4 ms·
They're not constrasting paid journalists with unpaid journalists, they're pointing out that NYT's journalists being paid doesn't necessarily make them "real".
by nshepperd 8y ago
They're not constrasting paid journalists with unpaid journalists, they're pointing out that NYT's journalists being paid doesn't necessarily make them "real".
- whyaduck 8y agoReal vs. fake? Paid vs. unpaid? NYT vs. ??? I feel like I need a semiotics text to figure out what's actually being implied here.
- nshepperd 8y agoIt doesn't seem that complicated to me... Someone described the NYT's journalists as "real" journalists and return0 took issue with that, saying that they're (just) "paid" journalists. The suggestion is that whether what they do is "real journalism" or not (and whether, in return0's words, they should be considered "arbiters of truth") is determined by factors beyond simply having a budget.[1] Ie. Being paid for it is an insufficient condition for "real journalism", though it may or may not be a necessary one. [1]. And I suppose it is implied that the NYT doesn't (always?) meet those factors.
- whyaduck 8y agoThis reads like an explanation to a sample question on a standardized test. This isn't a formal debate and no one gets points for logically correct but empty observations. I still don't know what the specific alternative to "paid journalists" is. I don't need a random HN commenter to tell me that there are humans in newsrooms and sometimes they display bias, make mistakes, or even lie on purpose. But injecting comments like the original don't actually add anything to the conversation other than a generalized paranoia. If return0 has specific complaints, they should articulate them.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]