Re:ProPublica's tax story
by wolverine876 on Wednesday June 09, 2021 @01:30AM
(#27444534)
> Source: Journalist.
fyi: The commenter says below, in a dead comment, "The best part is that I made up that I’m a journalist just to screw with you .... I’m a product manager at a FAANG, dude, and I screw around on this forum for fun."
[dead]
Thank you for being marked legitimate by dang and using that privilege to level content-free, snarky replies that address absolutely none of the feedback you directly asked for in this thread!
Now who isn’t engaging with criticism, again? Literally a journalist showed up to engage with you while you’re banging on that we don’t, so, your reaction here kinda speaks for itself and explains a lot more than you think. Good luck with your news startup.
Re:ProPublica's tax story
by jeremy_arnold on Tuesday June 08, 2021 @10:27PM
(#27443574)
If you actually have substantive criticisms (that don't devolve to "I can clairvoyantly intuit your intent and thus know you to be an unreliable narrator even though I'm not going to be concrete/specific anywhere"), I'm happy to hear them! I've written extensively on this topic. My archive is full of specific examples you can adjudicate (many of which were brought to journalists by people who were not me). Earn yourself some correction bucks if you spot any overstatements! But your argument here was abstract, meanspirited, and not a meaningful attempt to take any specifics in my argument seriously. Hence why I screencapped it and intend to use it in my collection of journalists doing exactly that (i.e., reflexively dismissing concerns without any demonstrated curiosity or engagement with the meat of any of my proffered examples).
EDIT: Fixed two typos. (Also note what edit marks are what people use to avoid changing what they wrote after the fact!)
You seem to have emotionally reacted to criticism of your own work (which is par for journalism) by declaring that journalism doesn’t get it and needs to be “saved” (from who?). I’m concerned by your personification of a bad experience and the malevolence you’re ascribing to an entire profession as a result, while on the way to sticking your fingers in the same pie. You are coming across as an unreliable narrator in several ways. Even beyond that, you’re going up against ProPublica, not Daily Mail, and it’s very clear from your piece (which I read end to end) that you dove into it in bad faith looking for your intended outcome.
It is this comment alone that convinces me you will fail, because you don’t understand why you weren’t engaged and why a lengthy rebuttal to incoming was a waste of your time. You seem to have a chip on your shoulder based on writing about Elon and the Thai thing and not having it go as you’d like which, in the grand scheme of things, matters precisely zero. That you offered money to those journalists as part of that process simply reassures me that you were blocked in their email because that is a fucking stupid thing to do, and I wish that were more apparent to you. You did dumb things by your own account. That almost certainly wasn’t personal — it’s just that money and its involvement in journalism is extremely sensitive for very, very obvious reasons.
Source: Journalist.