5 ms·

What does being an individual author have to do with doing it as a hobby? Why can't you report from Aleppo as long as you get the money to pay your salary and e

What does being an individual author have to do with doing it as a hobby? Why can't you report from Aleppo as long as you get the money to pay your salary and expenses? A better example might be something that requires a large team, like analyzing large amounts of data, but the ICIJ shows you don't need journalists to be employed by a single organization to be able to collaborate.

pvg 8y ago
What does being an individual author have to do with doing it as a hobby? The comment I'm replying to talks about ways to make money with your hobby online. Why can't you report from Aleppo as long as you get the money to pay your salary and expenses? It's a warzone.
- ajuc 8y ago
  > The comment I'm replying to talks about ways to make money with your hobby online. That was an example. > It's a warzone People still live there. English-speaking people too.
  - pvg 8y ago
    That was an example. Sure. It's an example that doesn't apply to journalism well which is why there are such things as newspapers one subscribes to. People still live there. English-speaking people too. Indubitably. The work of visiting journalists in crisis zones would be impossible without their help, often at tremendous personal risk. But that just makes the notion that journalism can be replaced by individuals armed with a keyboard and a patreon account more, not less preposterous.
    - ajuc 8y ago
      It was an example to show that you don't need to subscribe to an agregator. You can subscribe to the content-creator directly. > But that just makes the notion that journalism can be replaced by individuals armed with a keyboard and a patreon account more, not less preposterous. Would be nice to explain why it must be a visiting journalist.
      - pvg 8y ago
        you don't need to subscribe to an agregator. You can subscribe to the content-creator directly. Yes. My point is that, say, the New York Times is not an 'aggregator'. They are the content creator. Would be nice to explain why it must be a visiting journalist. My claim is that you fundamentally misunderstand and/or misrepresent how journalism works. I don't think you can rebut that claim by asking me to derive journalism for you via the axiomatic method. I'm happy to try the Socratic one, though - can you think of a reason why it must always be 'visiting diplomat'?
        ajuc 8y ago
        Spare me the erudition, just say how it works according to you if you think I'm wrong.
        pvg 8y ago
        It's a whole thread of me describing ways in which I think you're wrong. I'm not sure I understand what you're asking.
        ajuc 8y ago
        You haven't explained why it is that journalists can't work without newspapers, when newspapers aren't needed to reach readers anymore.
        pvg 8y ago
        I think you haven't explained how and why it is reporters don't need editors, photographers, lawyers, stringers, publishers, regular paycheques, bookers, interpreters, etc. You just declared those things superfluous and suggested you should be able to purchase I dunno, Maggie Haberman's or David Fahrenthold's output a-la-carte and that would somehow work for them both practically and economically. I'm not the one going out on some oddly unsubstantiated limb here.
- icebraining 8y ago
  It's a warzone. I'm not sure what you hope to gain from a reply like this. Either I'm too ignorant to argue with (which is perfectly possible), but then what's the point of keeping up the conversation, or you I'm not, and then I have to wonder if you consider that a valid "argument". As far as I know, freelance warzone reporters exist and are actually quite plentiful compared to salaried warzone reporters. And as far as I know, even those salaried warzone reporters mostly have to fend for themselves, at most relying on the newspaper's press card, since "it's a warzone" and the newspaper doesn't give them a force field against bullets or the automatic trust of the locals. So I don't see why, assuming enough cash can be raised to pay for their expenses, freelancer warzone reporters must rely on newspapers buying their articles at 50¢/word instead of a broad base of individual contributors. But hey, I'm probably quite wrong. I wouldn't know it from your replies, though.
  - pvg 8y ago
    at most relying on the newspaper's press card In other words, at most leveraging the name-recognition and reputation of the organization they're affiliated with for the safety and access necessary to do their jobs. It seems we actually agree and you've come up with a succinct answer to the question you raised.
    - icebraining 8y ago
      Nope. Not necessary. Helpful? Yes. Mandatory? No. Also, you don't need to be an employee of a news organization to get a press pass.
      - pvg 8y ago
        The question was 'why should one subscribe to a newspaper' not 'should newspaper subscriptions be compulsory'.

