[tylerl]

Being first to report something is ultimately worthless, and absolutely not what we want to encourage (rushing to publish in order to be first).

What matters in actual journalism, and what we should encourage, elevate, and credit, is the BEST reporting. That is, the most accurate, most readable, most informative, most honest.

Factors like misleading clickbait, content-free speculation, inflammatory commentary, and poor fact-checking need to disqualify outlets from consideration when determining which news source to promote on a given story.

I don't mean necessarily junking a publisher categorically for past sins, but rather looking at each story individually and determining whether someone else is reporting it BETTER.

[3pt14159]

It depends on the nature of the article. I've dated a national award winning journalist that was also the senior editor of the most prestigious magazine in my country (our version of The New Yorker, essentially) and there is a balance to being scooped and really nailing the reporting.

[forkexec]

Amen. Rushed, sketchy, unverified stories lead to getting the facts wrong and missing implications and the bigger picture.

Fools rush in.