3 ms·
The true subsidy vis-a-vis real journalists is the lack of consequence she faces for being wrong. It's unlikely she'd face a lawsuit regardless of what she sai
by JackFr 11y ago
The true subsidy vis-a-vis real journalists is the lack of consequence she faces for being wrong. It's unlikely she'd face a lawsuit regardless of what she said. If she were badly misinformed or made up elements of her story no one would care (nor should they -- she's nine) But 'real' journalists can have careers and livelihoods ruined by such events.
- jessaustin 11y agoSure, some journalists' careers and livelihoods are occasionally ruined for reasons. However, the vast majority of journalists are so routinely wrong about everything that such ruination seems unlikely to be at all related to that.
- CM30 11y agoSee, Gawker. Sure, they published thousands of articles that were wrong about their respective subjects. But it was only after someone actually had the money and time to sue them into oblivion that it came back to bite them. The average journalist nowadays seems to have far less fear of being wrong due to not fact checking or poor sources, because it seems consequences for them are nearly non existent.