I mean, we all knew it was quite easy, but I still think that it’s journalistically valuable to go through with it to see, and show how easy it actually is.
Maybe. When Reuters publishes such a thing it just makes me wonder what crazy new law they are trying to gin up support for. As they say “When authorities restrict one chemical, suppliers and traffickers just switch to another.” It worries me to imagine what kind of “solution” they might dream up for that problem.
I think that assuming that editorial decisions are never influenced by financial interests would be naive, but they’re such a big organisation that covers such a breadth of topics that it would also seem foolish to assume a douplicitous intent behind every story. It might just be journalist covering a currently relatively widely discussed topic.
Also, Reuters generally does quite well in remaining relatively neutral in their coverage (though that impression might of course just be based on my biases).
In this particular case, Reuters seems to be pushing the narrative that there’s a Border Crisis.
The dominant players in the illicit opioid trade – the Mexican cartels that manufacture most of the drugs and smuggle them into America– have been the subject of detailed reporting over the years. Now, as the first news organization to buy and test fentanyl’s essential ingredients, Reuters has penetrated the hidden sub-industry that makes the cartel operations possible: the international supply chain of precursor chemicals.
Nearly three-fourths of those caught attempting to smuggle fentanyl into the U.S. since October 2022 were U.S. citizens, and they brought in more than half of all fentanyl seized by U.S. authorities, the officials said.
I just find it funny that they said they used the Internet to buy it, so what did they do, put it in will call just this side of the border and drive to pick it up once it’s safely inside the country? No they used the USPS the biggest drug trafficker of our current time.
I don’t think you know what clickbait is. Clickbait means burying the, usually nonexistent, lead in order to bait views.
Ex. “Here’s how drug dealers make millions” and the content is just a long drawn out version of “they buy them online for cheap and then sell them to people” without any actual info on how that happens.
It’s not clickbait when you conduct a journalistic experiment and publish the literal result as the headline, and the content is an actual documentation of the process you went through in detail (or as much as is safe to publish). That’s just called journalism.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !news@beehaw.org
Breaking news from around the world.
News that is American but has an international facet may also be posted here.
Guidelines for submissions:
Where possible, post the original source of information.
If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
That seems like a lot of trouble to go to just for one clickbait headline.
I mean, we all knew it was quite easy, but I still think that it’s journalistically valuable to go through with it to see, and show how easy it actually is.
Maybe. When Reuters publishes such a thing it just makes me wonder what crazy new law they are trying to gin up support for. As they say “When authorities restrict one chemical, suppliers and traffickers just switch to another.” It worries me to imagine what kind of “solution” they might dream up for that problem.
I think that assuming that editorial decisions are never influenced by financial interests would be naive, but they’re such a big organisation that covers such a breadth of topics that it would also seem foolish to assume a douplicitous intent behind every story. It might just be journalist covering a currently relatively widely discussed topic.
Also, Reuters generally does quite well in remaining relatively neutral in their coverage (though that impression might of course just be based on my biases).
In this particular case, Reuters seems to be pushing the narrative that there’s a Border Crisis.
For comparison the Fort Worth Star-Telegram reports:
I just find it funny that they said they used the Internet to buy it, so what did they do, put it in will call just this side of the border and drive to pick it up once it’s safely inside the country? No they used the USPS the biggest drug trafficker of our current time.
Careful, this narrative reminds me of the anti-pornograpy censorship laws, and the current discourse about banning abortion medication sent via mail
Not in the least, still. I’m not saying don’t get your drugs in the mail, I’m saying don’t blame Mexico.
I don’t think you know what clickbait is. Clickbait means burying the, usually nonexistent, lead in order to bait views.
Ex. “Here’s how drug dealers make millions” and the content is just a long drawn out version of “they buy them online for cheap and then sell them to people” without any actual info on how that happens.
It’s not clickbait when you conduct a journalistic experiment and publish the literal result as the headline, and the content is an actual documentation of the process you went through in detail (or as much as is safe to publish). That’s just called journalism.