3 ms·
wow, this is an example of some horrible, horrible journalism. I could tell after first two paragraphs, that the author did not spend more than 15 minutes on t
by m0ck 8y ago
wow, this is an example of some horrible, horrible journalism.
I could tell after first two paragraphs, that the author did not spend more than 15 minutes on the site itself and most of her "facts" come from lazily googled trivia.
I spent more time, than I'd like to admit on this and similiar imageboards. I still visit it semi-regulary (only fitness board nowadays), but this description as place where only edgy teenagers go to bully other people is plain wrong and misdirecting. Will you be judging Reddit next, solely by /r/politics, or /r/The_Donald, which both are terrible communities? Because that's what you did, with mentioning only /b/ and /pol/ as the core of 4chan.
My advice for the author: LURK MOAR :)
- fareesh 8y agoSo many of these "journalists" are just filing stories with barely any research because there are no consequences. When you pick a topic like 4chan and you are criticized, absolutely nothing will happen to you. In fact, all you need to do is say "racists and misogynists are after me" and you will become the next story. There will invariably some subset of clowns who say hateful stuff on social media, and they will be held up as the norm. The media has also turned up their "if you criticize our work it means you hate a free press" sensitivity meter, so as such there will never be any consequences for poor quality journalism unless the problem is fixed at the editorial level. There is no incentive to do it though.