4 ms·

When did a journalist ever not claim "public interest" I am sure that the paparazzi that chased princess Di to heard death would claim that.

md_ 5y ago
Indeed, this is such a pervasive question for journalists that they have entire courses on "journalistic ethics." ProPublica even wrote a long statement on why they believe publishing this is ethical, legal, and in the public interest: https://www.propublica.org/article/why-we-are-publishing-the-tax-secrets-of-the-001 https://www.propublica.org/article/why-we-are-publishing-the.... You can of course disagree with their reasoning, but Arnold—who claims to be, it is worth noting, a paid PR flack for tech companies—is being disingenuous* to suggest that ProPublica claimed their "sole criteria for publishing" is "truth". * By which I mean, to be perfectly clear, he's a liar.
- jeremy_arnold 5y ago
  lol at "paid flack". Brb gonna update my LinkedIn. Anyway, I awarded a correction bounty here. I'd said in the same piece "if your only criteria for publishing are some measure of verification and some measure of newsworthiness", but used poor phrasing in saying "sole criteria" prior. I don't think it was likely to mislead the fair reader. But a mistake is a mistake, and I'm happy to own it.
  - md_ 5y ago
    You wrote before, "TLDR is I'm a copywriter turned comms consultant. I work mostly with tech companies." "lol at" = not actually denying it, so not technically lying, right? ;)
    - jeremy_arnold 5y ago
      Flack is a pejorative, and really speaks to spokespeople, which I'm not. I write all the time about what my day job is, and I regularly disclose it whenever there is even an vague intersection with a story I'm writing. It's not a secret! Lots of people drift between comms and public writing. When there's a perception of conflict, they disclose. As do I. Pretty routine.

md_ 5y ago

Indeed, this is such a pervasive question for journalists that they have entire courses on "journalistic ethics." ProPublica even wrote a long statement on why they believe publishing this is ethical, legal, and in the public interest: https://www.propublica.org/article/why-we-are-publishing-the-tax-secrets-of-the-001 https://www.propublica.org/article/why-we-are-publishing-the.... You can of course disagree with their reasoning, but Arnold—who claims to be, it is worth noting, a paid PR flack for tech companies—is being disingenuous* to suggest that ProPublica claimed their "sole criteria for publishing" is "truth". * By which I mean, to be perfectly clear, he's a liar.

jeremy_arnold 5y ago
lol at "paid flack". Brb gonna update my LinkedIn. Anyway, I awarded a correction bounty here. I'd said in the same piece "if your only criteria for publishing are some measure of verification and some measure of newsworthiness", but used poor phrasing in saying "sole criteria" prior. I don't think it was likely to mislead the fair reader. But a mistake is a mistake, and I'm happy to own it.
- md_ 5y ago
  You wrote before, "TLDR is I'm a copywriter turned comms consultant. I work mostly with tech companies." "lol at" = not actually denying it, so not technically lying, right? ;)
  - jeremy_arnold 5y ago
    Flack is a pejorative, and really speaks to spokespeople, which I'm not. I write all the time about what my day job is, and I regularly disclose it whenever there is even an vague intersection with a story I'm writing. It's not a secret! Lots of people drift between comms and public writing. When there's a perception of conflict, they disclose. As do I. Pretty routine.