Journalism. What is wrong?

[agricola]

Top of the head:

1. Time factors: news cycles are driven by the internet and 24-hour broadcasting. This leads to sloppy fact checking. Where once you had to provide two independent sources for a 'fact' to gain approval from an editor, there isn't time. So now you see news outlets being quoted as a source: "XYZ is reporting it. So let's run the story: 'Source XYZ is running a story that...' "

2. Ruthless cutting of overheads, including those most would consider part of the direct costs of the product. Subbies were once experienced hacks who tidied up, sharpened, clicked into the house style. Recently they've been viewed as middle management, and therefore shot on sight.

3. It is widely accepted that, since social media and online information made writing democratic, online news can get away with poor spelling and grammar, so why waste time and money, etc. Yes, it's patronising, but true. Editors are adopting the stance that readers care less about those things, even if they spot the mistakes.

4. Training. Pahahahahah. Next.

5. The newsprint business model no longer works. It's been superseded by both broadcast and online news. Broadcast news, in terms of quality, is following print journalism.

6. User-generated content. Both PR releases and witness accounts are fast-tracked into production. Press releases were once filler items to hit your word-count. Shortage of time and staff means publications take the line of least resistance. It used to be called 'content-free journalism'.

This, though I would also add a general reluctance to take powerful persons or organizations on (at best, often it seems more like collusion with the same) - the amount of really quite outrageous stuff that is being accurately reported in the Eye, and which is demonstrably newsworthy, that doesn't make it in any of the rest of the Press has long since gone beyond a joke.

 

[Pickman's model]

We the consumer are to blame. When given a choice of quality information or tatty sensastionalism guess which we buy?

We want shit so thats what they feed us.

Its why I stopped buying newspapers.

and now you only get the free ones

 

[pogofish]

Training and experience could well be a factor - In the last few years I've been seeing journalists joining newspapers straight from Uni and going to "senior reporter" status within three years, whilst editors have been getting younger faster than those proverbial policemen. Under the old press regimes it would not be unusual to see a junior/trainee spend 3-5 years in that role before even being allowed to submit a story directly, then a similarly slow progression up the ranks as a fully-fledged journalist.

 

[treelover]

The media has been sensationalist in some of its reporting of the refugee crisis, one key example, was the description of 'crowds' at Munich station to greet the people arriving from Hungary, when in reality it was a few dozen, however I don't think media lens, etc, will be challenging that, poor reporting is just that, whether its for the public good or not..

 

[nino_savatte]

Here's a good one. This Daily Abscess article claims a group of "anarchist squatters" has occupied Admiralty Arch, which they claim "faces" Buckingham Palace. It even manages a typo. Bless.

The group's banners read: 'Respect existence or expect resistance', 'Homes for All' and 'Better Squat that Let Homes Rot.
Squatters occupy building near Buckingham Palace to 'stick two fingers up to Queen'

 

[Gromit]

Here's a good one. This Daily Abscess article claims a group of "anarchist squatters" has occupied Admiralty Arch, which they claim "faces" Buckingham Palace. It even manages a typo. Bless.

That website is amazing!!!! There is an article about a woman who was being held up by her friends for a wedding photo and they dropped her and she was totally unhurt. I can't believe people haven't been stopping me in the street to tell me about this important incident. I was really lucky to have have followed that link or I'd have never have known!!

Oh and the hard hitting political story: Pregnant woman wants seat on train and the person who has her reserved seat refused to give it up.

Also a story about a french girl who released a video begging people to track someone who knocked her up on her last night of holiday. They obviously fact checked despite the fact it didn't seem at all suspect.

Seperate story: Above video is fake. But no withdrawal or update of the original article.

 

[J Ed]

Barely any jobs left and the few that are left go to people with connections rather than talent.

 

[ViolentPanda]

It seems to be such a poor profession when it comes to standards and quality. Why is this?

Journalists should at least leave university with skills in writing, statistics, free thought, logic, history etc.

Or do they write good stuff and then get dummed down by sub editors, editors, paper owners? The profession is an embarrassment as things stand IMHO. How many journalists are really pushing buttons, exposing issues, explaining complicated situations eloquently? Not many I reckon.

When I was a trainee sub on a national (1980s), every paper (big or small) had sub-eds. Most papers don't, nowadays. They have spell-checking software and interns, and howlers-aplenty get printed because of it.

The biggest part of the current crisis of journalism is the "professionalisation" of it into an academic subject. You used to "learn by doing", then being corrected when necessary, and even as a "cub" there was very much an emphasis on apprentice journos learning to write about different subjects, as well as learning to "write to order" - that is, if you get a commission from the Eastern Daily Press to write about the state of flood defences in East Anglia, you'd read several issues to get a feel for the "house style" of the paper - and to divorce your personal opinions from what you write (as necessary - some types of article require personal opinions to drive them, obviously!).

