2 ms·
> The only time I’ve seen anyone assign a piece with the intent that it be explicitly negative was at a Rupert Murdoch-owned tabloid, and it was a tiny celebrit
by gok 6y ago
> The only time I’ve seen anyone assign a piece with the intent that it be explicitly negative was at a Rupert Murdoch-owned tabloid, and it was a tiny celebrity gossip item.
I can't imagine how this could be true. Gawker was extremely open about their intention to publish negative journalism.
- tehwebguy 6y agoAuthor talks more about the difference between negative vs malicious coverage in a way I’ve never seen spelled out before: > When I was the editor-in-chief of the New York Observer, my boss Jared Kushner tried a couple of times to talk me into doing “hit pieces” in the paper, and I refused. He even suggested I do one on someone who had bashed me publicly and I had to explain to him that real journalists do not do “hit pieces”; they follow the reporting wherever it goes. Jared thought they did because he conflated negative portrayals with malicious portrayals, much like some people are doing here, albeit in a less obviously stupid way. > Jared’s father, a convicted felon who once tried to blackmail his own brother, was covered negatively by the New Jersey newspapers. In Jared’s view, they were “out to get” his father. In Jared’s mind, because this is the narrative that makes sense to him and is also the most self-serving, his father did nothing wrong. He was railroaded by Chris Christie and the media, the latter of whom wanted to take him down.