4 ms·
[flagged]
by zurfer 1y ago
[flagged]
- pjc50 1y agoI was surprised to see that. I wonder how long it'll stay up.
- ahoka 1y ago[flagged]
- integralid 1y agoThat's pretty rude to the journalist who wrote this article and made this analysis? What makes you think they're a clown or criticize the system "in a controlled way"?
- verisimi 1y agoI think you will have been through a pretty thorough vetting process to get to work there (private schooling, university, connections in the industry, etc)? Or do you think they are there on the merit of their writing?
- antonvs 1y agoNepobabies such as you describe certainly exist and have “unfair” advantages, but it’s not as if all people working at such places are in that category. Merit can certainly also get you there.
- verisimi 1y agoI don't think so. Tech reporter at the WaPo? No way.
- reaperducer 1y agoI don't think so. Tech reporter at the WaPo? No way. Both "I don't think so" and "No Way." Quite an argument.
- verisimi 1y agoWe don't get to find out much about these folks - their background. However, for this person, we get given a little bio here: https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2019/12/geoffrey-fowler-tech https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2019/12/geoffrey-fowler-tech What do we read. We was at the Wall Street Journal before the Washington Post. He can ask National Security Agency folk to hack his phone so he can write an article. His (unnamed) father was professor of medicine at University of South Carolina, his (unnamed) mother a librarian. He himself went to Harvard, a Ledecky Fellow. What did he study? Anthropology and Afro-American studies, ffs. Then on to Cambridge, Trinity College. He gets an internship at the WSJ, no Starbucks barista job for him! "His first day of work was September 11, 2001; the paper’s office, located beside the World Trade Center, was severely damaged and filled with ash. Fowler, on his way to work by subway, rushed back home before the towers collapsed." ok... just an average guy, right? Harvard (Anthropology) -> Cambridge (Anthropology) -> WSJ -> WaPo. Doesn't everyone have this sort of career? lol
- llllm 1y agoSubscribe for 30 years and form your own opinion, it’s cosplay journalism. If you insist on thumping your chest about your independence, you become a clown.
- 542354234235 1y ago>If you insist on thumping your chest about your independence Isn't that just basic conflict of interest disclosure? If he didn't say anything, that would be deceptive. As it is, I can make up my own mind and be aware of the link. Or should they just never write anything about Amazon? Your take seems to lack any nuance and present a false dichotomy. I can dislike the influence of large corporations over jocularism and also recognize that bias and influence do not mean 100% control over what every journalist writes.
- CrociDB 1y agowhen they do, bad. when we do, nothing new.
- torben-friis 1y agoIt’s common in the Post. The problem isn’t that journalists don’t have what it takes to do that, the problem is that those people have been steadily resigning in protest or burning out for a while and eventually they’re all replaced.
- ReptileMan 1y ago[dead]
- reaperducer 1y agoI was surprised to see that. I wonder how long it'll stay up. Why would you be surprised? Something similar is written in every single Washington Post article that touches an Amazon or Amazon-related property. It's called "disclosure" and is Journalism 101m and not disclosing is a firing offense. It's one of the major differences between legitimate journalism and internet randos cosplaying journalists.
- yen223 1y agoImagine making money from Prime ripping people off, and then making money reporting on how Prime is ripping people off
- gedy 1y agoReminds me of Elvis' agent selling "I Hate Elvis" buttons to make money off of them.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]