back

by jjmarr·2y ago·view on hn ↗
Journalists are often judged based on their public output. You get bylines on published articles, and you can use those to apply for jobs. There's not much emphasis on secrecy because the goal of a news outlet is to be read by as many people as possible.

Being unable to provide examples of your work is a career-killer if everyone else can point to stuff they wrote. Preserving your work isn't altruistic, it's required.

It's a very different environment compared to programming, because oftentimes the source code is valuable because it's a secret. Employees taking source code is dangerous because competitors can copy it; obviously that's bad for one's career.

The analogy doesn't work here because the cost/benefits of taking legal action are different.

1 comments
A ton of writing is done for (sometimes very expensive) paywalled and subscription-only publications--or internal-only at companies. Theoretically all my (pre-blogging) analyst work is in that category. That said, no one reasonable cares much that you display that several year old thing you wrote for someone (absent confidential or classified information). I put "greatest hits" on my website and everything is either from a company that no longer exists or it's years-old material from a news website. The situation isn't ideal but it works better than the letter of the law suggests it should.