82 comments

[ 430 ms ] story [ 2109 ms ] thread
The paywall cuts off before you actually learn the name - "copi", short for copious.
It works fine in Firefox reader mode.
I wonder how many readers they've netted with their pun-tastic title, and whether we should actually reward that kind of trolling.
That's pretty much a The Economist trademark. They really go for cleverness in heds and ledes.
I can cut them some slack for that part, but it's a drag how they refuse to put the rejigged name directly in the title instead of relying on click bait to reel me in.
I get your point, but if I'm a headline writer, it's pretty natural to want readers to click though to find out what the new name is--even if they are subscribers.

There's definitely a balance between headlines that aren't too cryptic and those that still entice readers to read further.

I don't know... I fell for it hook, line and sinker.
Don't pay attention to their carping Economist writer. Just keep musseling your way to the top.
Or even above the "pay us to read more" line.
It's bad journalism. A news story should tell you the summary in the headline.

But good journalism is a dying dinosaur, sadly. And the internet and monetization challenges are factors.

This headline seems to properly summarize the article. There’s no surprises under it only more detail and nuance.
But fails to deliver a critical detail of the news solely for purposes of holding it hostage in order to try to get money out of people.
Good journalism has always cost money. If your objection is that you're asked to pay to read, then journalism has always been dead.
No, that's not my argument.

I'm a starving writer. I don't know how to solve this, but I have a long history of commenting on it and trying to cast a little light on the connection between monetization issues, poor pay for writers and bad reporting.

The actual name given is not critical detail.

You are free not to read further (I didn't).

I'd say that this is a great headline and is quite fair.

A good storytelling is more than just an imparting of mere facts - it raises a question in the mind of the reader or listener each step of the way, thus imparting interest and leading him or her through the facts in an enjoyable way.

Clever headlines displayed on the front of a paper newspaper have been used to sell newspapers for probably as long as there newspapers existed.

Not just the Economist, most British newspapers love a clever headline.
The link posted is paywalled. Here is a free but different article on the same issue.

https://www.foodandwine.com/news/copi-fish-asian-carp-invasi...

Why am i being downvoted though? I literally just posted a link to a non-paywalled site. No opinion added. And I get downvoted for that? Wow!
I guess starving journalists hang out here too. (Voted you back up)

Oh wait, maybe tangentially, HN user named prostoalex is a rather well known Bot for stuffing links from NYT, The Economists, Wall Street Journal, and the like into Hacker News. Maybe this Bot is starving too.

"Copi" strikes me as quite a terrible name for a fish. It sounds very "cutesy".
Copi. Seethe. As the kids say, I guess.

Chilean sea bass vs Patagonian toothfish all over again. Personally the second name sounds much more metal.

Just don’t go to Chile expecting it - it is virtually non-existent (it might exist in some high-end restaurants - I’ve never seen it)

Chileans tend to eat merluza or reineta, and then maybe salmon.

Påtågønîån TøøthFîsh
I ate this stuff once years ago. Loved it. Can't find it anywhere around me though.
The first time I had it was after going into a high end fish market (quite far from my house) to get some good tuna. Saw it and it was cheap enough to take a flyer on. Was great.

Went back the next weekend for it specifically.

Grew up dodging scores of it as they flew over our bass boat flying down the backwaters of the Mississippi. Twenty years ago I wouldn’t be able to find a single person who had ever eaten it and I’m not sure that’s any different today, which is a tragedy since it apparently tastes pretty nice.
I wonder how it would taste as sushi.
You could, but probably a bad plan. We don't eat freshwater fish raw due to worse characteristics in terms of bacteria/parasites. (Though I can't really say how this plays out in terms of the whole deep freezing to kill parasites situation – not an expert, just my understanding)
Sushi isn't necessarily raw
How much sushi have you eaten that’s cooked?

Spam musubi doesn’t count.

Unagi primarily. Though also shrimp tempura and various vegetarian.
I’ve had carne asada makizushi, but I feel like that’s the exception that proves the rule.
(comment deleted)
Lots. It's very common, especially at extremely expensive sushi places, for some types or cuts of fish (or other seafood) to be cooked, and to be sauced differently than others. Go to some $200+ a meal places and you'll definitely eat quite a bit of it.

