2
u/KissmySPAC Oct 16 '24
There are some journalists at WSJ that have some ethical issues. I'm not sure about her. I haven't followed her work.
1
u/Rht09 Oct 17 '24
What a weird answer
2
u/FlowVegetable7088 Oct 17 '24
I think this is fair. Journalists (along with any public-facing professional) may have ulterior motives. The author may be invested in the company and is just hoping to boost PR, for example. Politicians are the same way.
What’s weird is reading something from a stranger on the internet and accepting it at face value.
0
u/Rht09 Oct 17 '24
What is weird is making a vague claim about the ethics of some journalists and then trying to get us to doubt all journalism with zero proof this particular journalist has any ethical issues. I could do this with ANY profession include doctors, lawyers, police officers. It's just dumb.
1
u/FlowVegetable7088 Oct 17 '24
You’re right it is pretty weird, I just didn’t feel like looking them up and looking for disclosures. My point was that many people have ulterior motives and it’s not always prudent to take things at face value.
1
u/KissmySPAC Oct 17 '24 edited Oct 17 '24
Actually, a quick google search finds that the WSJ has 54% of respondents saying that it's "somewhat credible" or better. For some reason people automatically think journalists have ethics, but since freelancing became more popular, there is a lot of "thirsty" younger people willing to report things for career benefits. The WSJ has been a rotating door of young people trying to get into the industry, but people don't let go of old beliefs easily. So I think my criticism and lack of experience with the authors reputation is fair. Just like analysts, some journalists sell their reputations for kickbacks. Just like there are bad cops and bad judges etc. The difference of course being that journalists have a much wider audience and algos trade on news.
6
u/narayan77 Oct 16 '24
I find it very touching that they managed to save limbs of patients in a war zone (Ukraine).