Journalists: Are Any Of Them Not ****s?
Discussion
Pothole said:
Lost_BMW said:
Pothole said:
pthelazyjourno said:
Pothole said:
nut don't you all aspire to work for the 'big newspapers...
Responded...I thought people who write for a living generally have an interest in being understood and communicating. That surely means they learn the language they intend to communicate in, consider what they write and check it before clicking 'submit', doesn't it?
The internet shows what the public wants in a way that one cannot argue against.
The most successful online 'newspaper' is the DM. Say what you like about the content but the readership figures are excellent.
The site is geared towards the returns they get. The number of hits on a particular subject is what governs what will be on the site the following day. We all laugh at the incedible prejudice of the editorial content but that's what people want it would appear. The figures don't lie.
So, going by today's edition, women in bikinis, whether pregnant, just given birth, with abs and other niceties, are given prominance.
The two most important stories would appear to be Branson's wedding and Rihanna's nipple ring. So those working on the paper/site have to provide more of the same. Lots of hits means more; fewer hits means don't waste your time. Shallowness of reporting, blatent bias, spin and such works as demonstrated by the hits.
You can't blame the journos. Blame the lack of taste of the public.
But these are a very small minority of journalists. Most of the rest do proper work.
The most successful online 'newspaper' is the DM. Say what you like about the content but the readership figures are excellent.
The site is geared towards the returns they get. The number of hits on a particular subject is what governs what will be on the site the following day. We all laugh at the incedible prejudice of the editorial content but that's what people want it would appear. The figures don't lie.
So, going by today's edition, women in bikinis, whether pregnant, just given birth, with abs and other niceties, are given prominance.
The two most important stories would appear to be Branson's wedding and Rihanna's nipple ring. So those working on the paper/site have to provide more of the same. Lots of hits means more; fewer hits means don't waste your time. Shallowness of reporting, blatent bias, spin and such works as demonstrated by the hits.
You can't blame the journos. Blame the lack of taste of the public.
But these are a very small minority of journalists. Most of the rest do proper work.
audidoody said:
I wouldn't describe people who rewrite celebrity Twitter feeds and captions for agency-supplied photographs as "journalists".
Others, though, would. The etymological derivation is rather obvious.In common parlance its meaning encompasses anyone who works for a newspaper or periodical. That includes sub-editors (although there are so very few of them working for newspapers nowadays) as well as someone who produces a news programme.
A columnist would be a journalist although they would need few of the traditional journalistic skills. Some are, of course, failed news reporters or just the son/daughter of someone with talent. Is someone who works for, say Top Gear a journalist? A blogger is almost the precise definition of journalist.
BruceV8 said:
So maybe when I asked the original question, I meant 'news reporters in the national press'. Is 'journalist' too broad a term?
Perhpas it would have been better to be more precise. This is literal PH. Literally.If I could bring up a couple of points you made in your original post:
BruceV8 said:
My general uneasy feeling about them, which had been growing for a good few years, was crystallised during the Iraq war and particularly the early stages of the insurgency. They would demand transport, facilities and protection from coalition forces yet would stab them as soon as the first inkling of a story might emerge. Yet whenever a journalist was killed, injured, or even mildly threatened that was given airtime and print space over all other things. There's a quote - I wish I could remeber who by - that said: A foreign correspondent is someone who thinks the most important thing about a story is the fact that he has arrived to cover it.
The quote is via Tom Stoppard, the full version being:"A foreign correspondent is someone who flies around from hotel to hotel and thinks that the most interesting thing about any story is the fact that he has arrived to cover it."
It is a clever one-liner from one of his plays, Night and Day, and is perhaps not as deep as it first appears.
If you search for it on Google it will come up as a quote on the site of The Universal Journalist, a book by David Randall. He points out that one of the problems that journalists experience is in the overuse of the personal pronoun. It is difficult to avoid. If the story is not all that big then it could well be an ambitious but newish journo who is sent. They will want to make their mark and and I or two can help.
George Orwell, when reporting from the Spanish Civil War, said:
"I had been about ten days at the front when it happened."
It is the dreaded I but then the 'it' was him being shot. It was intresting as he described what it felt like. You can't do that in the third person half so effectively.
As regards the rest of the bit I quoted, I reckon that a journo should not shy away from criticising our forces, their targets or their influence on the natives just because they are sharing with the soldiers. In fact, that too is a problem with journos. Those standing on the police side of Orgreave filed very different copy to those on the miners' side. It is very difficult not to empathise and therefore distort in 'your' side's favour.
