thejournal.ie: Thieves or Journalists?

The Waltzing Consumer

What do people make of thejournal.ie? I know it's a news website owned by the same company that owns boards.ie but is it really good for journalism, is it journalism? Nearly every story has just been taken from another news source, given a quick synopsis and passed off as original journalism without any of the actual talent, effort or research that the story should have.

The only actual redeeming factor is the comments section which is more just comic relief rather then a public forum for discussion or shaping the news.

I hate the fact that I will read an article which has been taken from another source and down at the bottom, there will be an "About the Author" section, which is not about the Author but about the guy/girl who simply gave a brief, and often wrong, synopsis of the original story.

I know they may be trying to copy the Huffington Post method, which is not actually writing or researching or editing or creating, just stealing the good stories, but at least the Huffington Post does not have an "about the author" section which gives an impression of ya know, authoring something.

I would put it in the same league as boards.ie. That meaning, not an actual news site, but a vast majority of threads simply created after someone reads a news article and gives a synopsis and then asks for feedback, but would people on boards call themselves authors?

You are pretty much doing the exact same thing that these guys at thejournal.ie do, except you don't get paid and don't pass yourselves off as authors.

Any views?

dresden8

Most mainstream news you see is regurgitated from the news wires or a simple copy and paste from a press release.

Hacks named "Scoop" paying informants for the story that will blow this town wide open just don't happen.

strandroad

TBH this is what all newspapers do, they sponge off each other (plus news agencies) and the actual original content is very low. Most of what you see on IrishTimes.com for example is agency news recycled. Investigation, insider info or analysis pieces are quite rare in comparison.

But I wouldn't consider thejournal to be proper journalism indeed, it's just a newsfeed with comments.

leggo

Isn't that the idea of the site, though? They scour the net so you don't have to.

I mean, I get, what you're saying re: the 'About The Author' section...maybe you have a point there...but they always give credit for their news and make it easier for the user to collate what's going on in the world. They don't claim to get exclusives unless they actually get the exclusives.

The Journal is the first place I'd check for news and does a brilliant job, imo. I love features like their blagger's guides, YouTube Top 10, caption contests and Twitter trackers. Plus their Twitter account is invaluable, especially when there's breaking news. They came into their own over the fall of Fianna Fail and the resulting General Election.

And, no, before anyone starts I don't work for them or know anyone who does.

tricky D

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

What do people make of thejournal.ie? I know it's a news website owned by the same company that owns has a minority share in boards.ie but is it really good for journalism, is it journalism?

fyp

mikemac

www.breakingnews.ie do much the same, that's my first stop to check what's going on

Though like many sites before them they've ignored "less is more" and the site is getting cluttered and confusing
Was better in the past

The Waltzing Consumer

mhge wrote: »

TBH this is what all newspapers do, they sponge off each other (plus news agencies) and the actual original content is very low. Most of what you see on IrishTimes.com for example is agency news recycled. Investigation, insider info or analysis pieces are quite rare in comparison.

But I wouldn't consider thejournal to be proper journalism indeed, it's just a newsfeed with comments.

Yeah I definitely agree, but the Irish Times credit the original author or news source, they don't give a synopsis and put their author name on it, it is simply an article they paid for to fill the space whilst crediting the original and not try to pass it off as their own, I have no problem with that. I just think thejournal.ie does this in a more dishonest way.

strandroad

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

Yeah I definitely agree, but the Irish Times credit the original author or news source, they don't give a synopsis and put their author name on it, it is simply an article they paid for to fill the space whilst crediting the original and not try to pass it off as their own, I have no problem with that. I just think thejournal.ie does this in a more dishonest way.

I agree that they shouldn't have this "About the Author" bit ("About the Regurgitator" instead?). But other than than they usually either provide a clickable link to the source, or they mark the source as print access only, or they sign the news with agency name. Fair enough so.

Wolfe Tone

I think it is pretty crap tbh, they repeatedly get simple facts wrong or omit them, I wouldn't use it cept for their android app being decent.

Sometimes the writing is very shoddy, I could do better myself in some cases which is saying something.

