PDA

View Full Version : Remember "journalism"?



Leo
12-03-2013, 01:39 AM
How An Austrian Blogger's Report That Paul Krugman Filed For Bankruptcy Ended Up On Boston.com
Web News Experts: Bogus Krugman Story Shows Dangers of "Mechanical Aggregation"

edit: http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/03/11/how-an-austrian-bloggers-report-that-paul-krugm/193006

everyone all the way along the line passes the buck and says "hey, don't blame us, we got it from those other guys" (everyone except for brietbart, of course, which would probably run any liberal-bashing story, true or not).

politics aside, this a scary path for journalism overall, when news aggregators and content developers can almost instantly get a story on hundreds of "news" sites without any editorial screening, never mind actual fact checking.

craner
12-03-2013, 10:53 AM
I remember journalism. I remember big fuck-off broadsheets and thick, glossy, dynamic, ambitious magazines.

i.

I still retain a copy of the (London) Times published on 12th September 2001, and when I go back and look at it now the things that surprise me are 1) the size of it (and remembering how difficult it seemed to be to physically cope with a broadsheet when just a child, which is why it was something only adults did or could do); 2) the amount of closely-packed words, a beautiful, dense, heavy, inky word-count; 3) the volume of stuff worth reading, not simply for historical value.

ii

I was flicking through a copy of Vogue, April 1988 Edition, then edited by Elizabeth Tilberis after Wintour had sacked everybody Beatrix Miller hired and then flounced off to America. And among all of the other great things in it I was astonished to discover a tightly-written, deeply-researched, clinically polemical eviseration of the Thatcher administration attack on the NHS (the name of the writer escapes me now, unfortunately). It was not only good (and would struggle to survive uncut even in the Guardian these days); it was unexpected. And that is another thing that we've lost: amazing things in unexpected places. Like, for example, i-D sheltering Kodwo Eshun and Steve Beard for some slender years.

April, '88 Edition:

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_maghiuQAA61r3e5muo1_500.jpg

iii

The Times has a point. Free online content and commentary is murdering journalism. Papers cannot afford to pay photographers or foregn correspondants adequately. If you value journalism as a craft and an art however corrupt and immoral it is (and I very much do) you should be pro-Times Paywall.

iv

Who are the editors with any vision or at least guts still in the game? Anna Wintour, Terry Jones, Daniel Johnson, Tina Brown...

Leo
12-03-2013, 12:35 PM
well said, craner. i sometimes feel old when i think the same things, but then have to stop myself.

can't believe i forgot to include the link to the krugman article:
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/03/11/how-an-austrian-bloggers-report-that-paul-krugm/193006

jorge
12-03-2013, 04:14 PM
I think the 24 hour news channels are a terrible development aswell. There is no need for everyone to know what is happening all the time. Not only is time filled with endless repetition and mundane chat but in the rush to get stories onto the screen before anyone else, fact checking often goes out of the window.

Its all so superficial that I wonder if theres much point to it at all, do we really learn anything about the things we see on the news or do they just become a sanitised and fleeting spectacle of the things happening in the world?

I think the journalism industry needs to recognise the effect that their reporting can have and not keep up the damaging facade of being outside observers only saying what they see. Theres no recognition of the power or influence of the news media within the media itself (which may be obvious but it is still a huge flaw)

Magazines like private eye are invaluable for their criticism of the news media, but I dont know what can really be done to improve things.

craner
24-10-2013, 08:10 PM
I remember journalism. I remember when the Indepenent on Sunday employed arts critics.

IdleRich
25-10-2013, 12:42 PM
So Independent fired all their music critics and then got the tea boy (actually an editor) to write an article about reggae - cue much hilarity.

crackerjack
26-10-2013, 10:26 AM
So Independent fired all their music critics and then got the tea boy (actually an editor) to write an article about reggae - cue much hilarity.

Although the sad part is that article was so widely mocked it would've got a lot more 'eyeballs' than any art critic writing for the IoS.

Leo
10-08-2016, 11:59 PM
true?

Britain’s Paper Tigers
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/11/opinion/britains-paper-tigers.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-right-region&region=opinion-c-col-right-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-right-region&_r=0

Corpsey
11-08-2016, 12:49 PM
true?

