reporters

If an event is ambiguous, reporters report that fact itself instead of guessing at what everyone else will report.

Couple thoughts: Startups should think of analysts as potential allies and win them over, much as they do reporters.

Tech reporters, as you can imagine, are overwhelmed with pitches, with tons of startups fighting for the same oxygen.

The worst of science reporting happens when reporters try to make science fit into this mold.

WSJ reporters even appear as Fox correspondents now (at least, when I watched briefly a few months ago).

When did the NYT become gawker level link baiters instead of reporters?

It looks like a bunch of prestigious authors held a press conference to convince non-specialist reporters that the end of civilization is a distinct possibility.

While it may not get picked up by any reporters, that site tends to rank well by itself and will draw attention to your company/product.

Look for reporters who have written about similar products previously.

The lions share of bug bounty reporters are from overseas.

Producing shows with the quality of, say, Game of Thrones, is expensive, but so is having and sending reporters all over the world.

Edit: Btw I've also tried repeatedly to get some press coverage of this issue with reporters, but nobody was interested in covering this problem.

In brief, we distribute a token to a "reporters." At the appropriate time, reporters submit their decisions about events.

You think the "middlemen" of reporters can be cut of the deal, and sure, they can, if everyone is not only willing to do the same job that reporters do but can manage to be reasonably good at it.

Reporters who deviate from the consensus lose some of their token balance, which is redistributed to the honest reporters.