What happens after returning the investment? Five comments "bad review" series of draft events

Home > Sci-Tech

What happens after returning the investment? Five comments "bad review" series of draft events

2018-05-29 10:25:40 136 ℃

The “Poor Review” issued an announcement: It will voluntarily return the investment of Tencent Topic Fund and “strive for independent development”. Tencent responded: This decision to accept bad reviews.

It seems that things are over, but things are far from over. "Active return" investment is a kind of attitude and posture of bad review. It is also a kind of speech that responds to pressure from the outside world. However, the bad review has never truly apologized to many self-media and new media agencies that have been "drafted" by it. It did not apologize to its partners and advertisers, and it did not to users who once trusted and supported it. Road apologizes.

The bad review has already been done, but it is not enough. After the bad review returns the investment of Tencent Topic Fund, can the bad review be turned into a good one? After a long time in peace and quiet in the downtown, how long will people forget this incident? How long after the bad review will continue to use other people's intellectual property ideas? Did tens of thousands of organizations and hundreds of thousands of people around the new media business become better by this incident?

First of all, we need to observe that after the bad review, we will not wash the manuscript. The bad review itself has formulated six “reform standards,” but as we pointed out, bad reviews confuse the use of the concept of stealing and attempting to redefine the rules. If the bad review insists that they are doing "online editing" rather than "drafting," the situation is still very worrying. Because according to this logic, bad reviews can redefine standards at any time, establish their own rules, continue to confuse the water, and even drag everyone down to create an illusion that “we are almost like”. As to whether the bad review is using the "academic paper format" to label all the sources of the articles, we look coldly because we think it is not operational. When we have a better way to deal with sources of news and copyright, there is absolutely no need to expect a more primitive, backward and unverified approach.

Second, we need to determine whether the bad review has harmed the interests of other peers on some other issues or even undermined the overall reputation of the technology media. The bad review claims that he is creating scientific and technological content that people love to see. He does the work of popular science, but in fact, the science element that we see from the bad review is actually very limited, and it is more of a surprise that the title party, As well as exaggerated and tricky facts. We respect different content styles, but we don't like to distort and whitewash. more importantHowever, some of the content of the Bad Review even surpassed the mystery and distorted facts, but it came to the edge of supervision and law (pictured). This kind of content has nothing to do with "drafting." It is completely self-authoring of bad reviews. However, if the bad review continues to allow such content, it is really making the "technical media" once again shame, it will make the entire "tech media" is placed in more stringent regulatory standards.

Once again, we need to point out that bad reviews really need to establish their own image and status in a way that elevates themselves and demeans others. When many people criticized the bad review “drafting” several times, the bad review said that you thought we were cleaning up. We are relying on "blacking out and counterfeiting". When peers criticized the bad review of “drafting” and violated professional conduct, the bad review stated that you “old media people” ate and ate, and collected premiums. What we would like to report badly on this is: Chinese media practitioners do have some bad habits and professional ethics, but most organizations and individuals do better than bad reviews in terms of not copying or scrapping. The bad review team needs to be clear: Some of the leading new technology media in the industry have formulated stricter professional ethics guidelines. In addition to strictly prohibiting conflicts of interest, penalties for plagiarism and drafting are even more stringent. We also want to focus on the “bad review” team’s emphasis on what you call “blackouts,” criticisms of a product and a company, talk about the black market and the grey trade, and you’re proud of what you think is yours. What is different from "media teachers" is actually a basic lesson that every new media and traditional media is doing every day. However, we never take pride in ourselves and even feel that there is still more room for improvement. If the “bad review” team advertises these all day, it can be proved that apart from being narrow and ignorant, there is nothing left to do. Compared to "discovering black and fake," the bad review team may not even have a clear idea of ​​what "surveys" were. However, the "investigation report" now has a focus on topics in China that have shifted to the field of science and technology. Many new media agencies are doing such a thing. If bad reviews really want to prove that they are very powerful, please join in.

Also, we have a suggestion: bad reviews should take off the “bad review” label, or even change the name. “Born to the air” is the beginning of the bad review, and bad feedback has therefore accumulated a large number of fans. However, the poor assessment of the company's products and products soon "poor assessment". In this regard, the rate of compromise may be much faster than the "teachers" of traditional media and new media. Of course, more importantly,If the bad reviews want to become more "mainstream" and more people in society accept more people, the name brings people a lot of imagination. PingWest's reporters saw how the "reporter" for bad reviews introduced themselves to overseas media colleagues. The scene was still somewhat embarrassing. After all, even in Europe and the United States, critical media will not give themselves names such as “The Raven Muzzle Daily” and “The Saliva News”. In China, even serious film critics commented on the new media "Poisonous Sir Movie". They were also mistakenly injured. After the return, they quickly removed the word "poison" in their name and became a "Sir movie." So if you judge him badly, who do you want to have more "bad"?

Finally, we sincerely hope that the bad review will really get rid of the remote control behind another group of “media teachers” and become a new technology media with a “post-90s” temperament. The science students are still down. So important. The reason why this is said is that in the face of criticism, the bad review is not the same as the temperament of “post-1990s science and engineering boys”. The reason why this point should be pointed out is that the “bad review” is just a new media organization that pushes “post-90s” to the front desk and actually has a group of “old media people” who are remotely operated on the backstage. The bad review of the industrial and commercial shareholder registration shows that legal representative Xu Jianjun, shareholders Zuo Zhijian and Gui Bin and others are all senior traditional media people. But it is these group of “media teachers” that hide behind a group of “post-90s” and established More than one “drafting factory” has trained a large number of young people to wash the drafts in various fields, and they have been intent on attacking the “post-90s” at the front desk as “media teachers” with similar age and background. The "bad review" was only pushed to the cusp of a case. We can't change the direction of the tide, but since things have gone out, it may be time for the “bad review” team to come to the cutting time. The outstanding people after the 90’s will not have to do the string puppets of the post-80s and even the 70s. Shadow CEO. If you want to be truly unique, bid farewell to those people and become true 90s. The "media teachers" behind you are much more greasy than our media teachers.

The events have come to an end. We hope the world will be better, not worse.