Derek Smith said:
A blogger is almost the precise definition of journalist.
No. It's not. A blogger writes, more-or-less, stream of consciousness thoughts offering a personal interpretation. A blogger is not required to seek third-party information or ensure the accuracy or validity of their output. A blogger does not have to cultivate sources, conduct interviews or engage in research.
audidoody said:
No. It's not. A blogger writes, more-or-less, stream of consciousness thoughts offering a personal interpretation.
A blogger is not required to seek third-party information or ensure the accuracy or validity of their output. A blogger does not have to cultivate sources, conduct interviews or engage in research.
But many bloggers do those things. To say a blogger isn't a journalist is as inaccurate as saying that all bloggers are journalists. In addition, many journalists do not do those things, especially with regard to ensuring accuracy and validity.A blogger is not required to seek third-party information or ensure the accuracy or validity of their output. A blogger does not have to cultivate sources, conduct interviews or engage in research.
audidoody said:
Derek Smith said:
A blogger is almost the precise definition of journalist.
No. It's not. A blogger writes, more-or-less, stream of consciousness thoughts offering a personal interpretation. A blogger is not required to seek third-party information or ensure the accuracy or validity of their output. A blogger does not have to cultivate sources, conduct interviews or engage in research.
RYH64E said:
Even the ones I consider friends can't be trusted when there is a story to be had, it's their job and they don't care too much who gets hurt.
Don't worry, at some point they'll burn out and become empty husks, wondering where their soul went.I'm currently looking for mine. It's a bit battered and answers to the name
Are there any real journalists left? Pretty much all I see in MSM is regurgitated press releases without any investigation (they don't even ask any proper questions anymore - just feeder lines) .
They also have very poor memories (inexcusable when a simple google search will fill in the gaps) and allow the most glaring errors to get through. So all in all most are undeserving of the name (though deserving of many others - mainly four letter ones) .
They also have very poor memories (inexcusable when a simple google search will fill in the gaps) and allow the most glaring errors to get through. So all in all most are undeserving of the name (though deserving of many others - mainly four letter ones) .
Jinx said:
Are there any real journalists left? Pretty much all I see in MSM is regurgitated press releases without any investigation (they don't even ask any proper questions anymore - just feeder lines) .
They also have very poor memories (inexcusable when a simple google search will fill in the gaps) and allow the most glaring errors to get through. So all in all most are undeserving of the name (though deserving of many others - mainly four letter ones) .
Pressure from PRs means that deviation from the official press release can result in no more contact from that particular PR - who may represent many interests. Imagine being a motoring journalist and pissing off the VAG group PR - that's going to impact somewhat on your ability to do your job.They also have very poor memories (inexcusable when a simple google search will fill in the gaps) and allow the most glaring errors to get through. So all in all most are undeserving of the name (though deserving of many others - mainly four letter ones) .
As to dropping standards, well, as mentioned above, it's a tight old time in print media, and jobs have been cut to the quick. First casualties are sub editors, and without them, mistakes will get through.
TTwiggy - journalist (Sports and TV) and not a
.TTwiggy said:
Pressure from PRs means that deviation from the official press release can result in no more contact from that particular PR - who may represent many interests. Imagine being a motoring journalist and pissing off the VAG group PR - that's going to impact somewhat on your ability to do your job.
As to dropping standards, well, as mentioned above, it's a tight old time in print media, and jobs have been cut to the quick. First casualties are sub editors, and without them, mistakes will get through.
TTwiggy - journalist (Sports and TV) and not a.
I did say most and not all As to dropping standards, well, as mentioned above, it's a tight old time in print media, and jobs have been cut to the quick. First casualties are sub editors, and without them, mistakes will get through.
TTwiggy - journalist (Sports and TV) and not a
.
Didn't hurt Jeremy Clackson when he pissed off GM - surely more damaging to a reputation to be seen as merely a press release stooge?
Jinx said:
TTwiggy said:
Pressure from PRs means that deviation from the official press release can result in no more contact from that particular PR - who may represent many interests. Imagine being a motoring journalist and pissing off the VAG group PR - that's going to impact somewhat on your ability to do your job.
As to dropping standards, well, as mentioned above, it's a tight old time in print media, and jobs have been cut to the quick. First casualties are sub editors, and without them, mistakes will get through.
TTwiggy - journalist (Sports and TV) and not a.
I did say most and not all As to dropping standards, well, as mentioned above, it's a tight old time in print media, and jobs have been cut to the quick. First casualties are sub editors, and without them, mistakes will get through.
