620
Megathread for Reddit Blackouts and News - Week 1
(beehaw.org)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 12 Jun 2023
620 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
37719 readers
294 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/12/business/media/reddit-subreddit-blackout-protest.html
That is some shoddy reporting there. Selig is cited earlier in the piece, so to let that quote stand unchallenged either means an editor didn't see it or ... well, I'd rather not get more confirmation from the Times on that front.
I've noticed this a lot about mainstream reporting - seems to give more voice to corporates than anyone else.
I've read a number of articles on the protest over the past few days and not a single of them really explained all the issues well.
I've experienced 1 first-hand. They call you and leave a voicemail. If you don't respond within 24 hours they're going to publish anyway and probably get a lot of things wrong.
I hear PR companies will basically write for the journalists on request, and sometimes journalists will take it just to get ahead.
It’s more difficult when they can’t just call up John Mastodon from the Fediverse PR department and copy-paste a press release.
Corporate journalism has its own special place in hell for me. After all the creativity was removed from rather central editing functions, I set about automating what was left at a hub and got shown the door when the efficiencies started to threaten justifying salaried positions.
I can chalk a lot of that up to the presumed reader knowledge in the Times style guide simplifying things tremendously. I mean, who knows if anyone uses those anymore ...
It's just really glaring to have a quote with a claim that's not easy to immediately verify as a reporter (1/x^th^ the efficiency, per [source 1] / [source 2]) with the creator of the app quoted earlier but not used here. I would be livid if that made it to the desk.