Britain’s Paper Tigers
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/11/opinion/britains-paper-tigers.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-right-region&region=opinion-c-col-right-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-right-region&_r=0

I can't read this cos I've read all my NT Times articles for the month.

Ironicallly, as I was about to argue that papers should bring in paywalls. As much as I like being able to read whatever I like for free, it's obviously slowly strangling the publications concerned.

Ad Blocker has made advertising revenue shrink like an arctic explorer's ballbag, so there's really very little other options.

firefinga
11-08-2016, 01:22 PM
I can't read this cos I've read all my NT Times articles for the month.

Ironicallly, as I was about to argue that papers should bring in paywalls. As much as I like being able to read whatever I like for free, it's obviously slowly strangling the publications concerned.

Ad Blocker has made advertising revenue shrink like an arctic explorer's ballbag, so there's really very little other options.

Britain’s Paper Tigers

By STIG ABELLAUG. 10, 2016
Continue reading the main story
Share This Page

Share
Tweet
Email
More
Save

Photo
Hot off the press along Fleet Street, London, in May, 1940, delivering news of the growing German occupation in France. Credit Associated Press

LONDON — Last week, two reporters for a small Scottish newspaper left Fleet Street for good. Their departure means that the London home of Britain’s unseemly press since 1702 now no longer houses any newspaper offices at all. A neighborhood once dominated by printers and reporters, all working and (more often) drinking within half a mile of one another, has become the haunt of lawyers, insurers and other soulless creatures.

Britain’s decision to leave the European Union was, from one angle, a final, Pyrrhic victory for British print journalism. Its fiercely partisan, predominantly right-wing newspapers had come out in support of Brexit. This was only to be expected: The mood of the country, outside of its cosmopolitan capital and Europhile Scotland, was stridently anti-immigration and pro-nationalism. Newspapers were both feeding and responding to that phenomenon.

The British statesman Stanley Baldwin, who as prime minister battled with The Daily Mail in the 1930s, once said that “what the proprietorship of these papers is aiming at is power, and power without responsibility — the prerogative of the harlot through the ages.” The harlotry of Fleet Street, in the summer of 2016, had spread to the politicians themselves.

Two of the most prominent Brexit politicians were themselves journalists: Michael Gove, a halibut-faced former columnist at The Times; and Boris Johnson, an antic columnist for The Telegraph who is now baffling the world as foreign secretary. Mr. Johnson’s first major pronouncement as victor came, indeed, in the first column he wrote after the referendum.

Mr. Gove’s wife, Sarah Vine, is also a journalist, a Lady Macbeth of middlebrow letters. As she wrote in her own column in The Daily Mail, the largest midmarket paper, “Given Michael’s high-profile role in the Leave campaign, that means he — we — are now charged with implementing the instructions of 17 million people.” That elision between “he” and “we” — borderline sociopathic, really — was a microcosm of how Brexit had been pursued, journalism and politics incestuously entwined.

Brexit appeared to demonstrate that Britain’s newspapers could still represent, and influence, the national temper. So the press itself seemed to believe. But does the harlot really retain such power?

The Sun, where I once worked, has supported the winning party in every election since 1979. When the Conservatives won an unexpected, Sun-backed victory in 1992, its headline crowed, “It’s The Sun Wot Won It.” Probably not entirely true then; almost certainly not true now. Today, the paper sells around 1.7 million copies a day, down from four million in its heyday.

Britain, with a population of about 65 million, still has an astonishing 10 daily national newspapers, although it lost one recently: The Independent, which had become an unread signal of virtue, ceased to print in March. By any metric, newspapers matter less now than they did. The advent of 24-hour TV news and the internet has deprived them of their original purpose, being people’s first source of information. Most are suffering steep declines in circulation, at a rate of about 7 percent a year. Newspaper advertising revenue has collapsed, losing £155 million, or about $200 million, in 2014, a year in which advertising spending grew as a whole. And, Pyrrhic indeed, Brexit is expected to lead to a further $260 million reduction in media buying next year.
Continue reading the main story
Recent Comments
PS 4 hours ago

I am saddened indeed to hear that news in print is soon to be no more - hopefully not anytime soon for there is nothing in life quite as...
Wallinger 4 hours ago

British newspapers are opinionated but they offer a range of views. They are also fun to read. The Times is conservative but more centrist...
Cheekos 4 hours ago

There must be a reason why the NY Times had been valued, several years ago, at five-to-six times that of the Washington Post. And yet, Jeff...

