3 ms·

Yes, all or most media does this. What's the conspiracy mindedness here? You believe Forbes does it as well, so how are you not conspiracy minded?

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> Yes, all or most media does this. What's the conspiracy mindedness here? Because it doesn't. There is zero evidence of it and a lot of evidence against. > You believe Forbes does it as well, so how are you not conspiracy minded? Because you can literally see the disclaimer on the Forbes article. You can't similarly buy a spot in the Journal, Times or Post.
- mewpmewp2 2y ago
  But Reuters also has sponsored content and press releases, e.g. https://www.reuters.com/press-releases/sugarmd-to-reintroduce-popular-advanced-glucose-support-with-new-formula-launching-in-january-2024-11-01/ https://www.reuters.com/press-releases/sugarmd-to-reintroduc... There's the gray alert, but I doubt many people will read it, they will assume it to just be some random global bulletin.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    Fair enough. Reuters is a news wire. They're publishing it as a press release, but I could see how someone might be misled by that. Still incredibly different from Forbes-style sponsored content, or insinuating there is no difference between press releases and journalism. That's the post-truth nonsense that makes the American public incredibly easy to sell stuff to. But it comes with obvious disadvantages, too.
    - mewpmewp2 2y ago
      For me the point is to not just consider something more reliable or credible, because there's a certain logo on that screenshot or image. You should take a look at the content as well, which given those images, would've led you to believe that the content is just a statement of intention, but not anything really factual and therefore there's no credibility issue in the first place with the Coca Cola one. If Coca Cola was making claims that we "we reduced plastic waste by 75%", then that would be a whole other ordeal, where maybe they are hiding some info, and I would be more inclined to consider Reuters credible, if they have a title "Coca Cola claims to have reduced plastic waste by 75%, but only according to this flawed metric".

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> Yes, all or most media does this. What's the conspiracy mindedness here? Because it doesn't. There is zero evidence of it and a lot of evidence against. > You believe Forbes does it as well, so how are you not conspiracy minded? Because you can literally see the disclaimer on the Forbes article. You can't similarly buy a spot in the Journal, Times or Post.

mewpmewp2 2y ago
But Reuters also has sponsored content and press releases, e.g. https://www.reuters.com/press-releases/sugarmd-to-reintroduce-popular-advanced-glucose-support-with-new-formula-launching-in-january-2024-11-01/ https://www.reuters.com/press-releases/sugarmd-to-reintroduc... There's the gray alert, but I doubt many people will read it, they will assume it to just be some random global bulletin.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  Fair enough. Reuters is a news wire. They're publishing it as a press release, but I could see how someone might be misled by that. Still incredibly different from Forbes-style sponsored content, or insinuating there is no difference between press releases and journalism. That's the post-truth nonsense that makes the American public incredibly easy to sell stuff to. But it comes with obvious disadvantages, too.
  - mewpmewp2 2y ago
    For me the point is to not just consider something more reliable or credible, because there's a certain logo on that screenshot or image. You should take a look at the content as well, which given those images, would've led you to believe that the content is just a statement of intention, but not anything really factual and therefore there's no credibility issue in the first place with the Coca Cola one. If Coca Cola was making claims that we "we reduced plastic waste by 75%", then that would be a whole other ordeal, where maybe they are hiding some info, and I would be more inclined to consider Reuters credible, if they have a title "Coca Cola claims to have reduced plastic waste by 75%, but only according to this flawed metric".