7 ms·
It seems like no amount of prestige or status or good standing makes an organization (or perhaps, just the individuals) immune from such behavior. A friend of
by hkmurakami 10y ago
It seems like no amount of prestige or status or good standing makes an organization (or perhaps, just the individuals) immune from such behavior.
A friend of mine, a freelance journalist, was never paid by the New York Times. Pretty much the last organization I would have expected to engage in such behavior.
- donohoe 10y agoAs someone who knows a number of ppl that work/worked freelance at the Times, I find this hard to believe. Any extra details?
- hueving 10y agoIt's common for papers to refuse work if it doesn't meet specifications for having enough facts to back up statements, having clear political biases, etc.
- to3m 10y agoHello. I'm part of the secretive cabal of leftists that push the mainstream liberal agenda. I downvoted you because it is our mission to silence conservative-friendly voices wherever we see them. We pay particular attention in forums such as this one, where bringing politics into random discussions is encouraged and welcomed.
- megablast 10y agoI've got a good idea, lets put a left/right spin on every post, for no reason at all, and only when it has nothing to do with the discussion. And when we are inevitably voted down, lets pretend it is a big conspiracy.
- yabatopia 10y agoTo make it even more obvious, we can left align the left/liberal posts, and right align the right/conservative news. Add a fun twist. In the middle, on the bottom of the screen there's you, Space Invaders style. You have to shoot your way through left- and right-aligned posts, until you get killed by the left or the right.
- RhysU 10y agoPlease someone make this.
- mordechai9000 10y agoThe hard part would be classifying the posts, the rest would be trivial. What would be a good approach?
- devsquid 10y agoI bet you are paid by Soros even.
- grzm 10y agoPlease don't fan the flames when someone unnecessarily injects partisan politics.
- to3m 10y agoParent comment has been updated, but it's too late to edit mine, turning my mildly amusing mockery into an unhinged-sounding non sequitur. Well, this is what happens when you take the low road...
- grzm 10y agoPlease don't inject partisan politics unnecessarily. Edit: parent comment was updated to remove partisanship. Thanks!
- leephillips 10y agoSame here. If you're implying that they ran his piece but never paid for it, I'm inclined to not believe this. The Times is very ethical organization. That said, as a freelance writer myself, I know that large companies can have ponderous invoicing systems, and it can take months for your first payment to make its way to you; after you're in their system, things run more smoothly.
- treehau5 10y ago> The Times is very ethical organization. Wikileaks tells us otherwise.
- swang 10y agoWho watches the wikileaks?
- erichocean 10y agoSince Wikileaks is publishing other people's private information—as opposed to "news" or "journalism"—the only thing to "watch" is if what they are publishing has been altered or not (or was made up out of whole cloth). To the best of my knowledge, there are no known instance of Wikileaks publishing fraudulent or altered information.
- jk563 10y agoIt would be suicide for them to do that. Not ruling it out, but if they get caught one time it calls into question everything they've ever released.
- eivarv 10y agoOutright lies isn't the only danger, though. What they hold back, what they publish and when they publish it can potentially be abused - for instance to present or enhance one narrative, and obscure another. And Wikileaks itself could be used as a tool by other actors ( e.g. for political gain) via strategic leaks or somesuch…