See All Comments Write a comment

Advertisement
Continue reading the main story

The result is that many newspapers have become living relics, pale and attenuated, struggling to be significant. The Daily Mirror, a left-leaning tabloid, was once a prominent socialist voice, selling more than three million copies. Circulation is now well below one million, heralding a downward spiral of staff cuts, reliance on news-agency copy and articles siphoned from social media, and an enfeebled voice. The Daily Express, once a serious paper, is no more than an incontinent shriek of made-up facts about health and immigration.

Digitally, many free newspaper sites have become click-hungry attics of tat. They have to be. Newspapers do not fit the internet age in part because the web cannibalizes their content so ruthlessly. The popular press provides humor, one-fact stories, pictures with captions, scabrous tales and gossip. So does everything else online.

Aiming to be upscale brings no safety. The Guardian was once heralded, not least by itself, as a paragon of successful, intelligent journalism. A pioneer of free online news, it is exporting its brand at great cost to new markets like America and Australia. This year, The Guardian will lose more than $88 million. Its messianic former editor, Alan Rusbridger, has been unceremoniously booted from his proposed emeritus role — a sort of guardian of The Guardian — as the head of the trust that bankrolls the paper. The business is in tatters.

The future of British journalism, with its proud history of mischief-making and scurrility, is questionable then, with few and limited bright spots. The audience for print seems to be lasting longer than some digital evangelists once predicted.

The Daily Mail is focusing its marketing efforts on the over 65s, hoping to make a life preserver out of the rising life expectancy of its majority female readership — a following largely inspired by its deliberate, offhand meanness, specializing in articles written by women for women who hate women. The Sun can still call an election correctly, can still elicit outrage and comment. The Mirror, The Sun and The Mail hope to turn their vast online audiences into a profitable business model.

And there is a gradual resurgence of a willingness to pay for quality. The Times and The Sunday Times, paywalled and protected, have become profitable perhaps for the first time in history. Paywalls — once seen as an embodiment of Luddism in the giddy world of the free internet — now seem essential to the survival of professional writing.

Yet there has never been a more hostile environment to journalism than exists today, and not only in economic terms. The democratizing effect of social media, a potentially healthful development, has also given rise to a cynicism directed toward the mainstream media. This is all part of a new angriness in politics.

In Britain, the hard left assumed control of the Labour Party last year after the election of its new leader, Jeremy Corbyn, who looks like a dufferish old uncle but is followed by a cult of rageful acolytes. They despise the “MSM,” The Guardian and The Daily Mail alike, howling their disgust into the void of social media. (I once made a joke about Mr. Corbyn and was told on Twitter that I should “die of the bad AIDS.”)

In my time in newspapers, I have seen chaos and confusion, certainly, but no evidence of cat-stroking conspiracy, of evil attempts to manipulate things. And I have seen the continuing fight for relevance. As Oscar Wilde said, “There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about.” British newspapers still want to be talked about. That is why they shout so much.

The competition for that conversation gets harder every day.

Stig Abell is the editor of The Times Literary Supplement and a former managing editor of The Sun newspaper.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter, and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter.

Mr. Tea
11-08-2016, 01:28 PM
Anyone else see this devastating takedown (https://www.buzzfeed.com/marieleconte/the-rise-of-the-canary) of the modern lefty's go-to e-paper for news, goss and conspiracy theories about "Blairites", The Canary, focusing particularly on their ultra-mercenary, clickbait-driven business model?

Oh yeah, and did I mention it's in BuzzFeed?

rubberdingyrapids
11-08-2016, 05:01 PM
Paywalls — once seen as an embodiment of Luddism in the giddy world of the free internet — now seem essential to the survival of professional writing.


the guardian needs to start doing this. and then get rid of all the clickbait articles.

