4 ms·
The quote was completely vapid, from some random analyst with an obvious c.o.i., and totally unnecessary for the story. Why include it at all? Maybe I'm just
by jfager 16y ago
The quote was completely vapid, from some random analyst with an obvious c.o.i., and totally unnecessary for the story. Why include it at all? Maybe I'm just cynical, but I read the disclosure of her position as ad copy as much as minimally responsible journalism.
- po 16y agoThe whole story was pretty light reporting. You're right about that. I just didn't get why that one quote in particular struck you as being representative of bad journalism. These stories come out all the time in the financial press: Apple hit some arbitrary milestone… lets try to get a one page story out of it. As long as they're disclosing interests, I'm ok with it.
- jfager 16y agoAt the time I made the comment, the article was two paragraphs long, the first being the actual news about Apple and the second being what I quoted. It doesn't stick out from the most recent revision as much, I agree, but I still think it's a pretty bad story. These stories come out all the time in the financial press Which is a big reason I dislike the financial press so much. "Event + chatter from random analysts with vested interests" is a terrible template. It's lazy, boring, and uninformative, and to me counts as bad journalism even if it doesn't cross ethical lines.
- philwelch 16y agoThis is really a case where you can get all the information out the headline itself (and maybe a couple numbers).