I think the most common way I've had it cooked it blowtorched, but some types of clams are baked, others are grilled, etc.

(I live in Tokyo currently)

It was a rhetorical question to the OP: fully cooked gill fish (enough to kill the parasites in fresh water fish) is extremely uncommon in sushi restaurants.

As the GP pointed out, this might not be an issue in the US (because of freezing requirements). But I would not be one to be eating carp "raw".

It's possible that this is the thing that takes narezushi mainstream, but I doubt it.

Most sushi-grade fish (in the US, at least) is flash frozen to kill parasites. If you count that as "cooked" (you should), then you probably haven't had raw sushi in a long time.
>Louisiana’s wildlife department offers recipes for nutria, a semi-aquatic rodent with an irrepressible breeding habit.

Been many years since I've been but I remember some signage at the Audubon Zoo in New Orleans with recipes for it. Very on-brand.

Interesting, never heard of these but they look like beavers or otters. Pure speculation but they look like their meat would be game central.
Weed rats. ;)

(I thought they looked more like muskrats.)

They look more like ROUS, Rodents Of Unusual Size, from The Princess Bride. At least that's what I thought when I first saw one.
To use man's ability to hunt a species to extinction for profit is genius.
Lol. We are good at it. Pretty sure if a species of dinosaurs made it until now on an island, we would have wiped it off.
I mean, that describes the Dodo.
It would be hard to turn down a T-Rex burger.
Alligator tail is pretty good tho.
Now they need to make it easy to fish for.

In IL to do it legally, you pretty much need a boat. There is only a few places you can do it without one. It is also only certain times of year.

Asian carp -> copi

Since the article tries it's harest to obfuscate that..

It does? It's stated clearly in the third paragraph.
Right behind the paywall
Didn't they already do this with nutria?
(comment deleted)
I recall something from 100+ years ago when they had a plan to import hippopotamus to louisiana, turn them loose to breed in the wild and market it as "lake cow bacon".

https://www.wired.com/2013/12/hippopotamus-ranching/

Probably a good thing that there is not a population of thousands of feral hippopotamus going around.

Given that hippos are notorious people killers I am glad this never happened.
Pablo Escobar's hippos are (were?) a pest in Colombia.
I like the idea. Worst case they are more harm than help to the environment and wind up catching hot lead because of it. Large herbivores don't have the same potential to accidentally spread unnoticed or evade apex predators (us) like carp do. It wouldn't be the first time we've eradicated a large herbivore from the continent and it probably won't be the last.
Chilean Seabass is Chilean toothfish, the former is a bit more palate whetting. Another sort of fish distributor marketing shift.
They sell frozen Orange Roughy at Costco. It sounds more appetizing than it actually is.
Not the first time this has been tried to Asian Carp [0], other rebrands have included "silverfin" and "Kentucky Tuna" (yes really). Though apparently, some took legal issue with the latter [1].

[0] https://www.wideopenspaces.com/can-you-eat-asian-carp/ [1] https://aboutseafood.com/news/kentucky-tuna-a-bad-idea-thats...

Names like "Kentucky Tuna" are dangerous for public health safety reasons.

If you want to re-brand a freshwater fish, please use other freshwater fish names, don't let people to assume it's a saltwater fish which can be eaten raw or slightly cured.

Provided they taste good this can work very well. Like 'Chinese gooseberries' renamed 'kiwi' by clever NZ growers to get into US/UK markets.
Here is how you cook them.

You take a cedar plank and lay the carp on it. Cover it with tomato paste, cilantro, brown sugar and lemon juice. Bake at 450 for 20 minutes, or smoke until it is flaky. Remove the carp off the board and throw it away, then eat the board.

There was a similar situation in the UK where 'Spider Crab' was renamed 'Cornish King Crab'. As I understand, much of the 'Spider Crab' was exported to Spain but as this became less economically viable post Brexit the rebrand was aimed at encouraging domestic consumption.
Didn't work for Aussie kangaroo problem though