I didn't gather that at all from the storify. He seemed to enjoy people getting all worked up over the content of the papers and the attention it was gaining.
I don't enjoy how the paper is blaming the writer and is not accounting for their obvious lack of facts checking because of their liking of "a good story". It's definitely a discussion worth from both sides, punching down on a pressured human being lacks good taste.
He's more journalist than most. Reprinting Twitter spats and press releases does not make you a journalist. Publishing newsworthy information in the public interest does.
Just because a story can rock the boat doesn't mean it passes the journalistic bar to be published.
My take based on all parties' responses is that Glenn threw a tantrum because his editors were doing their job (stopping unsubstantiated lies from being published).
Hmmm. The "Here are some of the stories I’m proud of" all seem to be fishing for outrage. I'm not surprised that his/her readership comes from twitter.
He appears to be acting as an investigative reporter. Such acts have a long history of naming and shaming people, even ones that were not previously public figures. That he writes for his own publication is not really material to the fact that he is acting as a reporter.
I hesitated on sharing the same sentiment on first pass, but this really is a skewed example even accounting for survivorship bias; he was an established journalist whose major stories were written by compiling leaks and tips from disgruntled employees. This is reinforced by his statement that his readers didn't like the interviews. 'Why' is an exercise left to the reader, but I inferred that the gossip and scoops are more salacious than the PR-vetted messaging.
Is he though or is this an attempt to discredit a competitor? This guy is a journalism in a era when newspapers and other forms of tradition media are dying. Journalism is seen as a joke, partisan, propaganda, and even an enemy of the State by large swatches of the public.
He's publishing it because it is more of the same reactionary crap that he's getting rich off of. The difference between him and an actual journalist is that a journalist would wait until they were done with the investigation to write a story. He needs more eyeballs than that to justify his existence.
Maybe the author felt emasculated by the experience, and didn't realize that modern humanity demands attention to all manner of bizarre sensitivities because of a rabid desire to take offense where none is intended.
I do have to admit, I stereotype reporters as absolutely swimming in that particular lagoon, so it's unlikely, but hey, you got to speculate too.
I don't know that a journalist was involved in this. An editor may have been but this just appears to be a letter-to-the-editor or commentary submission
I doubt Ben took them seriously. He's well known for having fabricated popular stories on slow publication weeks/months. This was likely his form of click-bate.
reply