The prosecutor wasn’t able to make his case in court, but months later, he’s bringing his arguments to the public in forceful and unrestrained ways.
The prosecutor wasn’t able to make his case in court, but months later, he’s bringing his arguments to the public in forceful and unrestrained ways.
I hate this is called journalism. The ‘journalist’ Steve Benen didn’t do shit, Glenn Thrush did
A summary of a news article adds nothing and takes true credit away from actual news sources. Be better @[email protected]
Nah, this article cites and discusses multiple different sources and has some original comments Benen obtained
Plus you’ve gotta admit NYT is entitled establishment trash that get news stories dumped in their laps and fuck them up anyway half the time
Links are not primary sources, there are no primary sources in this article, as opposed to Thrush’s. Every link in there besides nyt goes to a msnow article that does the exact same thing as this article: just summarize somebody else’s news gathering. If NYT is a hack, msnow is the hack’s hack. I actually do agree with you that nyt is trash, but that’s not the point, the point is that a lot of articles in this community are just copping stories from journalists that actually do the work. And every click on msnow is another death blow for some aspiring journalist that won’t be able to find a job.
Links are perfectly fine sources, better than primary ones in some ways because the reader can evaluate the author’s use of that citation with full context instead of having to take it on faith that someone else’s quote is being reported accurately and with context
Researching organizing and presenting multiple sources for readers and synthesizing those sources into a meta story that can cover a bigger time frame or offer additional context to breaking news is a valuable part of the journalistic ecosystem
Well, this is completely backwards, but at least you care about the right things.
First of all, MS Now linking to other people’s articles is the only way a lot of readers will ever find out about those other articles and publications in the first place. Like, seriously, the idea of a reporter or editor feeling aggrieved because someone else shared their work is nuts.
Second of all, MS Now hires and employs journalists. Even if you think they’re a bottom feeding outfit, some great journalist might start their career their with a summer internship or something. Bottom line is there’s no way in which MS Now getting purity tested out of existence makes things better for journalists or the people who read them.
The idea that primary sources are less valuable is insane. What do you mean you can’t trust it? All secondary and tertiary sources build off of primary sources. How can a link to a primary source be more trustworthy than the actual source?