ST Alpha - "that if you're (the generic you, not you specifically) publishing nameless, sourceless rumours, you're a hack." (Reading a Post)

SlickerTalk
Search Archives
The Leaderboard
The FAQ

Down to Post

Backboards:

Posts: 153

In response to "What is this supposed to mean? -- nm" by secretslacker

that if you're (the generic you, not you specifically) publishing nameless, sourceless rumours, you're a hack.

Posted by mafic Jun 6 '09, 12:47

doesn't matter how many people believe you, if all you've got is the mysterious "highly placed source," it's not a real story.

my point was that one of the drawbacks of having some kind of legitimacy is that you can't just write whatever the hell you like without corroboration, even if it does happen to be real.

Responses:

I guess.. the thing is that the source is accurate... the problem is that none of the people reporting on it were actually *there* :) -- nm - secretslacker Jun 6, 12:48 5
- which makes it like that boston globe reporter that got fired a year or two back for filing the fake seal hunt story. - mafic Jun 6, 12:53 4
  - You gotta understand that most of these sites are privately own/run... no one gets fired for bad journalism. - secretslacker Jun 6, 12:56 3
    - yeah, I get that. I doubt anyone at TMZ gets fired for shoddy journalism, but who *really* believes them without seeing it somewhere else? - mafic Jun 6, 13:04 2
      - they don't care if you believe them. only that you click to them first for the story -- nm - dug Jun 6, 13:08 1
        
        Exactly... that's what we're basically dealing with. -- nm - secretslacker Jun 6, 13:21

Post a message top

that if you're (the generic you, not you specifically) publishing nameless, sourceless rumours, you're a hack.

Replies are disabled on threads older than 7 days.