3 ms·
So the onus on reporters to ferret out fraud has the same moral weight as tobacco lobbyists? Except they make $35k/year, get fired every 6 months as their newsr
by mikeyouse 4y ago
So the onus on reporters to ferret out fraud has the same moral weight as tobacco lobbyists? Except they make $35k/year, get fired every 6 months as their newsrooms undergo layoffs due to lack of clicks, and get sued for investigating anyone powerful enough to matter? Can't imagine why more people don't sign up for that.
- MichaelCollins 4y agoLet's say the onus is on reporters to not take money in exchange for glowing coverage. Having a mortgage to pay is no excuse. If you can't be an honest reporter, don't report at all. I think that's a reasonable standard to hold them to. If you can't hack it as an honest reporter, then go get a job in retail or something. Anybody who took money from these people is not a victim.
- mikeyouse 4y agoIs there any evidence at all that any of these reporters were taking money vs. just writing up company press releases as news? And more generally, how do you square this stance with the near universal HN view that tech coverage is too biased against tech companies?
- MichaelCollins 4y ago> Is there any evidence at all that any of these reporters were taking money vs. just writing up company press releases as news? Yes. Being discussed now on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33593234 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33593234 > And more generally, how do you square this stance with the near universal HN view that tech coverage is too biased against tech companies? Cynically, they give negative coverage by default to encourage "charitable giving". When the org starts "donating" money to journalists, the tone of the coverage flips.