Tech Radar quotes Tom's Hardware; Tom's Hardware quotes a tweet.
Not a tweet from Southwest, mind you. Not even a tweet from someone who says that they used to work for Southwest. Just... a tweet.
Not a tweet from Southwest, mind you. Not even a tweet from someone who says that they used to work for Southwest. Just... a tweet.
Good starting point is if the news is free. A shocking fraction of people get their news from solely free sources.
The core metric for subscription news sites is minimizing churn. A mistake will cost a subscription site subscribers who have a massive lifetime value. These sites are heavily incentivized to report high quality, accurate news even if they're not the first to break the story.
Yes, in this context.
> Why do you think an outlet that works for you will necessarily deliver better quality news that the one that works for advertisers?
I can’t explain the mechanics precisely. But it’s pretty clear when I compare my subscription and non-subscription sources where the quality lies.
If we held food safety to the same standards as paid news sources are held, people would get salmonella once a week.
Just like with anyone you meet: you are the judge if they are trustworthy, nice, mean, funny, etc.
That said, I think tech journalism is the bottom of the barrel. I just feel like they focus more on tech than journalism.
I question the ethics and standards of the New York Times at least a little at this point so it's not like great journalism is common.
Generally there is a chain of trust in news publishing that goes nowhere and there's nothing we can do about it, as more often than not, someone credible repeats the hearsay nonsense down the line, at which point they count as a primary source.
So much of news publishing I would describe as not even wrong.
Newspapers got the bulk of their funding from advertising back then, just as they do now.
There are bad journalists (if they can be called journalists at all) and good journalists. At this point in history, our only hope lies with diligent reporters from reputable publishers.
They don't.
Wikipedia sources an article from a semi-legit source. That semi-legit source either just says "sources" or points to something less-legit, like a Tweet.
You can bring new "facts" into existence by just laundering them from lower- and lower-quality sources.