TTwiggy - journalist (Sports and TV) and not a
.Didn't hurt Jeremy Clackson when he pissed off GM - surely more damaging to a reputation to be seen as merely a press release stooge?
It's a very difficult line to tread for many of us. I've been in TV journalism for well over a decade, and sports for almost seven years. Sky TV are my biggest single contact in terms of programme information and access to sports people for interview. I'm lucky to have a good relationship with senior PRs at Sky, and can take a few liberties that others maybe can't. Junior journalists, on low pay and trying to establish a contact book, will be very wary of annoying the PRs, as their career could be over before it even starts.
Jinx said:
Are there any real journalists left? Pretty much all I see in MSM is regurgitated press releases without any investigation (they don't even ask any proper questions anymore - just feeder lines) .
They also have very poor memories (inexcusable when a simple google search will fill in the gaps) and allow the most glaring errors to get through. So all in all most are undeserving of the name (though deserving of many others - mainly four letter ones) .
The best journalism you can find these days - and this has been the case for years - can be found in the section of Private Eye before you get to the satire and cartoons. They have no agenda other than exposing the truth. Any politician of any party is fair game, any crooked company, bent copper, hypocritical public figure or rival publication will get reported on, often in unflinching detail, often by journailsts working under pseudonyms to avoid cutting themselves off from more mainstream work.They also have very poor memories (inexcusable when a simple google search will fill in the gaps) and allow the most glaring errors to get through. So all in all most are undeserving of the name (though deserving of many others - mainly four letter ones) .
And they really do suffer for their art. One of the biggest legal liabilities in the business, cover price often adjusted to pay for court costs, and all because most of their targets don't want to be shown up as the s
ts they are.Don't believe me? Google 'Trafigura injunction' and see what comes up. Most people think injunctions are all about footballers having affairs. The majority are taken out by companies trying to bury bad news. In that case Private Eye and the Guardian exposed some very bad news (toxic waste getting dumped into the sea), got hit by the full force of the legal system, and still managed to get the story into the public domain.
The fact that Private Eye can do all this while also making you laugh out loud makes them worth every penny.
So far as news reportage goes, you can generally split it into 'tabloid' and 'broadsheet'. Generally speaking, all the criticism on this thread seems to be aimed at tabloid reporters. Broadsheet newspapers, generally speaking, do 'proper' news and also have a sideline in exposing bad tabloid tactics, but no-one seems to notice this.
I do wonder how ill-informed people realise they'd be if it wasn't for the journalists they aren't complaining about. And as for these people who say 'well I'd just get my news off the internet' - well who do you think provides the information on the internet you can actually trust? As opposed to disguised PR, heavily-biased sources presenting one-sided information as neutral (often backed by a political party or organisation), and someone basically churning out observations who may think they're the next Peyps but lace their blogs with hyperactive text-speak and never interview anyone of note.
There are a lot of tar-laden brushes being swung around this thread. Makes me wonder what would happen if someone decided to have a go at 'bankers' without being specific and splitting it down so it neatly avoids honest, industry-promoting investors while more acurately targeting morally bankrupt derivatives traders. I have a feeling the resulting posts would be somewhat different.
Twincam16 said:
The best journalism you can find these days - and this has been the case for years - can be found in the section of Private Eye before you get to the satire and cartoons.
A second endorsement for the Eye. It is just as well that there are jokes because HP Sauce, Street of Shame and Rotten Boroughs would make you die of despair otherwise. To be fair to the Guardian in the Trafigura affair, they were the leaders. But the Eye has lots of other strings to its bow.There are those who advocate central purchasing for police equipment. One only has to read the Eye with regards to the NHS computer software (amongst so many other examples) to see what a bad idea this would be.
Thankfully the courts are only too aware of the need for a free press and only step in to curb the Eye when its excesses are a danger to public health or, it often seems to me, when someone or some company that is rich, famous, both or merely in the same club have problems with what is published.
It won't be long before Hislop (that well-known leftie according to a number of PH posters) is imprisoned for, in essence, exercising a right and protecting the interests of the public.
As you say, journalists take risks to support the Eye with both information and copy. The Eye should be compulsory reading for anyone who thinks this country has got it about right.
The Eye can be cruel, selfish, thoughtless and in fact just plain wrong but less so than most other newspapers. It is the only one that takes a stance that is, as far as possible, non-party political. The only downside is that despite the scandals being revealed week after week (or at least fortnight), the corruption this country suffers under in all aspects of the institutions still continue.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff