61–70 of 111 posts
At $100k / resettlement it might be the world's cheapest citizenship by investment program. The closest I can think of is the Comoros program which I believe Saudi or another Arab country used to get rid of a bunch of immigrants.
You don't get citizenship. Just jail time.
I can clearly understand why this journalist is mad - she broke the story but she isn't getting the benefits (readership, money) from it. That would feel unfair for sure. But the complaint that bigger outlets didn't immediately follow her story by crediting her seems like an understandable situation from the other outlets' point of view. Who will take the heat if it's wrong? A popular outlet that runs with it will ge…
The news industry makes a lot of sense when viewed as a category of entertainment. Reporters write stories and people read them to be entertained. Newspapers make money when more people read the stories. No wonder that newspapers don't cite others... That's just an advertisement for their competitor. This isn't the only way to view the news industry but it certainly explains a lot.
> No wonder that newspapers don't cite others... That's just an advertisement for their competitor. Just read the CBS article linked by the author. As she mentions it always cited WaPo. And it now it properly cites her, too: "The Rwanda arrangements were first reported by the Washington Post, which also cited work by independent journalist Marisa Kabas, who had uncovered the recent deportation from the U.S. of an Ira…
It's funny that universities will throw you out immediately for plagiarism (some will throw you out if you're aware of it but don't report it ), but major publications will do it (this isn't the same as scholastic plagiarism, but it's the journalistic equivalent) out in the open and shamelessly with no repercussions.
> throw you out immediately for plagiarism Only by twisting the meaning of plagiarism to be defined as word-for-word. Universities intensively train students to accept plagiarism so long as the copy is sufficiently reworded (and hopefully referenced). That sick and pointless system is ironically being exposed by student usage of LLMs.
This means that every single thing they write throughout their studies is some regurgitation of stuff they find elsewhere.
To avoid having a reference after every single sentence, we need to allow them to pretend that some of the stuff they read is common knowledge, and can thus be passed on as such, without reference.
But if someone else actually wrote the sentence, that would be plagiarism, hence writing it in your own words.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m sure that opinions vary widely on this, but I follow people and not companies. With platforms like substack, X, and LinkedIn it seems easier than ever for an independent journalist to cultivate an audience. As long as they create quality content, I’m more than happy to subscribe to whatever platform they choose to use. True quality (especially once you get into the niches) is extremely valuable/interesting and to…
> With platforms like substack, X, and LinkedIn it seems easier than ever for an independent journalist to cultivate an audience. Cultivating an audience is one thing but serious investigative journalism often takes considerable amount of time and money. Most journalists I’ve seen on Substack and similar platforms seem to mainly do commentary, summaries of topics, interviews, and the like. There is a place for that o…
You see people become more and more extreme because that is what get them donations. This might just be what works with humans.
Quote: This is very much a "the new world struggles to be born, now is the time of monsters" moment, but you are weathering it as well as anyone I've seen. (Commenter L.O.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> No wonder that newspapers don't cite others... That's just an advertisement for their competitor. Just read the CBS article linked by the author. As she mentions it always cited WaPo. And it now it properly cites her, too: "The Rwanda arrangements were first reported by the Washington Post, which also cited work by independent journalist Marisa Kabas, who had uncovered the recent deportation from the U.S. of an Ira…
I'd be more impressed if they'd used a hyperlink. But that's apparently forbidden in modern journalism.
Links would be nice but it does not add enough value to be worth it, it actually costs too much and is easy to mess up. The ones who care will search for it, and the great majority can not be bothered. Source: internal statistic from a webbserver, with fact heavy articles.
There were some types of articles that needed source material. But these kinds not so much. I say this because I was involved in a project that worked on QA and maintaining links. We wasted money on that project.
The news industry makes a lot of sense when viewed as a category of entertainment. Reporters write stories and people read them to be entertained. Newspapers make money when more people read the stories. No wonder that newspapers don't cite others... That's just an advertisement for their competitor. This isn't the only way to view the news industry but it certainly explains a lot.
This is totally ahistorical. Regional newspapers would “break” stories that would then get picked up by national outlets. In that system it was the standard to reference the paper that first reported the story. People understandably have a hard time conceptualizing a highly dynamic and diverse news media landscape these days, but back when it was working like it was supposed to —- before Clinton-era reforms destroyed…
The news industry makes a lot of sense when viewed as a category of entertainment. Reporters write stories and people read them to be entertained. Newspapers make money when more people read the stories. No wonder that newspapers don't cite others... That's just an advertisement for their competitor. This isn't the only way to view the news industry but it certainly explains a lot.
There's also a professional divide between "journalists" and "bloggers" [0]. If anyone can start their own website and write stuff, without getting any kind of qualification or accreditation, and without following any editorial policy or maintaining any kind of journalistic integrity, and still get credited with a story, then journalism itself has an identity crisis. Meanwhile, (some) journalists at (some) news organ…
Let’s not forget the credentialed journalists, backed by well-funded media orgs, fully equipped with narratives—and not shy about targeting everyday people they simply don’t like.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's also a professional divide between "journalists" and "bloggers" [0]. If anyone can start their own website and write stuff, without getting any kind of qualification or accreditation, and without following any editorial policy or maintaining any kind of journalistic integrity, and still get credited with a story, then journalism itself has an identity crisis. Meanwhile, (some) journalists at (some) news organ…
There are obviously some extremely high profile incidents of journalists being forced to promote an ostensibly partisan view in recent times, but that's generally only when the ownership flip flops on their views. And the reason for this is quite insidious. Knowing somebody's partisanship, biases, and other interests in pretty easy in modern times for people who like to be visible which is, more or less by definition…
A while back, a semi-independent journalist, Nate Silver, said that Disney (who had bought his site) "almost never interfered in our editorial policy".
Apparently oblivious to what that means: that Disney were perfectly willing to interfere with his editorial policy, but rarely had reason to.