Biggins

A LOT of stories in the papers and the visual media come from the likes of:

African Media Online (African Eye News Service)
Agence France Presse
APTN
Associated Press
Bloomberg
Cable News Network
EFE News
Indo Asian News Service
Iran Press Service
Iranian Students News Agency (ISNA)
Iraq Press
IRIN News
Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA)
Inter Press Service
Itar-Tass -- Russia
Latin American Press
Middle East News Agency
Pravda -- Russian News and Analysis
Prima News Agency
Reuters
Television News Archive
United Nations News Wire Service
United Press International
Xinhua News Agency -- China

...To name a few - all agencies set up to do this very thing for third party further reporting services.
The Journal.ie is doing no different to the BBC, RTE or anyone else in the reporting business.

Oh_Noes

I don't use their website but their ipod/iphone app is handy. It's well laid out and very simple to use and nice if you have a minute or two to spare, and it's free. I wouldn't really have expected that every story they publish has been broken by one of their staffers.

Dionysus

A few years back a very wealthy Irish-American named Chuck Feeney funded an organisation in Dublin, the Centre for Public Inquiry. The Centre was established to investigate things of public interest. Very shortly, the rightwing Minister for Justice, Michael McDowell, leaked a story to that awful Tony O'Reilly rag, the Sunday Independent, which aimed to discredit the principal investigative journalist in the Centre for Public Inquiry.

Chuck Feeney withdrew his money and the Centre for Public Inquiry closed down. The Irish establishment could sleep that bit easier. We need such an organisation more than ever now. It could play an enormous role in this society in exposing the corruption, nepotism and cronyism which underlines deals across this state, and undermines our democracy in the process.

As many of you know, from the early 1980s, Chuck Feeney secretly donated over $1 billion to Irish society, particularly to our education system. There is not a single university, street or anything else named after him - at his own request. He was obsessive about privacy. The guy wears a $10 wristwatch, and runners. He has Ireland's interests at heart. Contrast this with the ego of Tony O'Reilly and the rest of the "Irish" people who make a point of being tax exiles from this state, while demanding that university buildings bear their surnames. It's quite disgusting how the home-grown Irish mafia gang up on an outsider who is willing to finance an investigation into various forms of corruption in the Irish establishment.

We urgently need a well-funded independent Centre for Public Inquiry to keep an eye on the establishment in Ireland, and investigate their wrongdoings. This old boys' club has to be smashed, despite the objections of far-right ideologues like Michael McDowell and Tony O'Reilly's "Independent" newspapers' group.

The Waltzing Consumer

Biggins wrote: »

...To name a few - all agencies set up to do this very thing for third party further reporting services.
The Journal.ie is doing no different to the BBC, RTE or anyone else in the reporting business.

Well they are different. BBC, RTE and many others use all the news agencies in providing news, nothing wrong with that. The big problem is thejournal has this stupid section down at the bottom saying "about the author" (seems to be only two authors, Susan Daly and Gavin Reilly, it is amazing how much they can write. Everyday they author about twenty, thirty, fourty articles, that is some amount of writing) which implies authoring.

You don't get an RTE or BBC news article from some agency, but then down at the bottom "about the author" and some picture of the Irish guy who read in Donnybrook and threw it in the website. That is not being an author, that is being the equivalent of a cover band trying to pretend to be the original.

They are tracers!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMwhZryRUr4

Taco Corp

all the trolls that have been banned from boards found a good home at the journal.

Biggins

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

Well they are different. BBC, RTE and many others use all the news agencies in providing news, nothing wrong with that. The big problem is thejournal has this stupid section down at the bottom saying "about the author" (seems to be only two authors, Susan Daly and Gavin Reilly, it is amazing how much they can write. Everyday they author about twenty, thirty, fourty articles, that is some amount of writing) which implies authoring.

You don't get an RTE or BBC news article from some agency, but then down at the bottom "about the author" and some picture of the Irish guy who read in Donnybrook and threw it in the website. That is not being an author, that is being the equivalent of a cover band trying to pretend to be the original.

