more conservative leaning. I wouldn't be surprised if it's also infected the financial reporting.
People make the mistake of equating editorials with political news. They are not the same thing. The opinion section, the pages that have OPINION in big bold text at the top, are forthrightly conservative/libertarian, even though they have at least one regular liberal opinion columnist (William Galston) and constantly have guest articles written by politicians and business leaders of all stripes. The news sections ar…
What does it say about the world we live in where blogs do more basic journalism than CNN? All that one would have had to do is read the report actually provided. I don't think I'm being too extreme when I say that, apart from maybe PBS, there is no reputable source of news in America. If you don't believe me, pick a random story, watch it as it gets rewritten a million times through Reuters, then check back on the f…
WSJ has floors of smart, trained, inquisitive journalists who assemble real original data and break real original stories, and who try hard–through single, double, and triple verification–to ensure the accuracy of every single figure and fact they report. Which is why it's sometimes annoying to see people treat paywalls as though they were moral disgraces. Source: I help invest for the chairman of the company.
What does it say about the world we live in where blogs do more basic journalism than CNN? All that one would have had to do is read the report actually provided. I don't think I'm being too extreme when I say that, apart from maybe PBS, there is no reputable source of news in America. If you don't believe me, pick a random story, watch it as it gets rewritten a million times through Reuters, then check back on the f…
WSJ has floors of smart, trained, inquisitive journalists who assemble real original data and break real original stories, and who try hard–through single, double, and triple verification–to ensure the accuracy of every single figure and fact they report. Which is why it's sometimes annoying to see people treat paywalls as though they were moral disgraces. Source: I help invest for the chairman of the company.
EDIT: Apparently I'm replying too fast. Note that I quoted Netflix, implying similarity and not identity. I can also see the potential problems concerning Net Neutrality, but I don't think it has to be a problem. If done properly, no throttling is needed as the news sites can still serve ads to non-paying customers. You're just distributing your money in 1 place instead of 10. It's solely for convenience.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you're being too extreme. Bloomberg, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, and to a lesser extent the NY Times are all still reputable, even if they all still produce occasional junk. I don't believe there is a single reputable news source on earth, if the qualification is never producing junk articles.
The Washington Post was the paper that investigated and then wrote an article explaining that Bernie Sander's average campaign contribution is not actually the famous "Twenty-seven dollars", but in fact $27.88.
The worst thing they found (as far as I can see) is that the government required Apple to have a recycling program. What a horrible thing the first article was hiding from us.
Summary: Various media sites claimed apple recycled $40 million worth of gold from iphones, they were dead wrong. What actually happened is that Apple is under statutury obligation to recycle a certain weight of e-waste depending on it market share or weight of electronics sold (depending on state laws). The e-waste doesn't have to be of the manufacturers own products. Apple paid third party recyclers to recycle most…
Hey, can you cut it out with the summary advertising crap?
There's no need to get dogmatic about advertising. If all ads were this high quality and considerate, I would have no problems with ads.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you're being too extreme. Bloomberg, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, and to a lesser extent the NY Times are all still reputable, even if they all still produce occasional junk. I don't believe there is a single reputable news source on earth, if the qualification is never producing junk articles.
The Washington Post was the paper that investigated and then wrote an article explaining that Bernie Sander's average campaign contribution is not actually the famous "Twenty-seven dollars", but in fact $27.88.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
WSJ has floors of smart, trained, inquisitive journalists who assemble real original data and break real original stories, and who try hard–through single, double, and triple verification–to ensure the accuracy of every single figure and fact they report. Which is why it's sometimes annoying to see people treat paywalls as though they were moral disgraces. Source: I help invest for the chairman of the company.
WSJ also has a political agenda, which requires a second source for any story in there, from the other point of view.