The title makes it sound like the author uncovered something that the scientific establishment didn’t want told.
In reality, it’s yet another story of a journalist being strung along and then kicked to the curb amongst business acquisitions, budget cuts, and editorial disagreements.
Kinda? That part of the story was oddly written and not well-reported IMO.
She asserts that there was some sort of bias against her story because she interviewed current addicts instead of recovered addicts but there’s nothing to back that up in the article and I’ve seen nothing to back that up in my life. Those firsthand stories have a place and an audience.
She mentions that there was a dispute about anonymity but doesn’t elaborate on why there was a dispute or what was actually agreed and why.
She talks about Chris’ death and how it affected her emotionally but then this never actually relates back to the story with SA? It reads like self-aggrandizement and emotional manipulation of the reader. Her being emotionally attached to or moved by the content doesn’t shed any light on what the disagreement with the editor actually was.
It’s hard to take it as much more than a one-sided complaint about a business venture that didn’t pan out.
Did we read the same article? She initially got permission to use anonymous sources for their safety. Then when the story was reassigned the terms changed.
Yeah, but the question is Why? Was there issue with the writing that caused the editor to demand more solid verification, which would require the office to have their last names and fact-check? The article doesn’t say the editor demanded the names be printed. And how did this issue resolve? Did it not?
I have the same questions about the new editor’s concerns over the level of sobriety of those interviewed. Why did this new editor have a concern that the other did not? Was there something in the reporting that raised alarms?
Maybe not. Maybe it’s simply a case of different editors having different standards for what they’re willing to put out and a writer getting caught in the middle of an office in flux. That’s not a sin or an affront, just bad luck and a business venture that didn’t pan out.
Please read the whole article before making comments like this. I guess to you labor conditions designed to mean people can make a couple bucks an hour are “bad luck,” not exploitation.
But sorry for not checking your profile first and seeing that your only post is another article by the same author and your sparse comment activity only bolsters the connection.
I wasn’t trying to insult you, just critique the article in a third-party forum.
However, since you mention it, the fact that you’re now pivoting to the labor argument only highlights how scattered the piece is. It’s given a conspiratorial clickbait title that implies some scientific story is being covered up, then immediately pivots to the woes of freelance journalism, then gives a one-sided account of a fight with a new editor over editorial standards, before ending with an ad for your new project.
And I’ll notice you’ve not actually addressed any of my criticisms of the piece but rather pivoted to trying to dismiss me.
The way it was resolved is she asked for more money and the story was killed. Seems like you didn’t read that?
And while we’re talking about misdirection what are your thoughts on allowing sources to be anonymous for safety? Or sub minimum wage pay for journalists?
It's incredibly disappointing to see SA go this way but not surprising. I hope someday the Internet gets to a place where we can have good things again (like quality and broadly read reportage), but in the short term, I think Doctorow was right and all we can expect for now is more enshitification.
This is why I read Mother Jones. They investigate thoroughly and they're not beholden to a company that is bending the knee to the current administration.
Dottsterisk | 17 hours ago
The title makes it sound like the author uncovered something that the scientific establishment didn’t want told.
In reality, it’s yet another story of a journalist being strung along and then kicked to the curb amongst business acquisitions, budget cuts, and editorial disagreements.
Brilliant_Field_1566 | 17 hours ago
Yes but additional nuance too about stigma when it comes to drug topics
Dottsterisk | 17 hours ago
Kinda? That part of the story was oddly written and not well-reported IMO.
She asserts that there was some sort of bias against her story because she interviewed current addicts instead of recovered addicts but there’s nothing to back that up in the article and I’ve seen nothing to back that up in my life. Those firsthand stories have a place and an audience.
She mentions that there was a dispute about anonymity but doesn’t elaborate on why there was a dispute or what was actually agreed and why.
She talks about Chris’ death and how it affected her emotionally but then this never actually relates back to the story with SA? It reads like self-aggrandizement and emotional manipulation of the reader. Her being emotionally attached to or moved by the content doesn’t shed any light on what the disagreement with the editor actually was.
It’s hard to take it as much more than a one-sided complaint about a business venture that didn’t pan out.
Brilliant_Field_1566 | 16 hours ago
Did we read the same article? She initially got permission to use anonymous sources for their safety. Then when the story was reassigned the terms changed.
Dottsterisk | 16 hours ago
Yeah, but the question is Why? Was there issue with the writing that caused the editor to demand more solid verification, which would require the office to have their last names and fact-check? The article doesn’t say the editor demanded the names be printed. And how did this issue resolve? Did it not?
I have the same questions about the new editor’s concerns over the level of sobriety of those interviewed. Why did this new editor have a concern that the other did not? Was there something in the reporting that raised alarms?
Maybe not. Maybe it’s simply a case of different editors having different standards for what they’re willing to put out and a writer getting caught in the middle of an office in flux. That’s not a sin or an affront, just bad luck and a business venture that didn’t pan out.
Brilliant_Field_1566 | 16 hours ago
Please read the whole article before making comments like this. I guess to you labor conditions designed to mean people can make a couple bucks an hour are “bad luck,” not exploitation.
Dottsterisk | 16 hours ago
I did read the whole article.
But sorry for not checking your profile first and seeing that your only post is another article by the same author and your sparse comment activity only bolsters the connection.
I wasn’t trying to insult you, just critique the article in a third-party forum.
However, since you mention it, the fact that you’re now pivoting to the labor argument only highlights how scattered the piece is. It’s given a conspiratorial clickbait title that implies some scientific story is being covered up, then immediately pivots to the woes of freelance journalism, then gives a one-sided account of a fight with a new editor over editorial standards, before ending with an ad for your new project.
And I’ll notice you’ve not actually addressed any of my criticisms of the piece but rather pivoted to trying to dismiss me.
Brilliant_Field_1566 | 16 hours ago
The way it was resolved is she asked for more money and the story was killed. Seems like you didn’t read that?
And while we’re talking about misdirection what are your thoughts on allowing sources to be anonymous for safety? Or sub minimum wage pay for journalists?
conicalanamorphosis | 17 hours ago
It's incredibly disappointing to see SA go this way but not surprising. I hope someday the Internet gets to a place where we can have good things again (like quality and broadly read reportage), but in the short term, I think Doctorow was right and all we can expect for now is more enshitification.
calm-lab66 | 17 hours ago
This is why I read Mother Jones. They investigate thoroughly and they're not beholden to a company that is bending the knee to the current administration.
Kevin_Turvey | 17 hours ago
Mother Jones is awesome.