They are tracers!

Actually the BBC, Sky and RTE are constantly stating that "News reports from Reuters are telling us..." or News reports from AAP are informing us..."

The Journal often equally cites its sources too from same agencies. Usually at the bottom of their articles - or even in the article itself.
See here for example: http://www.thejournal.ie/watch-gun-wielding-libyan-newsreader-pledges-to-become-a-martyr-206701-Aug2011/

STAFF AT LIBYA’S state-run TV channel have pledged to martyr themselves in defence of their station.
This news report, from Al Jazeera, shows a news presenter on the al-Libiyah holding a gun and saying that the channel’s staff would defend the station – pledging, “With this weapon, I either kill or die today… you will not take al-Libiyah channel.”
AP reports that rebels are continuing to enter Tripoli this evening – adding that the rebels apparently met with minimal resistance as they took over a military checkpoint at the Western entrance to the city.

Blazer

Ye must never read sports news then.
You'll find one match report spread in about 5 or 6 newspapers and about 20 online sites.
It's the way news sites are going now. At least the journal keep their site updated regularly...rte before were bloody brutal...same stories for about 3 days on their smartphone apps.

The Waltzing Consumer

Biggins wrote: »

Actually the BBC, Sky and RTE are constantly stating that "News reports from Reuters are telling us..." or News reports from AAP are informing us..."

The Journal often equally cites its sources too. Usually at the bottom of their articles.

Yeah, but you are missing what I am saying. I have zero issue with news agencies providing articles or information and, for other news organisations to use that information within their medium.

If BBC or RTE had an article supplied by Reuters which which pretty much all quotes and the article replicated, but then down at the bottom, there is some picture of an English guy from BBC, or an Irish guy from RTE, with the very clear title "about the author", that is the problem, they ain't the author.

There is as much authoring in that as there is on boards.ie and the millions of threads from posters who simply found a story on a news site, give a little synopsis of story, link the story and have a comment section after it. People would laugh if some poster did that and then said they were the author of the story down at the bottom of their opening post.

Biggins

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

...If BBC or RTE had an article supplied by Reuters which which pretty much all quotes and the article replicated, but then down at the bottom, there is some picture of an English guy from BBC, or an Irish guy from RTE, with the very clear title "about the author", that is the problem, they ain't the author.

I hear what your saying but I would add that when the likes of whatever media 'reporting to the mainstream public' service that is being used, they do so by getting the basic facts from primary news agency sources and in order to put that minimum level of info across more successfully, they oft times additionally add more to the incoming reports in a manner that will hopefully explain better (in clarity) more of a picture for the viewer/reader.

(Its at this stage that the contentious point is reached, as to if a story is being 'spun' for own reason by later media reporting services - Fox news in the USA for example)

MungBean

thejournal isnt journalism, Whatever little bit they write themselves is usually misspelled or downright wrong. Its handy and its well laid out but when 100% of their articles are from other papers (usually times, indo, dailymail etc) you cant class it as journalism. A lot of people do the same thing on blogs/twitter/forums.

From time to time they will write something themselves but its usually badly written and not really news worthy. I prefer to get my news from the sources themselves, its faster and you avoid thejournals writers pointless "The times reports" or whatever on ever article to make it look like they did something other than copy and paste which they didnt.

If I copy and paste other newspapers articles am I a journalist ?

The Waltzing Consumer

Biggins wrote: »

I hear what your saying but I would add that when the likes of whatever media 'reporting to the mainstream public' service that is being used, they do so by getting the basic facts from primary news agency sources and in order to put that minimum level of info across more successfully, they oft times additionally add more to the incoming reports in a manner that will hopefully explain better (in clarity) more of a picture for the viewer/reader.

(Its at this stage that the contentious point is reached, as to if a story is being 'spun' for own reason by later media reporting services - Fox news in the USA for example)

I see what you are saying and I would agree for the most part. I just don't like the "about the author" thing, I think they should take that out.

Earthhorse

I don't agree with the thread title but I agree with the thrust of what you're saying. There is very little original content on that site. I've enjoyed the odd thing posted there but I fail to see why it is so popular (if it's popular).