 

[ViolentPanda]

yes - subbing has been outsourced to centralised subbing hubs, where people have no idea about the specific local communities that reports pertain to. So they fuck it up.

When it's been outsourced at all.

 

[MochaSoul]

People with agendas, personal or otherwise. This one made me shudder first thing this morning:
Hungarian camerawoman fired after intentionally kicking, tripping refugees

 

[Dogsauce]

My biggest pet hate of shit local news sites is the trawling of Facebook and Twitter when someone dies. The Yorkshire Evening post will always run an article with a fairly generic title like 'Tributes to tragic crash dad' and then regurgitate what people have posted with a short introductory sentence. It's voyeurism rather than news, and I hope the poor intern who pens it for them feels dirty for it.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

Every journalist I ever speak to them I ask if they read Flat Earth News. A surprising amount don't even know who Nick Davies is.

They may get trained in how to source a story, edit etc. but I've generally been unimpressed by their knowledge of what is going on in the world.

 

[Rob Ray]

About three decades ago the coagulation of newspapers reached the point where big regional owners (Trinity Mirror, DMGT, Archant, Newsquest, Johnston, Newscorp) had largely bought out everything readily available, and a cycle of profit-making cuts began. Subs and senior staff went first and over the next two decades the expectation grew for (mostly cub) reporters to put out three times as much copy in the same time, in the mistaken belief that people wouldn't notice as long as the page count stayed the same. Quality dipped, sales dropped, so further cuts were made, kicking off a vicious circle which has led to mass layoffs and closures, all blamed on the public rather than the bosses whose short-termism has done most of the damage.

Culturally, the industry has insisted on "professionalising," meaning that as the job becomes high prestige and low numbers, bosses have been able to hold out for the sorts of people they think are worth it - ie. people like them. As a result, what was a job you could work your way into through talent and guts is now a job you have to get into via an NCTJ, unpaid internship, poorly-paid or barely-paid NVQ and the sorts of connections and social background that lock out working class kids in favour of middle class worthies. And unlike in most white-collar jobs, that actually matters in the job itself because if your background is a lifetime of Mumford and Sons then generally you're going to be angling for something nice and fluffy rather than rocking boats and doing death knocks.

Technology also plays a part of course, but it's not as big as the media moguls would like to suggest - most of the damage was done by losing car and homes advertising to searchable websites, rather than via stolen sales. The reality is that regional newspapers have, for the most part, a monopoly on their patches, as "the internet" doesn't create content, it mostly just copies and spreads it. Certainly with the dailies I worked for before the Star their only real competition was the BBC (and frankly any news organisation with a bit of moxy could outmanouver the Beeb's under-resourced regional radio/TV shows).

It's a bit different in the nationals of course, but regionally the fact is that they threw away huge advantages by letting go of their main "fourth estate" function - the one people bought them for - and replacing it with utterly worthless junk from corporate PR departments, police crime desks, unchallenged council circulars etc. That's why no-one bothers to buy regional papers, not because there's a better alternative, but because they have nothing worthwhile to say.

 

[Shechemite]

Not really a comment on the state of modern journalism, but does anyone know the routes to, and chances of, getting into journalism. I'm thinking specifically as a 30-year old recovering mental patient, with no degree (although just over half way through a history ba, and with a cert. HE because of that) and very little to put on a CV. Had a chat with social worker the other day, he was positive (if you want to do something do it, still young, there's always a way etc) but it does seem fanciful that a could do, well anything, in terms of successful career. Was also speaking to someone last week who works in the industry (use to work for Al Jazeera, now freelance). I talked about (possibly bored her with) how I was interested in journalism centred around health care and social affairs, even reading fairly obscure titles like Community Care and Pulse, and also how I felt that what I had witnessed in my own care was newsworthy in itself (being so appalling, and being that i had videos/photographs etc), and how it seemed a microcosm of wider issues. She was also positive (if you have a area of interest, and an insight that others may not, then thats a good place to start).

Can anyone suggest courses/jobs/voluntary work etc that help here? Or maybe a careers advice thing? Is this a career you can't really begin at this stage in life?

 

[N_igma]

I think we need to first look at who owns the media outlets, then look at the editors of those outlets and then look at the journalists who write for said outlets. In 2003 Rupert Murdoch owned 287 outlets worldwide and every single one of them promoted the Iraq War. You might call that a coincidence in independent journalism or just all out propoganda as a result of one man's agenda. I'll leave it with you.

 

[toggle]

I think we need to first look at who owns the media outlets, then look at the editors of those outlets and then look at the journalists who write for said outlets. In 2003 Rupert Murdoch owned 287 outlets worldwide and every single one of them promoted the Iraq War. You might call that a coincidence in independent journalism or just all out propoganda as a result of one man's agenda. I'll leave it with you.

the only real difference there is the scale. papers have always spread the opinions of their owners.

 

[N_igma]

the only real difference there is the scale. papers have always spread the opinions of their owners.

