Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
If the Times' piece predates Vice's, all is well in the universe, as it's a case of Vice stealing/glomming on/plagiarizing (and creepily crediting itself rather than citing the Times). If Vice piece predates the Times, we're potentially left to wonder if maybe the Times is following "new media's" lead. The latter is a really depressing possibility.
But there is precedent for it. I can't stand the Times' graphics. They're trying to imitate the graphics of exclusively online sources. And it's so fucking irritating. I was trying to delve into some of the 1619 stuff and the initial link is all this huge print and photos and after a few minutes of searching, you feel like screaming, channeling an inner Lewis Black, "Just give me the fucking text! Just the fucking text! You're a fucking newspaper, goddammit! I want to read motherfucking words!!!!"
|
I too am an old person and took a second to figure out to click on the quotes.
But I'm not silly enough to be surprised that a publisher of online content cites itself above and before citing others.
