After voicing similar surprise with Forbes before, I was told anything published under Forbes dot com slash sites is just content they’re rehosting.
Not sure if it’s true, but I definitely take anything from them with a grain of salt now. Also it seems most if not all Forbes stories I see linked are under /sites/…
If they attach their name to it and don’t make it abundantly clear it is an external opinion that in no way reflects on their views, their credibility takes the same hit as if their senior editors personally put the article out.
I’ve heard the “that isn’t them, they’re just rehosting” commentary. They aren’t Facebook. If they publish it with their name, it’s theirs. If they want to burn their credibility for that, it’s on them.
Forbes “contributors” are bloggers. Forbes gave up on actual journalism years ago and is coasting on the reputation of the brand.
After voicing similar surprise with Forbes before, I was told anything published under Forbes dot com slash sites is just content they’re rehosting.
Not sure if it’s true, but I definitely take anything from them with a grain of salt now. Also it seems most if not all Forbes stories I see linked are under /sites/…
If they attach their name to it and don’t make it abundantly clear it is an external opinion that in no way reflects on their views, their credibility takes the same hit as if their senior editors personally put the article out.
I’ve heard the “that isn’t them, they’re just rehosting” commentary. They aren’t Facebook. If they publish it with their name, it’s theirs. If they want to burn their credibility for that, it’s on them.
Agreed.
Right. If I had read “opinion” I’d understand. This says “contributor” which is where my amazement comes from.
Oooh! Now I see. You have to hover over the ( i )