4 ms·

Just a reminder that both Fortune and Forbes is now almost entirely made up of sponsored articles that often don't mention who the sponsor is even if the sponso

Just a reminder that both Fortune and Forbes is now almost entirely made up of sponsored articles that often don't mention who the sponsor is even if the sponsor is a foreign government. The most blatant example of this is the Pakistani government sponsoring an article in Forbes calling Pakistan the best place for solo female travelers.

jdthedisciple 4y ago
Are you saying that it's somehow self-evident that Pakistan is not the safest place for solo female travelers? Have you looked at the facts?
- wowokay 4y ago
  That’s a joke right?
- loloquwowndueo 4y ago
  Yep : https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/most-dangerous-countries https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/most-dang... Pakistan ranks 17th most dangerous, definitely doesn’t sound like the safest.
- benj111 4y ago
  Yes it is self evident. And perhaps more importantly, generally assumed, so if you want to change people's mind, it up to you to provide evidence to the contrary.
- MereInterest 4y ago
  Something is "self-evident" if it requires no external information to make a claim. (e.g. "All humans are entitled to equal protection under the law.") That isn't the case here. Rather, that the body of prior shared external knowledge is sufficient that a statement can be taken as a given without needing to justify it within the context of the conversation. (e.g. "Rain falls from the sky.") In this case, Pakistan being an unsafe place for women (second only to Afghanistan as the worst gender gap) is sufficiently well-documented that the statement doesn't require further litigation. [0] https://www.weforum.org/reports/global-gender-gap-report-2022/in-full https://www.weforum.org/reports/global-gender-gap-report-202... (Table 1.1)
sva_ 4y ago
It seems like they clearly mark it as having been published by a "contributor"[0]. Not sure if they added that after the public backlash though. [0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/breannawilson/2019/10/11/this-popular-solo-female-travel-vlogger-thinks-pakistan-could-be-the-worlds-1-tourism-destination/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/breannawilson/2019/10/11/this-p...
commoner 4y ago
You can tell whether a Forbes article is reputable by looking under the name of the author. If it says "Forbes Staff", the article was reviewed by an editor. If it says "Contributor" (or "Senior Contributor"), the article was most likely not reviewed by an editor and the author is basically a blogger. https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2012/what-the-forbes-model-of-contributed-content-means-for-journalism/ https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2012/what-the-forb... The author of TFA is a Fortune staff member: > Tristan Bove is an editorial fellow with Fortune's news team covering geopolitics, energy, and the U.S. housing market. https://fortune.com/author/tristan-bove/ https://fortune.com/author/tristan-bove/
- tgsovlerkhgsel 4y ago
  Which doesn't necessarily mean that the "official" (staff) articles are necessarily much better than the blogspam. Once they decided to throw their brand out of the window by letting (and encouraging) random bloggers publish their clickbait under their name, there wasn't much incentive to have their own articles be of better quality, and it shows.
libertine 4y ago
I came here to say what you've mentioned... there's a big interest in the Russian government to spread this fearmonger narrative (including, of course, Gazprom who has released an absurd Ad[0] few weeks ago, claiming "the winter is coming"). Here's the thing: people know things aren't going to be like they were one year ago. In fact a lot of people have been proactively taking measures, both consumers and governments. We also know things aren't going to be GREAT! But this type of shit - sorry for the coarseness, but I do fit these articles into the "shit bucket" - doesn't seem to serve any purpose, or add any new development or insight. It just seems to try to increase the frequency of the Russian narrative. What Forbes seems to miss, apparently, is that this was a deliberate choice with the support of Europeans. This is the price we're willing to pay to help to sink down an aggressive state and warmonger. Or at least, not help it flourish. [0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2b_0gfV_4E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2b_0gfV_4E
- jdthedisciple 4y ago
  Keep being in denial - this winter will be a freezing cold one for the EU, that's pretty much a given if you look at the energy price developments as we speak. I don't see you refute the numbers, you're just attacking the messenger. > This is the price we are willing to pay Oh interesting. Yea you're sure the majority of your people are willing to starve and freeze for the sake of corrupt politics and a pseudo-moralistic cause? Have you asked them? Perhaps speak for yourself only. And good luck to you and your family doing your part in reducing gas demand if you're so "willing".
  - saturn_vk 4y ago
    I'm curious, are such comments being paid by the number, or article? And is the payment in rubles or some other currency?
- dns_snek 4y ago
  > This was a deliberate choice with the support of Europeans. This is the price *we're* willing to pay You really shouldn't speak on behalf of other people. I don't remember anyone being asked for their opinion or given a choice on this matter. I'm sure people who work minimum wage jobs and are just trying to get by don't have the luxury to wage a questionable ideological and economic war, something you seem to take for granted. For many people such a drastic increase in energy prices is the difference between barely getting by and choosing which days to go hungry.
dqpb 4y ago
Are you saying this is a Russia sponsored article?
- senectus1 4y ago
  its never an option between one or the other... there are carrion making a profit/political points from various different options. and sometimes its all of them.
  - dqpb 4y ago
    > its never an option between one or the other Are you saying Russia never directly sponsors/publishes articles?
drcongo 4y ago
Personally I'd like to see both those sites start off with -50 karma when posted to HN. And TechCrunch.