Biggins

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

I see what you are saying and I would agree for the most part. I just don't like the "about the author" thing, I think they should take that out.

You certainly have a point.
I suppose it boils down to one's view of the exact definition of what is a "journalist!"
To me its a person that goes out and gets stories and brings them to public attention.
(The original way was for the majority themselves to hunt the stories down direct and to the doors of the happenings, etc, so to speak)
The debate after that is, does the above apply to the likes of the Journal.ie or do others have a different definition of what is a journalist?

I've an open mind.
(Nothing much in it anyway!)

strandroad

Earthhorse wrote: »

I don't agree with the thread title but I agree with the thrust of what you're saying. There is very little original content on that site. I've enjoyed the odd thing posted there but I fail to see why it is so popular (if it's popular).

I think it's popular because it's the only decent source of real time news, especially in its mobile version. Irish Times, Irish Independent etc are just online editions of printed papers so the news section is very basic, BreakingNews mobile site is woeful if I remember well. TheJournal has good functional mobile apps and is great to read during commute etc.

For Forks Sake

Surley wrote: »

all the trolls that have been banned from boards found a good home at the journal.

Ain't that the truth, it's a mix of p.ie right-winglunatics and indymedia types with no middle ground

Wolfe Tone

The RTE app is pretty good in fairness.

Taco Corp

For Forks Sake wrote: »

Ain't that the truth, it's a mix of p.ie right-winglunatics and indymedia types with no middle ground

Sometimes I scroll straight to the comments section. Most of the time you can tell by the headline that there's going to be some good ones!!

strandroad

Same here

elgriff

It's a great site, and I use it every day, but you are right to an extend. What drives me mad is the stock photos they use - like here: http://businessetc.thejournal.ie/michael-oleary-has-no-problem-paying-50-per-cent-tax-206663-Aug2011/

Some people might think that photo came from the interview where O'Leary made his comments, but it's just an old photo of him. I also find it odd how they just use photos from Flickr sometimes, and appear to simply credit the owner, but that's it (I think).

later12

Dionysus wrote: »

A few years back a very wealthy Irish-American named Chuck Feeney funded an organisation in Dublin, the Centre for Public Inquiry. The Centre was established to investigate things of public interest. Very shortly, the rightwing Minister for Justice, Michael McDowell, leaked a story to that awful Tony O'Reilly rag, the Sunday Independent, which aimed to discredit the principal investigative journalist in the Centre for Public Inquiry.

Chuck Feeney withdrew his money and the Centre for Public Inquiry closed down. The Irish establishment could sleep that bit easier. We need such an organisation more than ever now. It could play an enormous role in this society in exposing the corruption, nepotism and cronyism which underlines deals across this state, and undermines our democracy in the process.

As many of you know, from the early 1980s, Chuck Feeney secretly donated over $1 billion to Irish society, particularly to our education system. There is not a single university, street or anything else named after him - at his own request. He was obsessive about privacy. The guy wears a $10 wristwatch, and runners. He has Ireland's interests at heart. Contrast this with the ego of Tony O'Reilly and the rest of the "Irish" people who make a point of being tax exiles from this state, while demanding that university buildings bear their surnames. It's quite disgusting how the home-grown Irish mafia gang up on an outsider who is willing to finance an investigation into various forms of corruption in the Irish establishment.

We urgently need a well-funded independent Centre for Public Inquiry to keep an eye on the establishment in Ireland, and investigate their wrongdoings. This old boys' club has to be smashed, despite the objections of far-right ideologues like Michael McDowell and Tony O'Reilly's "Independent" newspapers' group.

I agree with this totally, but that doesn't really say much for the journal, which only leeches off of investigative media establishments and doesn't really contribute anything productive to investigative journalism.

With what is often perceived to be a relatively shady political class, or a very inward looking establishment all drawn from the same pool, Ireland needs strong investigative media. The likes of the journal don't really help provide that, and may only serve to crowd out those who do.

