3 ms·
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
by 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 agoyou 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 agoSpare me the erudition, just say how it works according to you if you think I'm wrong.
- pvg 8y agoIt'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 agoYou haven't explained why it is that journalists can't work without newspapers, when newspapers aren't needed to reach readers anymore.
- pvg 8y agoI 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.