felixsalmon:

parislemon:

Earlier today, I broke some news.

I don’t typically do this anymore given my new job. But from time to time this will happen. But if you read The Wall Street Journal, you’d never know. Why’s that? Because they’re fuckheads who don’t credit actual sources of information.

I’m going to push back here. The WSJ did credit the actual source of its information: it got the information from Apple. Did MG Siegler have the scoop? Yes. Did the WSJ initially find out about the news from MG Siegler, directly or indirectly? Probably, yes. Would it have been polite to mention that in the story? Sure. But ultimately the WSJ was just doing the boring-but-important part of its job, here, acting as a conduit for press releases from big companies. Sometimes those press releases contain news, and when they do, it’s incumbent upon a comprehensive news source like the WSJ to report that news. Does it matter whether someone else had the news two hours earlier? Not in the slightest. Is MG Siegler overreacting massively? Yes. Breaking the news of an M&A deal is the most transient high in the world. Once you’ve done it, the news is out there, you get about 1.5 seconds of glory, and the world moves on. If you feel the need to complain that the WSJ doesn’t help you relive those 1.5 seconds of glory, then you’ve got much bigger things to worry about than the WSJ.

Amen! Talk about quality vs hype.