pvg 8y ago

What does being an individual author have to do with doing it as a hobby? The comment I'm replying to talks about ways to make money with your hobby online. Why can't you report from Aleppo as long as you get the money to pay your salary and expenses? It's a warzone.

ajuc 8y ago
> The comment I'm replying to talks about ways to make money with your hobby online. That was an example. > It's a warzone People still live there. English-speaking people too.
- pvg 8y ago
  That was an example. Sure. It's an example that doesn't apply to journalism well which is why there are such things as newspapers one subscribes to. People still live there. English-speaking people too. Indubitably. The work of visiting journalists in crisis zones would be impossible without their help, often at tremendous personal risk. But that just makes the notion that journalism can be replaced by individuals armed with a keyboard and a patreon account more, not less preposterous.
  - ajuc 8y ago
    It was an example to show that you don't need to subscribe to an agregator. You can subscribe to the content-creator directly. > But that just makes the notion that journalism can be replaced by individuals armed with a keyboard and a patreon account more, not less preposterous. Would be nice to explain why it must be a visiting journalist.
    - pvg 8y ago
      you don't need to subscribe to an agregator. You can subscribe to the content-creator directly. Yes. My point is that, say, the New York Times is not an 'aggregator'. They are the content creator. Would be nice to explain why it must be a visiting journalist. My claim is that you fundamentally misunderstand and/or misrepresent how journalism works. I don't think you can rebut that claim by asking me to derive journalism for you via the axiomatic method. I'm happy to try the Socratic one, though - can you think of a reason why it must always be 'visiting diplomat'?
      - ajuc 8y ago
        Spare me the erudition, just say how it works according to you if you think I'm wrong.
        pvg 8y ago
        It's a whole thread of me describing ways in which I think you're wrong. I'm not sure I understand what you're asking.
        ajuc 8y ago
        You haven't explained why it is that journalists can't work without newspapers, when newspapers aren't needed to reach readers anymore.
        pvg 8y ago
        I think you haven't explained how and why it is reporters don't need editors, photographers, lawyers, stringers, publishers, regular paycheques, bookers, interpreters, etc. You just declared those things superfluous and suggested you should be able to purchase I dunno, Maggie Haberman's or David Fahrenthold's output a-la-carte and that would somehow work for them both practically and economically. I'm not the one going out on some oddly unsubstantiated limb here.
icebraining 8y ago
It's a warzone. I'm not sure what you hope to gain from a reply like this. Either I'm too ignorant to argue with (which is perfectly possible), but then what's the point of keeping up the conversation, or you I'm not, and then I have to wonder if you consider that a valid "argument". As far as I know, freelance warzone reporters exist and are actually quite plentiful compared to salaried warzone reporters. And as far as I know, even those salaried warzone reporters mostly have to fend for themselves, at most relying on the newspaper's press card, since "it's a warzone" and the newspaper doesn't give them a force field against bullets or the automatic trust of the locals. So I don't see why, assuming enough cash can be raised to pay for their expenses, freelancer warzone reporters must rely on newspapers buying their articles at 50¢/word instead of a broad base of individual contributors. But hey, I'm probably quite wrong. I wouldn't know it from your replies, though.
- pvg 8y ago
  at most relying on the newspaper's press card In other words, at most leveraging the name-recognition and reputation of the organization they're affiliated with for the safety and access necessary to do their jobs. It seems we actually agree and you've come up with a succinct answer to the question you raised.
  - icebraining 8y ago
    Nope. Not necessary. Helpful? Yes. Mandatory? No. Also, you don't need to be an employee of a news organization to get a press pass.
    - pvg 8y ago
      The question was 'why should one subscribe to a newspaper' not 'should newspaper subscriptions be compulsory'.