3 ms·
>"There is little to no "public interest journalism" anymore, only click interest journalism." What an incredibly uninformed and naive statement to make. Just
by bogomipz 9y ago
>"There is little to no "public interest journalism" anymore, only click interest journalism."
What an incredibly uninformed and naive statement to make. Just because inferior sources of something are abundant does not mean that quality alternatives don't exist. This is as absurd as drawing the conclusion that fine dining doesn't exist any more and pointing to the prevalence of fast food restaurants as evidence of this.
There is no shortage of quality public interest journalism or entities committed to it. Here are some examples - The Marshall Project, First Look Media and ProPublica.
>"Considering the media's hyper focus on how the RNC used FB with the CA story, ..."
There was no mention of the RNC in the news piece being discussed here.
- gcb0 9y agoif the article had done minimal research, they would have included taboola, which is the affiliate scam of news publishers. the fact that they didn't hint that this thread assumptions are correct, and you are being slightly naive
- bogomipz 9y agoSo a 3,500 word piece that written over a 6 month period is suspect because a single vendor was omitted from the piece during? Right. It sounds like you definitely naive about both how the editorial process and how journalism works.
- gcb0 9y ago6mo and missed something under their nose that plays a huge part on the topic... but I now know the scammer latest diet at least :(