4 ms·
What's better? Making a strong case for the desperation of the drought and advocating for practical solutions? Or helping con artists steal huge sums of money
by srtjstjsj 5y ago
What's better?
Making a strong case for the desperation of the drought and advocating for practical solutions? Or helping con artists steal huge sums of money from desperate people?
- duxup 5y agoI don't understand where you're coming from / what you think a given journalist's role might be. Sometimes it's just documenting what people are up to / what their lives are like, what they do... even if foolish. Are you saying that NYT is supposed to be advocating for solutions you like and not writing about these people?
- srtjstjsj 5y agoThe truth matters! I have a bunch of lies I'd like the Times to publish to promote my business. How do I get an article?
- ncmncm 5y agoAlmost uniquely, you cannot get the Times to write about your business--what publicists call a "placement". The Times tells stories that fit the narrative its editors have chosen, and only those stories. If they wrote about dowsers, it was because it fit into (e.g.) the California drought story line.
- admax88q 5y agoThey could be documenting how people are being scammed in desperate times. That would document what people are truly up to.
- tootie 5y agoThey absolutely were. There's at least half a dozen mentions that the technique doesn't work and multiple quotes from geologists. There's no reason to believe that the witches themselves are intentional scammers as opposed to true believers in what they're doing, but it's made abundantly clear that they're providing a worthless service.