Modern Journalism sucks

DonovanB

I read this article on IOL
http://www.iol.co.za/travel/travel-news/viral-video-to-put-you-in-flap-1.1224801
I can't believe that a journalist wrote an article on a YouTube video. Even to quote the comments.

I'm astounded, and absolutely amazed t how lazy that reporting is. I hope this oke didn't get paid for that.

I wonder when GFSA will get quoted in the newspapers.

AlanRatcliffe

Yup. Not just print either. Mostly because it's so easy to find something interesting and repackage it. Zero cost.

There have always been unpaid interns dredging up dodgy filler stories, but what is really annoying is the editorial control seems to have disappeared. In the past an "article" like that would have earned the "reporter" two smacks upside the head (one for lazy reporting, the other for grammar) and it would never have seen the light of day. It's not that they are struggling with strict print deadlines either.

I can't watch TV news any more either. The innovative ways in which they twist and torture the English language is painful. It's as if they don't have someone with even Matric first language English to edit the text. What makes it worse is that usually you'll hear it twice - first from the anchor, then they'll switch to a location reporter who will repeat it verbatim.

Squonk

The modern journalists where I work (wont mention any names) mostly rely on "Cut and Paste". Amazing what you can find on a search engine

Bob-Dubery

There's a lot of it about.

A while back I read a book Flat Earth News, written by a professor of journalism at (IIRC) Cardiff University. It's quite a read, and he shows just how unreliable the press are these days - even the publications that you think are reliable. The Times in the UK directly controls about 1/2 of it's content, the balance coming from external sources that they cannot verify.

It's partly sloppy ethics, partly cost cutting, partly down to the tension between being first with a story and checking facts properly. The BBC, for example, pride themselves on rigorously checking stories (which explains how they managed to re-edit actual film footage of the Queen to create the appearance of an incident which they knew hadn't actually happened) but they also have a policy of having "breaking news" on their website within 5 minutes. The two positions are irreconcilable.

A lot of newspapers and web sites just get reports from outside sources. Political news in the UK is heavily spun because it's much easier to contact some party's or some politician's own PR guys than to actually pay a reporter to sit around parliament all day.

The real problem is that the press can be fed stories once you understand that they will rush them out without checking properly - especially if they think they're getting an exclusive or can beat the opposition to the punch.

dee

At least they are not quoting Wikipedia just yet... ?

Bob-Dubery

dee wrote: At least they are not quoting Wikipedia just yet... ?

I don't know why Wikipedia has a bad rap. It's true that anybody can edit anything, but they have rules and people using Wikipedia, or any other reference, should have some standards.

The way it's supposed to be on Wikipedia is that assertions are supposed to be supported by something that can be double checked (which is the way that newspapers are supposed to do it). So if you see something on Wikipedia that properly references everything then it's probably reliable. Most of their entries are properly annotated, and they have a policy of flagging up unreferenced entries for deletion if references aren't provided by a certain date.

Wikipedia is no less reliable than most on-line resources and more reliable than many.

This is a general rule. If you read (in a book, online or anywhere actually) something like

X-rated Bob's Evening Stinging Nettle Extract is a potent remedy for colic, hangovers and ingrown toenails

then you should take that with a pinch of salt.

If, however, you read that

X-rated Bob's Evening Stinging Nettle Extract has been proven in a double-blind, clinical test to increase the speed by which a guitarist can play Jimmy Page's solo from "Stairway To Heaven" by, on average, 7.9 %

and proper references are given then you should have rather more confidence in that assertion.

arjunmenon

X-rated Bob wrote:
X-rated Bob's Evening Stinging Nettle Extract has been proven in a double-blind, clinical test to increase the speed by which a guitarist can play Jimmy Page's solo from "Stairway To Heaven" by, on average, 7.9 %

Where can i get some of this mojo? ?

Bob-Dubery

Arjun Menon wrote:
X-rated Bob wrote:
X-rated Bob's Evening Stinging Nettle Extract has been proven in a double-blind, clinical test to increase the speed by which a guitarist can play Jimmy Page's solo from "Stairway To Heaven" by, on average, 7.9 %

Where can i get some of this mojo? ?

I still need a trial. And for that I need volunteers. So...

arjunmenon

X-rated Bob wrote:
Arjun Menon wrote:
X-rated Bob wrote:
X-rated Bob's Evening Stinging Nettle Extract has been proven in a double-blind, clinical test to increase the speed by which a guitarist can play Jimmy Page's solo from "Stairway To Heaven" by, on average, 7.9 %

Where can i get some of this mojo? ?
I still need a trial. And for that I need volunteers. So...

Pity i'm in Cape Town ?