4 ms·

I'm all for fair attribution (ex-journalist here), and I'm not convinced that didn't happen in this case (though happy to accept it was borderline at best). Bu

I'm all for fair attribution (ex-journalist here), and I'm not convinced that didn't happen in this case (though happy to accept it was borderline at best). But given the Gawker article sent more people to his story than any other single source, save one, AND that it was an article on the benefit of integrating generations and therefore technology, for the editor and then the writer to get peeved is ironic.

omouse 17y ago
But given the Gawker article sent more people to his story than any other single source, save one As he says, more eyeballs != more money, so the attention means relatively nothing.
- citation_needed 17y ago
  On the contrary, more page views do lead to higher ad revenues. If Gawker is the second highest referrer, that means it's actually contributing to the revenue The Post earns by way of its website.