Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by OnlineGladiator 1001 days ago
The journalist most famous for leaking the Panama Papers died under mysterious circumstances. And almost nobody is aware of her name or even what's inside the Panama Papers.

How many famous journalists can you name? I'm not saying there aren't journalists that want to do good work and become famous as a result. But despite their efforts they're mostly fighting a losing battle.
1 comments
afavour 1001 days ago
> How many famous journalists can you name?

I’m not sure how that’s relevant. Ask a dozen people on the street who John Carmack is I’m sure you’d get a lot of blank faces. But if he walked into a dev shop looking for a job I think he’d probably get one.

Of course breaking a massive story is going to lead to you being well known. Perhaps only within journalistic circles but in the context of your career that’s the only thing that matters anyway.

(and to answer anecdote with anecdote: Woodward and Bernstein. Both have lived to ripe old ages, too, for what it’s worth)

link
OnlineGladiator 1001 days ago
> Of course breaking a massive story is going to lead to you being well known.

My argument is the opposite. You can break a massive story and people can still not care. That was why I brought up the Panama Papers.

Anyway, let's just agree to disagree.

link
afavour 1001 days ago
But again your definition of “people” is the general population and they aren’t the ones hiring and firing journalists.

The Panama Papers were a huge story, they won a Pulitzer! If you’re a journalist of course a story like that is going to open doors.

link
OnlineGladiator 1001 days ago
You're completely ignoring my point. The journalist was rewarded with murder.

I feel like you're not actually considering what I'm saying and I'm exiting this conversation.

link
afavour 1001 days ago
Your point is that because one journalist was killed for a story that no other journalist could ever possibly be rewarded for breaking a huge story?
link
InSteady 1000 days ago
You know how there is a principle during debate where you should treat your opponent's argument charitably, by taking their meaning in the best possible way?

You just did the exact opposite.

link