Why are they not scientists? Sure their profession was in special effects, but you don't need a degree or a lab to carry out scientific research.
helpImTrappedOnline
joined 1 year ago
Back-room alliances √
Build up of new weapons √
Bunch of other things √
Maybe its time to make friends with the doomsday peepers....
That's sad. Someone asked "what does she like?" and someone responded "TikTok". At least the other stuff on the box is an actual theme.
No you don't need a license to be a journalist.
My thought was more about the scale of the project. For a journalists, just fact checking someone online doesn't make you a journalists. If you went out to fact check something at the source, compiled a bunch of evidence and presented it publicly, then you'd call your self a journalist.
Back to the electrician (ignoring license requirements), swapping out a light switch isn't much, but if you learned how to rewired a whole house, install panels, ceilings fans, etc - you'd call you self an electrition.
And you're right, the electrician is kind of a bad comparison.
News isn't a primary source. In most cases its a secondary source. They ask the primary "what happened" or get a press release from wherever and report on that.
They can be a primary source if they are live on location recording something as it happens. In that case, only the video (or written account) and individuals are primary sources, the second it goes through the studio's writers it becomes a secondary source.
Journalist is defined as anyone who writes for public news media. If op writes an article an publicly posts it, they are a blogger. If they post it anywhere that can be considered a news site (IMO, if their a own site is a news site, it counts), they are a journalist.
A good journalists is one who takes in many primary sources, maybe fills the gaps with some other secondaries and informs the public with the most informed information they have. Unfortunately corporate news has become an echo chamber of secondary sources with no one independently looking at primary sources. If it ain't cited don't trust it.
If the OP of the shower thought, basically fact checks someone else, then they are doing the work of a journalist. However simply doing a bit of work does not earn you the title, just like replacing a light switch at your house does not make you an electrician (even if you do it better then some of the "professionals")
Free food and coupons. Most of the time there's a 20% off coupon. The point system actually leads to free sandwiches and stuff.
I agree, hence specifying the ones who care.
Way too many do not care and wonder why no one is "loyal".
My company's owner/CEO can stay, gives us all sizeable profit share bonuses. During covid people didn't get layed off, even though there was no work. Sure hours were reduced, but work was found around the shop to keep people busy as much as possible.
In other words, small business owners that care about employee and their clients.
Love that she has fully embraced 2005 YouTube. Gives us hope for the future.
For me the downside is the precedent it sets. Yes, most of us agree getting rid of TikTok is a good thing, but how long until they start banning other sites "for the children"? How long until they target federated sites they can't control "for the children"?
To top it off, it doesn't solve the data harvesting problem their so scared of with TikTok. They only care about that one because the data is going to China. Instagram and others can stay because they are American companies spying on citizens.
That whole article basically sums to they settled out of court, which proves nothing.
Innocent until proven guilty.
Also a lot of famous people are "alleged r*pists", unfortunately that seems to come with the fame, especially in the last 10 years.