3 ms·

So the defense is no longer "the journalists were afraid of getting sued" but rather "the journalists like access." Access which affords them money and power.

So the defense is no longer "the journalists were afraid of getting sued" but rather "the journalists like access." Access which affords them money and power. That is as I already assumed. How is that any different from a bank robber excusing himself by citing the utility of money?

Bubble_Pop_22 4y ago
You don't get it. It's not about journalists vs. non-journalists. It's about skeptics vs. easily indoctrinated. Thankfully the proportions are about the same, there are about the same quantity of skeptics as well as easily indoctrinated people among every profession. including journalists. Skeptics however are a reationary bunch they show up with some delay compared to those who are easily indoctrinated. Also skeptics tend to criticize from 30,000ft whereas easily indoctrinated people have a deep need to elevate a guy and blindly follow him. Journalists who are skeptics were criticizing the whole crypto movement, whereas journalists who are easily indoctrinated were busy elevating SBF, CZ, Musk and every other cult figures in the space. That's the reason why you can't find skeptical articles on FTX and SBF, the skeptics did not write pieces on that, they were writing pieces critical of the whole movement, whereas easily indoctrinated journalists were low-key intersted in the movement but what they really wanted was to blow SBF, Musk and CZ.
bombcar 4y ago
I suspect this has always been the case, but we apparently had enough journalists on various teams that someone would smell a scoop and dive in. But I think that was mostly just a myth even in the "bad old days" of yellow journalism and newspapers making it big by exposing scandals. Maybe the increase of advertising revenues compared to subscriptions is involved, but deep down people are people and people are manipulatable.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

Bubble_Pop_22 4y ago

You don't get it. It's not about journalists vs. non-journalists. It's about skeptics vs. easily indoctrinated. Thankfully the proportions are about the same, there are about the same quantity of skeptics as well as easily indoctrinated people among every profession. including journalists. Skeptics however are a reationary bunch they show up with some delay compared to those who are easily indoctrinated. Also skeptics tend to criticize from 30,000ft whereas easily indoctrinated people have a deep need to elevate a guy and blindly follow him. Journalists who are skeptics were criticizing the whole crypto movement, whereas journalists who are easily indoctrinated were busy elevating SBF, CZ, Musk and every other cult figures in the space. That's the reason why you can't find skeptical articles on FTX and SBF, the skeptics did not write pieces on that, they were writing pieces critical of the whole movement, whereas easily indoctrinated journalists were low-key intersted in the movement but what they really wanted was to blow SBF, Musk and CZ.

bombcar 4y ago

I suspect this has always been the case, but we apparently had enough journalists on various teams that someone would smell a scoop and dive in. But I think that was mostly just a myth even in the "bad old days" of yellow journalism and newspapers making it big by exposing scandals. Maybe the increase of advertising revenues compared to subscriptions is involved, but deep down people are people and people are manipulatable.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]