Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 30

Thread: Remember "journalism"?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Hoboken
    Posts
    3,125

    Default Remember "journalism"?

    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...l-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.
    Last edited by Leo; 12-03-2013 at 12:39 PM.

  2. #2

    Default

    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:



    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...
    Last edited by craner; 12-03-2013 at 10:55 AM.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Hoboken
    Posts
    3,125

    Default

    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...l-krugm/193006
    Last edited by Leo; 12-03-2013 at 12:38 PM.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    38

    Default

    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.

  5. #5

    Default

    I remember journalism. I remember when the Indepenent on Sunday employed arts critics.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    7,607

    Default

    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.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    5,524

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IdleRich View Post
    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.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Hoboken
    Posts
    3,125

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,025

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Leo View Post
    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.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    772

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Corpsey View Post
    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.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    15,072

    Default

    Anyone else see this devastating takedown 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?
    Doin' the Lambeth Warp New: DISSENSUS - THE NOVEL - PM me your email address and I'll add you

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    2,235

    Default

    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.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    15,072

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rubberdingyrapids View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Mr. Tea; 11-08-2016 at 05:31 PM.
    Doin' the Lambeth Warp New: DISSENSUS - THE NOVEL - PM me your email address and I'll add you

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    772

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Corpsey View Post
    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.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,025

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by firefinga View Post
    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-In.../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?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •