Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

“An independent journalist” who won't remain nameless

thehandbasket.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 111 posts

Re: “An independent journalist” who won't remain nameless

#81

Post by permo-w »

padolsey wrote: post #36
djoldman wrote: post #34

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.

> That's just an advertisement for their competitor. I think the simpler explanation is just laziness and no positive incentive or obligation, as opposed to proactive competitive practices..

newspapers have semi-regularly updated style guides. I don't see how its much of a stretch that some would decide to include this. let's remember who we're talking about here

Re: “An independent journalist” who won't remain nameless

#83

Post by sam345 »

Any type of journalism that actually talks to people and gets the facts straight is rare these days. Most news reports and journalism these days just repeat hearsay. You have to read print sources that actually make money off this stuff through paid subscriptions such as the New York times or the Wall Street journal. And even then you have to wade through the poor reporting and agenda driven journalism. Having said that I'm not sure if the author of this piece could be called a journalist except in her own world, her articles are rife with presumption and opinion which is fine but it's not factual journalism it's writing with an overt agenda to persuade to her political viewpoint. Can we just have a required statement on every news source stating what its overall values and political agenda are? Regulators love disclosures why not a viewpoint disclosure? You could argue it's unnecessary but you have too many news sources running around claiming they are objective. Witness the recent PBS executives sounding shocked they are being accused of political bias.

Re: “An independent journalist” who won't remain nameless

#84

Post by miki123211 »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #38
djoldman wrote: post #34

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…

> There's no working business model for real investigative journalism

Shortselling and prediction markets.

Re: “An independent journalist” who won't remain nameless

#85

Post by adolph »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #38
djoldman wrote: post #34

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…

> without getting any kind of qualification or accreditation . . . and still get credited with a story, then journalism itself has an identity crisis.

A subplot of @patio11's podcast has been how to bootstrap the social conventions of "qualification or accreditation" in order to bring one's findings to a broader audience through journalistic enterprises.

Example: By the way if you get written about once by any paper ever, every time that you do a reach out to your favorite local assessor's officer, similar in the first paragraph you know, as you might have seen in blah, blah, blah we are the blah, blah, blah. Like, you don't have to be officially constituted or blessed initiative for anything.

https://www.complexsystemspodcast.com/episodes/tax-the-dirt-...

Re: “An independent journalist” who won't remain nameless

#86

Post by philipwhiuk »

jancsika wrote: post #42
djoldman wrote: post #34

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…

> And it now it properly cites her, too

No, it doesn't. It doesn't cite her work, it cites her.

Re: “An independent journalist” who won't remain nameless

#87

Post by IAmBroom »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #38
djoldman wrote: post #34

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…

> how do we recognise a "real" independent journalist doing real investigative journalism from an activist blogger with an axe to grind?

100% the wrong take.

Why shouldn't reporting be traceable as far as is both practical, and safe for the people involved? "The 'I HATE BIBI' blog reported that the Israeli Prime Minister admitted he like dressing up like a kangaroo and hopping around his office" allows people more (potentially) useful information than merely reporting the PM is a furry.

There doesn't need to be a distinct line between "reporter" and "person reporting news". At least, not in general; some measure of impact (followers, audience size, etc) is practical and necessary for allowing people to attend White House press briefings, but that's another subject altogether.

Re: “An independent journalist” who won't remain nameless

#88

Post by wizzwizz4 »

miki123211 wrote: post #84
marcus_holmes wrote: post #38

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's no working business model for real investigative journalism Shortselling and prediction markets.

But if we treat prediction markets as a source of truth, then those with wealth can spend it to distort the prediction market. Lots of arbitrage opportunity, there: you might even be able to turn a profit!

This is the sort of thing that only works if hardly anyone is doing it, and hardly anyone takes it seriously. (It's like most "free market" solutions, in that regard: the conditions for a free market are actually quite hard to obtain, and are almost never stable.)

Re: “An independent journalist” who won't remain nameless

#89

Post by dagw »

miki123211 wrote: post #84
marcus_holmes wrote: post #38

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's no working business model for real investigative journalism Shortselling and prediction markets.

There's an outfit called Hunterbrook Media that has exactly this as their business model.

Re: “An independent journalist” who won't remain nameless

#90

Post by wizzwizz4 »

dagw wrote: post #89
miki123211 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's no working business model for real investigative journalism Shortselling and prediction markets.

There's an outfit called Hunterbrook Media that has exactly this as their business model.

Hindenburg Research used to do this, too.
Post reply on HN