[OnlineGladiator]

> 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.

[afavour]

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.

[OnlineGladiator]

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.

[afavour]

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?

[InSteady]

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.