Why? What is the point of this? It actively makes me distrust the outlet when they give previews of their clickbait.more slated to be revealed on Wednesday
Agreed.Why? What is the point of this? It actively makes me distrust the outlet when they give previews of their clickbait.
What are you talking about? My issue with it is this "hang on until Wednesday" BS.If folks hadn’t leaked ‘inside’ stuff, OGL1.1 would already be in effect—a fait accompli—“suckas!”
i’ll let the newsmen such as Morrus discern the veracity and newsworthiness.
All i can say is that the same guy (DnD Shorts) did the best, most nuanced line-by-line analysis of Wizards recent statement that I’ve seen.
Now i know not to post potential scoops on these boards. the foxy pundits will pile on.
you didn’t say: “interesting scoop! i just take issue with delaying further release—it smacks of clickbait.”What are you talking about? My issue with it is this "hang on until Wednesday" BS.
i’m impressed with your high professional standards when it comes to amateur reporting on a quickly unfolding situation.If (general) you have information that you need to research and verify, do so -- and release that stuff when it is researched and verified. You know, like a journalist. Giving a little hint to build hype speaks to clickbait, not news.
Having been extremely, excruciatingly close to a "quickly unfolding situation" I do in fact put a very high value on accuracy over speed, as well as journalistic integrity for those behaving like journalists. We live ina culture mired in misinformation -- we should not be contributing to it here or anywhere.i’m impressed with your high professional standards when it comes to amateur reporting on a quickly unfolding situation.
Again, that's great. I hope they are right and get all the information verified and accurate. But a little preview like this -- which we can see sends people into a tizzy and pushes the conspiracy train right out of the station -- exists only to get clicks. It's unethical.Maybe you’re right about an unnecessary teaser.
iirc, a reason he gives is that he needs to run it all through an automated paraphraser so that the inside source cant be ferreted out by their phraseology and lose their job.
It may not be shocking, but it does provide a (perhaps newsworthy) image of the emotional tenor which is behind the strange goings-on.I hardly find this shocking.
Well, as a traditionally central source for D&D news (ENW was founded on “leaks”), it would be good if @Morrus would develop a closer relationship with those whose insider leaks have turned out to be true, so that EN News can be in a position to intelligently and quickly sort the wheat from the chaff, and thus remain at the forefront of its original mission.
Speak for yourself.Pretty sure we don't need to tell Morrus or the site what it's mission is.
thanks!The news is appreciated,
okthe tune in for more, is not.
That's all, don't sweat it.
Generally, unless it's on behalf of my employer.Speak for yourself.
DnD_Shorts says that they're taking every precaution not to even inadvertently leak the name of their source, so maybe the source wants to get some ducks in a row to protect themselves before saying more.Why? What is the point of this? It actively makes me distrust the outlet when they give previews of their clickbait.
Having been extremely, excruciatingly close to a "quickly unfolding situation" I do in fact put a very high value on accuracy over speed, as well as journalistic integrity for those behaving like journalists. We live ina culture mired in misinformation -- we should not be contributing to it here or anywhere.
Again, that's great. I hope they are right and get all the information verified and accurate. But a little preview like this -- which we can see sends people into a tizzy and pushes the conspiracy train right out of the station -- exists only to get clicks. It's unethical.
So, get your ducks in a row before you start "reporting."DnD_Shorts says that they're taking every precaution not to even inadvertently leak the name of their source, so maybe the source wants to get some ducks in a row to protect themselves before saying more.
Any outrage about that? Can we stop linking and giving any impressions to that company? For more actual, demonstrated, non-hyped harm to real people?
That's so last month.
Sure, but being the person with the scoop that turns out to be true is worth something (and so is keeping people tuned in for more).So, get your ducks in a row before you start "reporting."