[News] Journalism Today

[Ninja Elephant]

The lack of genuine reporting is how we ended up with the completely fake and deliberately drawn out "outrage" about Shamima Begum. It is the lowest point for genuine journalism so far as I'm concerned - it was so poor, it barely constituted being referred to as journalism.

 

[GT49er]

Is it just me or is the standard of journalism today not quite what it once was?

Take this story from the website of my local rag: https://www.devonlive.com/news/local-news/rnli-launch-major-operation-save-3205305

Read it carefully from start to finish, and read the comments. And then tell me how, in a world with infinitely greater access to instant news and gossip, this is a great (!) example of the way news today shapes our opinions and the opinions of society as a whole. When trusting what we're fed by the media leads to polarised debate and untruths painted as fact.

I don't normally partake in hashtags, but... #fakenews.

#fakenews.


Out of interest, which bit (or bits) of the story do you know to be untrue?

 

[vegster]

The article is fairly standard " Shock/horror " journalism, nothing to see here.

 

[ac gull]

"what we know so far" banner headlines re breaking local news stories on local rag websites normally consist of …

.... we know nothing …

 

[Wrong-Direction]

The sheep need something to read..

Sent from my SM-A600FN using Tapatalk

 

[Cheshire Cat]

#fakenews.


Out of interest, which bit (or bits) of the story do you know to be untrue?

All of it.

 

[portlock seagull]

You gets what you pays for. Most people aren’t prepared.

 

[GT49er]

All of it.

Really?


Hmm .... you were there when this incident was supposed to have happened, and you saw with your own eyes that it didn't?
Okey dokey, whatever .....................................

 

[Dick Head]

I think it's best to take everything you read with a pinch of salt – in any media form. That story reads a bit like an RNLI press release warning people about the dangers of inflatables at sea and somehow the historical angle of the anecdote got missed. You're right – the standard of journalism for this kind of story is nowhere near what it was. However, where things have improved is the ability to go indepth into a story or subject and have access to all sorts of resources that might not have been available before...

On a slightly related matter, the media – social and traditional – seem to be doing a fine job in stirring up hatred and anger between different 'sides' of an argument. Even more so than before. In a political argument, people aren't content with going after the actual politicians, they are now spewing their hate at presenters covering the story, people commenting about it online or in newspapers and the various media outlets that are covering it!

It's quite an eye-opener and really quite sad. It's a clear indication of how divided the country is as well as how people have so much anger and strong opinions about things that don't really matter. It's rare that I'll read a thread on Twitter, Facebook or even NSC, where there isn't some kind of sniping going on or personal insults flying around! When you take a step back and think about it, it's actually bonkers!

You lost, get over it.

 

[Buffalo Seagull]

Really?


Hmm .... you were there when this incident was supposed to have happened, and you saw with your own eyes that it didn't?
Okey dokey, whatever .....................................

I’m assuming you didn’t read the clarification at the end of the news article?

 

[neilbard]

"Journalism Today"

 

[Greg Bobkin]

You lost, get over it.

 

[Greg Bobkin]

There are many factors at play here. I've been a journalist for, gulp, 34 years and have seen many changes and not many have been good for the industry.

The most important of all is the shedding of staff; many newspapers and magazines are operating on about half the staff that they used to have (maybe even more). There's also less time to gather news - an impact from the demands of rolling news, a journalist could have spent half the day in the pub talking to sources, there's far less of that these days. This means that more copy is produced from press releases - there's been a massive growth in the number of PR employees. And, as subs have been sacked, there are more mistakes in copy.

On top of that, there's the demands of clickbait headlines; when I last worked in publishing our company had a social media specialists and journalists produced copy to match search terms: the social media tail was wagging the journalism dog. Again, that meant decent stories fell by the wayside.

Finally, there's the aggregation of news rooms and growth of agencies. Papers and magazines still have pages (or websites) to fill and they increasingly get them from agencies - which is why you see so many identical stories appearing in different publications.

I work as a freelancer now but I hardly do any 'journalism'. I write for PR companies and big corporates tidying up their words. It's not so much fun, but it's more lucrative and, sadly, that's the way the world is going.

Just the 19 years for me, but I agree with all of that. I still enjoy the writing that I do, but contract publishing and content for PRs is much easier and pays better...

 

[Billy the Fish]

https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/9532818/savvy-pippa-handle-meghan-markle-feud-kate-middleton/amp

I clicked on this clickbait the other week as I'm quite interested in the current media campaign against Meghan Markle.

The quality of the writing is awful, there's a whole paragraph that makes no sense at all and the made up quotes from an "insider" are written like they're part of a novel - nobody talks like that!

I googled the writer and it's basically a celebrity obsessed girl who looks like she's just finished uni.

 

[Seagull]

One thing I think should be struck out of all TV or Radio news is the regurgitation of future planned events involving politicians.
E.g. "this afternoon the home secretary will tell business leaders". That is not news it's PR. & it's vacuous bollocks.
They should only be allowed to broadcast what actually happened.
E.g. "business leaders today threw eggs at the home secretary after she spouted a whole load of empty promises designed only to influence public opinion and which will be forgotten by next Tuesday"

 

[Greg Bobkin]

https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/9532818/savvy-pippa-handle-meghan-markle-feud-kate-middleton/amp

I clicked on this clickbait the other week as I'm quite interested in the current media campaign against Meghan Markle.

The quality of the writing is awful, there's a whole paragraph that makes no sense at all and the made up quotes from an "insider" are written like they're part of a novel - nobody talks like that!

I googled the writer and it's basically a celebrity obsessed girl who looks like she's just finished uni.

I'm not clicking on it, but is that the story with Megan posing with a copy of a magazine that has Kate on the cover? Pathetic non-story. Like you, I'm fascinated by the anti-Megan stuff. The some of the DM comments on that article made for thoroughly depressing reading...

 

[Billy the Fish]

I'm not clicking on it, but is that the story with Megan posing with a copy of a magazine that has Kate on the cover? Pathetic non-story. Like you, I'm fascinated by the anti-Megan stuff. The some of the DM comments on that article made for thoroughly depressing reading...

No it was about their visit to Wimbledon, implying that Pippa would stick up for her sister rather than be friends with Meghan. Obviously it's made up nonsense, but also the writing is atrocious!

I know what you mean about not clicking on it, they've basically won if you do it.

 

[Greg Bobkin]

No it was about their visit to Wimbledon, implying that Pippa would stick up for her sister rather than be friends with Meghan. Obviously it's made up nonsense, but also the writing is atrocious!

I know what you mean about not clicking on it, they've basically won if you do it.

Ah right. There's obviously a lot of stories about here around at the moment. As well as the one I mentioned, I just saw something on Twatter where the front page was having a go at her and Harry about taking a private jet somewhere, but inside there were details of a competition where you could go to the Amsterdam marathon with Chris Evans, travelling by, yes, a private jet

Absolute clowns. And yes, I don't click on The Arsegas pages for the same reasons – the cover of the paper on the Monday after the Shoreham Air Crash was unforgivable, so that's my little stand against the publication!

 

[Falmer Flutter ©]

Just the 19 years for me, but I agree with all of that. I still enjoy the writing that I do, but contract publishing and content for PRs is much easier and pays better...

I'm on 23 years, but past four have been editing research and a quarterly client magazine for an investment bank. Have previously worked across newspapers, B2B and contract publishing, and the pay here is much, much better than I would ever get doing similar work. One of my good friends is a news editor for a large regional newspaper and some of the click-bait shite he promotes on Twitter must be soul destroying.

 

[brightn'ove]

I imagine the talent pool for ‘Devon live’ is not that large.