jdthedisciple 4y ago

Are you saying that it's somehow self-evident that Pakistan is not the safest place for solo female travelers? Have you looked at the facts?

wowokay 4y ago
That’s a joke right?
loloquwowndueo 4y ago
Yep : https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/most-dangerous-countries https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/most-dang... Pakistan ranks 17th most dangerous, definitely doesn’t sound like the safest.
benj111 4y ago
Yes it is self evident. And perhaps more importantly, generally assumed, so if you want to change people's mind, it up to you to provide evidence to the contrary.
MereInterest 4y ago
Something is "self-evident" if it requires no external information to make a claim. (e.g. "All humans are entitled to equal protection under the law.") That isn't the case here. Rather, that the body of prior shared external knowledge is sufficient that a statement can be taken as a given without needing to justify it within the context of the conversation. (e.g. "Rain falls from the sky.") In this case, Pakistan being an unsafe place for women (second only to Afghanistan as the worst gender gap) is sufficiently well-documented that the statement doesn't require further litigation. [0] https://www.weforum.org/reports/global-gender-gap-report-2022/in-full https://www.weforum.org/reports/global-gender-gap-report-202... (Table 1.1)

sva_ 4y ago

It seems like they clearly mark it as having been published by a "contributor"[0]. Not sure if they added that after the public backlash though. [0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/breannawilson/2019/10/11/this-popular-solo-female-travel-vlogger-thinks-pakistan-could-be-the-worlds-1-tourism-destination/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/breannawilson/2019/10/11/this-p...

commoner 4y ago

You can tell whether a Forbes article is reputable by looking under the name of the author. If it says "Forbes Staff", the article was reviewed by an editor. If it says "Contributor" (or "Senior Contributor"), the article was most likely not reviewed by an editor and the author is basically a blogger. https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2012/what-the-forbes-model-of-contributed-content-means-for-journalism/ https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2012/what-the-forb... The author of TFA is a Fortune staff member: > Tristan Bove is an editorial fellow with Fortune's news team covering geopolitics, energy, and the U.S. housing market. https://fortune.com/author/tristan-bove/ https://fortune.com/author/tristan-bove/

tgsovlerkhgsel 4y ago
Which doesn't necessarily mean that the "official" (staff) articles are necessarily much better than the blogspam. Once they decided to throw their brand out of the window by letting (and encouraging) random bloggers publish their clickbait under their name, there wasn't much incentive to have their own articles be of better quality, and it shows.

libertine 4y ago

I came here to say what you've mentioned... there's a big interest in the Russian government to spread this fearmonger narrative (including, of course, Gazprom who has released an absurd Ad[0] few weeks ago, claiming "the winter is coming"). Here's the thing: people know things aren't going to be like they were one year ago. In fact a lot of people have been proactively taking measures, both consumers and governments. We also know things aren't going to be GREAT! But this type of shit - sorry for the coarseness, but I do fit these articles into the "shit bucket" - doesn't seem to serve any purpose, or add any new development or insight. It just seems to try to increase the frequency of the Russian narrative. What Forbes seems to miss, apparently, is that this was a deliberate choice with the support of Europeans. This is the price we're willing to pay to help to sink down an aggressive state and warmonger. Or at least, not help it flourish. [0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2b_0gfV_4E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2b_0gfV_4E

jdthedisciple 4y ago
Keep being in denial - this winter will be a freezing cold one for the EU, that's pretty much a given if you look at the energy price developments as we speak. I don't see you refute the numbers, you're just attacking the messenger. > This is the price we are willing to pay Oh interesting. Yea you're sure the majority of your people are willing to starve and freeze for the sake of corrupt politics and a pseudo-moralistic cause? Have you asked them? Perhaps speak for yourself only. And good luck to you and your family doing your part in reducing gas demand if you're so "willing".
- saturn_vk 4y ago
  I'm curious, are such comments being paid by the number, or article? And is the payment in rubles or some other currency?
dns_snek 4y ago
> This was a deliberate choice with the support of Europeans. This is the price *we're* willing to pay You really shouldn't speak on behalf of other people. I don't remember anyone being asked for their opinion or given a choice on this matter. I'm sure people who work minimum wage jobs and are just trying to get by don't have the luxury to wage a questionable ideological and economic war, something you seem to take for granted. For many people such a drastic increase in energy prices is the difference between barely getting by and choosing which days to go hungry.

dqpb 4y ago

Are you saying this is a Russia sponsored article?

senectus1 4y ago
its never an option between one or the other... there are carrion making a profit/political points from various different options. and sometimes its all of them.
- dqpb 4y ago
  > its never an option between one or the other Are you saying Russia never directly sponsors/publishes articles?

drcongo 4y ago

Personally I'd like to see both those sites start off with -50 karma when posted to HN. And TechCrunch.