Mr. Tea
11-08-2016, 05:25 PM
the guardian needs to start doing this. and then get rid of all the clickbait articles.

They once tried to operate an online presence that relied on well-written, well-researched articles instead of clickbait.

What happened next will shock you.

firefinga
12-08-2016, 07:33 AM
I can't read this cos I've read all my NT Times articles for the month.

Ironicallly, as I was about to argue that papers should bring in paywalls. As much as I like being able to read whatever I like for free, it's obviously slowly strangling the publications concerned.

Ad Blocker has made advertising revenue shrink like an arctic explorer's ballbag, so there's really very little other options.

I think, paywalls might save a few from getting under, but that's about it. Won't save good, insightful journalism on a large scale I amafraid.

Thing is, the decline of readership happened in the 2010s when people started to access the web via smartphones. I think this is a big contributing factor here, reading long articles on your phone? A minority programme. The tablet hype is over as well.

"News" today is to a great extent a shared meme on facebook/twitter for crying out loud. People are getting conditioned by social media's immediatelism these days. Neither time nor the ability to look deeper into things. Best example how FB cuts long posts.

Corpsey
12-08-2016, 09:19 AM
I think, paywalls might save a few from getting under, but that's about it. Won't save good, insightful journalism on a large scale I amafraid.

Thing is, the decline of readership happened in the 2010s when people started to access the web via smartphones. I think this is a big contributing factor here, reading long articles on your phone? A minority programme. The tablet hype is over as well.

"News" today is to a great extent a shared meme on facebook/twitter for crying out loud. People are getting conditioned by social media's immediatelism these days. Neither time nor the ability to look deeper into things. Best example how FB cuts long posts.

I would prefer to look on the bright side here, but I think you're right - to some extent, anyway.

I don't think the yearning some people have to read in-depth articles has disappeared with the advent of smartphones, although it's harder, of course, to compete for attention on a smart phone than a printed page. (And, as you say, it's less enjoyable reading things on a phone.) Perhaps that yearning has simply become obscured? BuzzFeed, e.g., have started producing high-quality long-form journalism now, which I guess might be about them longing to be taken seriously, but also presumably is a response to their audiences demand for, or at the least willingness to explore, more meaty fare.

I wonder if, during the heyday of print journalism, people in general were reading more deeply into things, or if they were simply skimming articles on paper rather than on screen?

I read this book not long ago https://www.amazon.co.uk/Shallows-Internet-Changing-Think-Remember/dp/1848872275

It's been criticised in numerous articles for overstating the plasticity of the brain, but it certainly felt compelling to me when I read it.

I feel like I've seen a few news stories lately about how people feel addicted to their smart phones and want out. I wonder if, going forward, we will continue down a path of greater and greater dependency upon the internet/technology, or if they'll be some widespread rejection of it?

sadmanbarty
12-08-2016, 10:53 AM
Just to give the positives of the internet in this context. I’m a 21 year old, with no A levels or university degree, I’m not earning much money, I don’t socialise with intellectuals and I’m fairly lazy. Pre-internet I don’t imagine I would have:

1) been able to access huge amounts of academic information (studies, research, streaming lectures online, etc.).
2) been able to read numerous broad sheets from all over the world for free
3) access to fact checkers
4) the ability to instantly fact check something myself
5) very immediately find out the history of a story
6) have respected people pointing me towards other information sources (for example academics on twitter)

Of course it’s crucial that I actively go out of my way to find points of view that disagree with my own. The internet has facilitated lots of niche political echo chambers.

Mr. Tea
12-08-2016, 11:14 AM
Pre-internet I don’t imagine I would have...

Well of course those are all good things, but I don't think anyone here was going as far as "The internet is bad" - the argument being that the internet has been bad for print media, which seems pretty unarguable, and even that an early adopter of online journalism like the Guardian is suffering due to competition from relative upstarts such as BuzzFeed.

There are winners and losers with almost any new technology. The internal combustion engine was bad for people who made a living breeding, tending or trading in horses.

