A nearly 100x ROI sounds too good to be true, even considering its criminal nature.
Well, producing illegal drugs seems to be generally rather high risk, high reward. You’d also need a lab, possibly employees, a distribution network, and might encounter potentially rather violent competition, though, so I’d say there might be a few more cost centres other than the raw materials.
That seems like a lot of trouble to go to just for one clickbait headline.
I don’t think you know what clickbait is. Clickbait means burying the, usually nonexistent, lead in order to bait views.
Ex. “Here’s how drug dealers make millions” and the content is just a long drawn out version of “they buy them online for cheap and then sell them to people” without any actual info on how that happens.
It’s not clickbait when you conduct a journalistic experiment and publish the literal result as the headline, and the content is an actual documentation of the process you went through in detail (or as much as is safe to publish). That’s just called journalism.
I mean, we all knew it was quite easy, but I still think that it’s journalistically valuable to go through with it to see, and show how easy it actually is.
Maybe. When Reuters publishes such a thing it just makes me wonder what crazy new law they are trying to gin up support for. As they say “When authorities restrict one chemical, suppliers and traffickers just switch to another.” It worries me to imagine what kind of “solution” they might dream up for that problem.
I think that assuming that editorial decisions are never influenced by financial interests would be naive, but they’re such a big organisation that covers such a breadth of topics that it would also seem foolish to assume a douplicitous intent behind every story. It might just be journalist covering a currently relatively widely discussed topic.
Also, Reuters generally does quite well in remaining relatively neutral in their coverage (though that impression might of course just be based on my biases).
