3 ms·

And yet somehow nobody was bothering to check if this baby needed a diaper change. Maybe the idea isn't radical, but the execution is very different from the no

• bell-cot 4y ago
  (Context: Previously, this item's title matched the article - "Archiving official documents as an act of radical journalism". Vs. the current title - "The importance of distributing true copies of government records" is far more descriptive of the article's contents.) Yes, and yes (if you sufficiently restrict "norm" to very recent years) - but the article was published in Columbia Journalism Review - which is published by Columbia University. An institution which should bring a few scraps of sober historical perspective to the table. "Radical journalism" is stuff like being a party to New York Times Co. v. United States ( 1971, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_S... ). Not doing something that most small-city newspapers were routinely doing back in the 1950's. (Because what reporter wanted to waste time dragging back & forth to City Hall, to consult their records, when he was writing a story about how this year's City Budget gave X% less money to the Roads Dept. and Y% more to the Fire Dept., and Councilman Smith voted twice against item Z?)
  • boomboomsubban 4y ago
    Papers have been archiving local records for some time, but they would keep such records under their control to give their paper an edge. Building the records internationally and then publishing them can be seen as radical.