Corpsey
12-08-2016, 01:07 PM
Yeah that's all good stuff. I guess the issue is that a lot of the broad sheets, e.g., that you've been able to access for free are probably going to go bottom-up fairly soon because nobody is paying for them. I wonder if academia is suffering a similar financial blow from having journals made free online?

Mr. Tea
12-08-2016, 02:42 PM
Many journals still charge (a lot! Well I call thirty quid quite a lot...) to access papers electronically.

Maybe academic publishers are struggling but that's not the same thing as academia per se, which AFAIK has always been funded mainly by government.

Leo
12-08-2016, 03:22 PM
perhaps the only way forward for some newspapers will be being supported by wealthy benefactors, like artists were centuries ago (or like jeff bezos with the washington post). of course, some of those benefactors might at times want to influence editorial (like murdoch with the ny post, for sure...)

Leo
03-03-2017, 03:07 PM
maybe there is hope for the profession...


MSNBC's Chris Matthews made a clarifying point, highlighted in Brian Stelter's "Reliable Sources" newsletter: "[W]e're only learning the truth of all these endless meetings with the Russians because of good reporting ... We're getting great print coverage by the hour. And that's the only reason this administration is admitting things. Trump didn't act on Flynn until it was exposed by the press. The attorney general didn't recuse himself until today because the report ran in today's newspapers. This is an administration being driven by truth that's coming from somewhere else."

luka
03-03-2017, 03:13 PM
No reporting going on. Spoon-fed by sources in intelligence agencies.

craner
03-03-2017, 03:17 PM
I love my first post in this thread.

Leo
03-03-2017, 04:01 PM
No reporting going on. Spoon-fed by sources in intelligence agencies.

that how reporting works, tho. particularly political reporting (deep throat>watergate, daniel ellsberg>pentagon papers, etc.) it's very rare that investigative reporters simply stumble upon news or find it by digging endlessly, they don't have the time or resources.

sufi
03-03-2017, 04:40 PM
forget the MSM
its all about the indies,
@sarahkendzior
Peter Pomerantzev
(Moby & flipping Mensch)

Mr. Tea
03-03-2017, 04:48 PM
Ahem, call her by her name, please:

Louise Mensch And Her Unendurable Stench

sufi
19-03-2017, 01:48 PM
clearly worth it if dacre is suing https://www.byline.com/project/67/article/1534

what about osborne and the standard?

richwill
24-03-2017, 11:11 AM
I don't understand how Stig Abell now edits the TLS. He was editor of The Sun when it (he) published Katie Hopkin's call for refugees to be massacred. He's the worst sort of mercenary intellectual imo, I'll stick with the LRB.

sufi
03-04-2017, 11:45 AM
From New Internationalist, a pretty nice and positive organ. You too can have a £50 share in it, but you'll need to be quick - only a day or 2 left


just to update and inspire: the public have bought £492,750 worth of shares in new internationalist within a month. the vast majority of backers have bought the minimum amount, £50 but that's a hell of a lot of people, no mega rich backers, no corporate or big business backers to pull our strings, just fans of trusted, award winning non corporate backed media that has internationalism in its heart

they are now our owners, they now have a say in new internationalist and play a part in the way the magazine, the ethical shop and the book publications will grow. It's a brave model and worth watching to see how it goes from here

our supporters making their own endorsement films ranged from jarvis cocker and emma thompson to birgitta Jonsdottir and gavin turk, messages came in from all around the world, many voices in the global South saying how important the magazine has been to their struggles for justice

today, the great reverend billy is making a film with his choir to support us over this last four days. He has been a fan since someone gave him a copy in prison a decade ago

it'd be great if neon people got behind pushing the community share offer over these last four days and thanks to all of those who already have

we put out a lot of material for free online but the more people who back us or subscribe means the more good journalism we can do, the more unreported majority workd stories we can cover, the more neo liberal myths we can deflate. No compromising adverts, no agenda controlling owners, no hidden controlling boards, this is democratic media and it chill grow only a coding to the amount if people who get behind it and pull back from corporate backed media.

TBH it's all very well moaning about how crap the MSM are, but there are decent sources of news, like https://newint.org if you can be arsed to stop moaning and look past the metro & the grunter

sufi
03-04-2017, 11:47 AM
848647014879461376