So you agree journalists have no true independent output? It has to pass someone. That 'someone' is at the behest of the owner. That owner has to maintain power by telling people what to read.

 

[toggle]

So you agree journalists have no true independent output? It has to pass someone. That 'someone' is at the behest of the owner. That owner has to maintain power by telling people what to read.

other than the token 'dissenting opinions' so they can carry a fascade of independence.

 

[Greebo]

Not really a comment on the state of modern journalism, but does anyone know the routes to, and chances of, getting into journalism. I'm thinking specifically as a 30-year old recovering mental patient, with no degree (although just over half way through a history ba, and with a cert. HE because of that) and very little to put on a CV. <snip>

Forget it unless you can afford to work for free*.

Even then, forget it, unless you want to do it more than anything else in your life.

*For at least a few years. You can expect to have to cover your own fares etc as well.

 

[killer b]

I read an article this morning saying the number of journalists in the UK had dropped by 6,000 in the last two years, while the number of PRs had risen by 18,000.

 

[malatesta32]

there is a major difference in quality (and payment received) between local press - reporters, who report incidents and accidents - national journalists who offer 'insight' and context for today's stories, columnists who offer their opinion from afar (ie., littlejohn, burchill) and then there is (eeek!) lifestyle commentators at the weekend who talk about how tomatoes are much better in aldi than in tesco. there is also a much more interesting alternative with online blogs (there is a particularly good one here: Malatesta's Blog
and blogs like yannis varoufakis's one where you got the story from the person in the middle of the maelstrom which was excellent. of course, bloggers are biased (however well written) but as martha gellhorn said, fuck that objectivity shit (or was that mary berry?)

 

[nino_savatte]

and blogs like yannis varoufakis's one where you got the story from the person in the middle of the maelstrom which was excellent. of course, bloggers are biased (however well written) but as martha gellhorn said, fuck that objectivity shit (or was that mary berry?)

Hunter S Thompson was sceptical about objectivity too.

“So much for Objective Journalism. Don't bother to look for it here--not under any byline of mine; or anyone else I can think of. With the possible exception of things like box scores, race results, and stock market tabulations, there is no such thing as Objective Journalism. The phrase itself is a pompous contradiction in terms.”

A quote from Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72

Fear and Loathing in Modern Media: Hunter S. Thompson on Journalism, Politics, and the Subjective

 

[Rob Ray]

I'm sceptical of the role of blogging in producing major scoops tbh. Don't get me wrong, some bloggers are excellent and scrupulous with their research, but most are just trash, no better than opinion columnists in terms of the information they offer. And in terms of outright investigative research it's a bit of a wasteland - months-long probes into bad people with a long reach needs a way to pay for itself or it just doesn't happen outside of a few obsessives with time and money to burn.

 

[malatesta32]

gonzo by some folks' definition is subjective and reports the condition of the writer and the fact of being there as well as what is happening, ie Fear & Loathing on the Campaign Trail.

 

[Supine]

Since I started this thread Journalism has taken a massive step downwards in my asteem. I didn't think that would be possible.

If anything #piggate has shown that social media is the new journalism. And the BBC are beyond useless.

 

[brogdale]

Since I started this thread Journalism has taken a massive step downwards in my asteem. I didn't think that would be possible.

If anything #piggate has shown that social media is the new journalism. And the BBC are beyond useless.

I think that state broadcasters have always had their uses tbh.

 

[Flanflinger]

Since I started this thread Journalism has taken a massive step downwards in my asteem. I didn't think that would be possible.

If anything #piggate has shown that social media is the new journalism. And the BBC are beyond useless.

And if Sky had their way we would be treated to the spectacle of Cameron actually shagging a pig live.

 

[agricola]

Since I started this thread Journalism has taken a massive step downwards in my asteem. I didn't think that would be possible.

If anything #piggate has shown that social media is the new journalism. And the BBC are beyond useless.

Not sure that makes the most sense, tbh - the story was broken by a traditional hack using traditional methods and in a traditional format, and all social media has done is laugh about it.

 

[Supine]

Not sure that makes the most sense, tbh - the story was broken by a traditional hack using traditional methods and in a traditional format, and all social media has done is laugh about it.

I was more thinking about the whole jezza c reaction tbh although I didn't express that clearly.

I only know about the pig thing due to u75 and twitter though.

 

[Gromit]

Since I started this thread Journalism has taken a massive step downwards in my asteem. I didn't think that would be possible.

If anything #piggate has shown that social media is the new journalism. And the BBC are beyond useless.

Y'know that TV show The News Room. Where a pretend Network News show has intergrity and fact checks everything to hell and back before they would even dare put it out as News. Complete fiction.

But if we were to imagine how they would treat PigGate...

Some guy who is trying to sell a book has writen that he heard rumours that a prominent figure did something back in university.

Ignore it an lets talk about actual politics please like austerity.