-
So.... I have a problem with the latest Vox Hillary Clinton article - vox.com/a/hillary-clinton-interview/the-gap-listener-leadership-qualityPermalink On twitter.com
❤️ 1 Favorite
Mood -2 🙁
-
This new article is basically the same article as the one the same author wrote a month ago - vox.com/2016/6/7/11879728/hillary-clinton-wins-nomination - but with more quotesPermalink On twitter.com
♻️ 1 Retweets
❤️ 4 Favorites
Mood 0
-
I'm not saying its self-plagiarizing or *anything* like that. But it is re-framing what was an op-ed as a piece of investigative journalism.Permalink On twitter.com
❤️ 2 Favorites
Mood +2 🙂
-
But it seems to me that the author came to an opinion a month ago and then set out to prove it. But re-framed proving w/voice-from-nowhere.Permalink On twitter.com
❤️ 1 Favorite
Mood 0
-
And notably, it doesn't appear that the first article is linked. Also not linked, external news orgs which the first article had?Permalink On twitter.com
❤️ 2 Favorites
Mood 0
-
It makes lines like this in the 2nd piece seem very disingenuous.Permalink On twitter.com
❤️ 2 Favorites
Mood +2 🙂
-
I'm not saying covering the same thing twice is bad, nor is a more detailed dive into an op-ed. But to pretend 1st article never existed?Permalink On twitter.com
♻️ 1 Retweets
❤️ 1 Favorite
Mood -4 🙁
-
It feels like ethically thin ground to me. Especially because the 2nd article is framed in that neutral voice.Permalink On twitter.com
❤️ 1 Favorite
Mood +2 🙂
-
It makes me question the quality of the journalism because now I'm wondering, did Vox even try to find other perspectives?Permalink On twitter.com
❤️ 1 Favorite
Mood +2 🙂
-
In part b/c in the first article, author is trying to convince you, but in the 2nd he acts like 'Hillary Clinton listens' is a proven fact.Permalink On twitter.com
❤️ 1 Favorite
Mood +3 🙂
-
Which is a shame, because I really liked the 1st article. More than the 2nd actually. But now I feel like both are invalidated for me.Permalink On twitter.com
Mood +2 🙂
-
Worst part is if the 2nd Vox piece started with 'I believe Hillary Clinton's quality comes from listening and set out to prove it'...Permalink On twitter.com
Mood -1 🙁
-
... just that slight re-frame would have avoided the discomfort and contradiction. Or, you know, just linked the old one at the top.Permalink On twitter.com
Mood -1 🙁
-
By not linking the prev op-ed-ish on the same exact topic by the same author, it feels like Vox is creepily hiding something.Permalink On twitter.com
Mood +1 🙂
-
I feel like I need a good news ethicist to help me sort out how I feel on this. Is this as shitty a behavior as it feels like? Sulliview ?Permalink On twitter.com
Mood +6 🙂
-
There are 11 links in the new story. 7 are external. None are to the external article that was linked near the top of the 1st article.Permalink On twitter.com
❤️ 1 Favorite
Mood +2 🙂
-
And yeah, the 1st article is definitely not linked to in the 2nd.Permalink On twitter.com
Mood +1 🙂
-
This is saddening me because I don't always like how Vox operates, but I trusted them. This behavior makes that trust harder.Permalink On twitter.com
❤️ 2 Favorites
Mood +5 🙂
-
(If you're wondering, I haven't tagged principle participants b/c I'm still unsure if this is stylistic disagreement or actually sketchy.)Permalink On twitter.com
❤️ 1 Favorite
Mood -3 🙁
-
Remember this? Vox republished the nearly the same exact article as narrated video with no ref to previous work. facebook.com/ezraklein/videos/566572953530311/On twitter.com
Mood -1 🙁
-
Once again, there doesn't seem to be any actual reuse of sentences, so it isn't self-plagiarism.Permalink On twitter.com
Mood -2 🙁
-
Some of the same quotes, some of the same sources, no citation of previous work. This *still* makes me feel uncomfortable.Permalink On twitter.com
Mood -3 🙁
-
Also, they've been milking this same exact story for what... 3 months now? Also weird.Permalink On twitter.com
Mood -2 🙁