On another note does anyone know any good Indian journalists? Or is the term an oxymoron :P ?
Even worse, he made sure to punish and taunt the individual. As a result the individual had a lot of rather stressful life events, was humiliated on CNN, etc. For all of this: Adrian Chen claimed a moral victory.
-----
From my understanding, this was SOP at Gawker, and that is what lead them to have some very powerful enemies.
All over. The trick is to find them.
Our world is so much better because newspapers matter less and so much worse because cable matters more.
I seem to have difficulty finding them
No thanks.
Definitely a case where it is a far better reading experience in physical magazine form than electronic. You can peek ahead to see where the opposing view or alternative view is going. The format is good for short attention people like myself
From the Pentagon Papers to Watergate to Edward Snowden to the current water crisis in Flint, newspapers have broken stories that've benefitted the public. If any of you watch the news, a majority of stories are recycled from original newspaper reporting. While papers' circulations are dwindling, they are still making a difference online.
If no one is keeping our elected officials accountable, who will? Surely not Dave and Kelly of News Channel whatever.
We do not have to rely on the newspaper to be the 1st ordinal of "news"
I can be a news seeker much easier now
Newspapers are important just less so than in 1976, say
It's like how cell phones put a camera in everyone's pocket so now when we have natural disasters or a 10 car pileup we get photos, but about 3/4 are idiotic selfies.
I grew up wanting to be the next (accidental) Abraham Zapruder.(0) to be the source, the Deep Throat so to speak, of something so important -to be validated by the news.
Newspapers are far from being a distribution channel, and to think of them that way is as reductive as thinking of social networks as address books.
Newspapers are organizations that are first and foremost investigative, backed up by quality control, editorial, and research organizations. If you replace this with a smartphone and shift the delivery model out from a newspaper, then the role of being a fact-checker, editor, researcher, and expert falls on the reader. This is a bad idea, not only because it creates more work for the reader, but also because it increase the extent to which personal bias of the readership can increase the incorrect interpretation of facts.
Obviously, no newspaper is a perfect example of this ideal, but they are a great deal further along the curve than almost any individual. As a result, they act as a force against filter bubbles by promoting a whole set of stories and ideas that force people to participate more broadly with real world events and ideas. The mere fact that we worry so much about editorial bias in newspapers is a symptom of the importance that they play in guiding their consumers. The solution is not self-guidance and self-filtering and self research in order to wade through a sea of unqualified, unedited BS.
Furthermore, by being a news seeker, you are admitting that you are still seeking to know what is out there? Is there a particular reason you do not want to consume news through a qualified source? If you want to read the panama papers by yourself then you will likely do that to exclusion of all other reading for a period of days to weeks, and you will need to spend twice that doing research to understand what it means. If you go through a newspaper, they do that work for you.
Newspapers are not broken in any fundamental way. The only reason that this discussion is even happening is that news was traditionally funded by advertising, and that advertising is a shifting business, dragging news along with it. Discussions that center on the decline of newspapers without acknowledging that the shift in advertising revenue is really the problem ignores something very important: that the business of generating news is not at fault, the business of paying for it is. That is the real discussion worth having.
Newspapers aren't just about news. I may choose to consume one investigative report every quarter, say, and am grateful there's a qualified source . Weather travel planning, for sale, advertisements, and government notifications I no longer need a newspaper to get.
We used to buy the Sunday Times just for the Travel section to look at advertisements. We're better off now that we have the internet to find deals
Disagree. Just last week John Oliver showed David Simon talking about a golden age of corruption when journalists stop going to town hall meetings and local political events.
The internet archive has many recordings: https://archive.org/search.php?query=edward%20r%20murrow
These days only Arnab Goswami comes to mind. In the past there were a lot of upstanding journalists like Arun Shourie, Kuldip Nayar, Lala Jagat Narayan etc.
They are on 'fake news' shows doing comedy.
It's a blog ...
"And then there’s Michael Huffington, the Texas tycoon who moved to Santa Barbara in the early ’90s so he could run for Congress. Huffington ingratiated himself with S.B. movers and shakers by writing $10,000 checks to all their favorite charities. But he and his famous wife, Arianna, who has since morphed into a famous left-wing media mogulista, were so late paying their bills that many of Santa Barbara’s high-end foodie establishments cut off credit to the high-octane couple. As he would later — when news stories broke that he’d hired an illegal immigrant to care for his children — Huffington blamed his wife."
Google harder.
edit : typos
And please don't give me this self-introspection crap.