4 ms·

It used to be that there was a set deadline to respond because of a broadcast time or a printing run. A responsible journalist would call for a comment and if t

It used to be that there was a set deadline to respond because of a broadcast time or a printing run. A responsible journalist would call for a comment and if they weren't available they'd let them know when the story had to be done. So here we are when the "journalists" are controlling the printing runs and in this case they thought 24 minutes was a fair time for a response. I think this speaks more about the level of journalism practiced at TechCrunch than anything else, and this Facebook prank actually goes a long way to show that. What kinda baffles me is that all those old deadlines were set by management, the reporters always wanted more time to craft the story and get it right. There were epic battles between reporters and editors over time versus distribution. Now that there's instant publishing the reporters have the same itchy trigger fingers. Just like the before everyone's afraid of being "scooped".

rapind 17y ago
That's a really good point. I'd argue though that web journalists running their own site are also wearing the management hat and are more concerned with the bottom line than the journalist of old who had that bottom line abstracted form them through bureaucracy. This is just as much a problem with the average consumer's attention span as the content producer's race to print. If this is their policy on stories and yet we still read them and comment on them, well then I guess we value the quick fix even though we complain about it.