3 ms·
Came here to say exactly that but you beat me to it, strikes me as an attempt to crowbar in some semi-related patent stuff to pad out the article. The writer h
by freshhawk 15y ago
Came here to say exactly that but you beat me to it, strikes me as an attempt to crowbar in some semi-related patent stuff to pad out the article.
The writer has published two articles today, this one and a 4 page one about Diablo. Four articles yesterday, 3 the day before, 4 the day before that.
I picked a few out covering topics I know something about and they seem to be just press release + wikipedia + a few of the top google results mashed into a blog post.
For example: 2 days ago there was an article about Netflix's new game rentals having a "short shelf life" because of "cloud gaming" being just around the corner which was pretty laughably ignorant. It strikes me as a way to use the netflix news to push cloud gaming because someone involved is an investor in some cloud gaming platform. The only alternative is stupidity which is an improvement over a complete lack of ethics, but I can't imagine a realistic type of ignorance or fanboyism that would lead to someone writing this article honestly.
- freshhawk 15y agostrangely relevant: http://venturebeat.com/2011/09/21/video-blogging-vs-traditional-journalism/ http://venturebeat.com/2011/09/21/video-blogging-vs-traditio... a rambling video chat that seemed done more to get a chance to promote the videoconference sponsor than because anyone had anything to actually say. No mention whatsoever of journalism or how it differs from just writing. The closest they got was one mention (by the author of the piece this thread is about) of how nice it is to not have to deal with that annoying fact checking thing like he did at reuters.