November 27th, 2006 → 11:31 am @ Seth Mnookin // 3 Comments
It’s common practice for newspapers to re-report scoops uncovered by their rivals in order to avoid giving credit; this is a bit underhanded but not unexpected. Acknowleding another publication’s work is even rarer when it comes to “trend” articles — can one outlet truly be said to have “uncovered” this or that health fad or religious fad?
That said, it’s worth pointing out that a full six months before the Times became obsessed with the issue, Details put together a not-insignificant package on the whole rich versus superrich thing. Of course, no one in the Times ever reads Details…right?
Post Categories: New York Times
Mannybeingmanny
6 years ago
Hey Seth…if you haven’t already, check out the last article in the newest Time. More of the Rich versus Super-Rich debate…this time told through some political cartoons. Can someone please tell me why these publications care about this story at all? Let alone now?
Gawker
6 years ago
Superrich Trend Pieces: The Breakdown…
That seemingly endless series of Times stories on the superrich got us thinking: Is this the start of a new……
New York News Headlines
6 years ago
Superrich Trend Pieces: The Breakdown…
That seemingly endless series of Times stories on the superrich got us thinking: Is this the start of…