But isn’t so much journalism nowadays characterised by unsubstantiated speculation? (i.e. propaganda, if not simply clickbait filler pretending analysis)
It seems to me your criticism amounts essentially to your dislike of the thesis of this piece. This can be legitimate, but not what you’ve argued here.
Isn’t this piece an example of precisely the supposed promise of the internet, in the sense that journalism becomes democratised and anyone can publish and disseminate analysis, which can be evaluated on its merits rather than institutional validation and inertia based on opaque criteria? (I would of course argue the aggregated needs of capital, but I won’t force that in)
But isn’t so much journalism nowadays characterised by unsubstantiated speculation
No, by definition, a billion percent NO. I don’t understand how words have lost their meaning today.
your criticism amounts essentially to your dislike of the thesis of this piece.
Show me one word that criticizes “the thesis” of the piece. I have not. In fact, I think it’s well written and thought provoking (in the same vein as a 9/11 or UFO theory is). I have argued, not that an argument should need to be made because /reality/ and /definitions of words/, that it is a random person with no journalistic credentials making, and admitting to, unsubstantiated claims based on guesses and supposes. This, by definition, is not journalism - nor NEWS.
Dude. There is nothing wrong with the fucking article other than it is not fucking news.
How broken are people? Is it the fox newses that have broken you? TikTok? Reddit? Twitter? Do people have some false belief that armchair speculation, random ideas and theories with no source to back it up, is fucking NEWS?
Furthermore, the rules of this forum require a link be from an actual news source. This is not.
But isn’t so much journalism nowadays characterised by unsubstantiated speculation? (i.e. propaganda, if not simply clickbait filler pretending analysis)
It seems to me your criticism amounts essentially to your dislike of the thesis of this piece. This can be legitimate, but not what you’ve argued here.
Isn’t this piece an example of precisely the supposed promise of the internet, in the sense that journalism becomes democratised and anyone can publish and disseminate analysis, which can be evaluated on its merits rather than institutional validation and inertia based on opaque criteria? (I would of course argue the aggregated needs of capital, but I won’t force that in)
No, by definition, a billion percent NO. I don’t understand how words have lost their meaning today.
Show me one word that criticizes “the thesis” of the piece. I have not. In fact, I think it’s well written and thought provoking (in the same vein as a 9/11 or UFO theory is). I have argued, not that an argument should need to be made because /reality/ and /definitions of words/, that it is a random person with no journalistic credentials making, and admitting to, unsubstantiated claims based on guesses and supposes. This, by definition, is not journalism - nor NEWS.
Dude. There is nothing wrong with the fucking article other than it is not fucking news.
How broken are people? Is it the fox newses that have broken you? TikTok? Reddit? Twitter? Do people have some false belief that armchair speculation, random ideas and theories with no source to back it up, is fucking NEWS?
Furthermore, the rules of this forum require a link be from an actual news source. This is not.
clown
That’s a perfect response to enforce my observation that people no longer have the sense of what words mean.