FoxT

Thejournal.ie is a news aggregator. They produce little original content. Nevertheless , I personally prefer their twitter feed to the RTE news RSS.

Be careful about commenting, though. They demand your twitter/facebook ID and password. In addition, I have noticed that if you try to comment via android you get the following notice:


This application will be able to:

- read tweets from your timeline
- see who you follow, and follow new people
- Update your profile
- Post tweets for you


Loooovely!


I havent commented on anything there, since I saw this one... I have emailed them about this & await developments with interest...

Eoin

tricky D wrote: »

The Waltzing Consumer wrote:

What do people make of thejournal.ie? I know it's a news website owned by the same company that owns has a minority share in boards.ie but is it really good for journalism, is it journalism?

fyp

Unless something has changed since last year, Distilled Media have a majority share in boards.ie.

The Left Hand Of God

FoxT wrote: »

Thejournal.ie is a news aggregator. They produce little original content. Nevertheless , I personally prefer their twitter feed to the RTE news RSS.

Be careful about commenting, though. They demand your twitter/facebook ID and password. In addition, I have noticed that if you try to comment via android you get the following notice:


This application will be able to:

- read tweets from your timeline
- see who you follow, and follow new people
- Update your profile
- Post tweets for you


Loooovely!


I havent commented on anything there, since I saw this one... I have emailed them about this & await developments with interest...

I noticed that too the other day.

I was about to use a throw away twitter account I had to comment (my first) but forgot I was already logged in under my normal one...so my comment got posted on my normal account, which I didn't want under the points you listed

This btw >>> "Thejournal.ie is a news aggregator."

I prefer BI.

TheZohanS

I think the Journal is great. They give readers the opportunity to comment on stories that mainstream media wouldnt dare. Lads it's an extension of boards and it works really well, it's. not moderated as severely as 'mainstream' sites and that's a major plus.

Guy:Incognito

It's the way of the world . A central news agency writes a story and releases it. All the papers/websites etc get it and use it. If every paper/website/tv/radio station etc etc sent a reporter to every area of news, not only would each of them need hundreds of reporters but thered be more reporters on the ground in a warzone than soldiers.

epgc3fyqirnbsx

When the journal first started up I sent them an email complaining that I couldn't comment at work as I had no fb or twitter access from there. Now, looking at breakingnews.ie and a lot of boards.ie, it's a much better model.
Yes you can create a profile to comment that isn't linked to 'you' but the reactionary daily mail types are at least less likely to bother

I enjoy the siite
But pity the journo who makes a mistake... Wow, often a valid correction but there;s a hell of a lot of pedantic bastards out there

BTW, I'd be great for a job there

policarp

Plagiarism. . .
Theft. . .

FoxT

Eoin wrote: »

Unless something has changed since last year, Distilled Media have a majority share in boards.ie.

OK, that is interesting... so why cant you log in with your boardsie handle?


Or, why do you have to log in at all? I have the sense that there is something smelly going on....

FoxT

policarp wrote: »

Plagiarism. . .
Theft. . .

I don't agree with that, tbh. The internet is full of all sorts of wackiness, content aggregators do perform a useful function.
My issue with Thejournal is they portray themselves as hip/cool/cuttingedge/independent - but their comment policy is Stalinist...

red menace

policarp wrote: »

Plagiarism. . .
Theft. . .

Is it really?
They do credit the source always

epgc3fyqirnbsx

policarp wrote: »

Plagiarism. . .
Theft. . .

In response to the two posts ahead of mine, what I think what the poster may be saying is that a lot of people aren't recognising the difference

You can reference stories until the cows come home and that is perfectly acceptable, and even the norm, as long as you mention your source
It's when you don't do this that plagiarism occours

I've never seen anyone pass work over as their own on the journal, for that reason I've never seen plagiarisim
Maybe some aren't getting the point of the site?
It exists so you can get to one plce, or your app can, and can see the highlights of the days news and sources are always linked. And you can comment if you're brave enough to have a reputable account to do so.
It's a good sote imo

policarp

FoxT wrote: »

I don't agree with that, tbh. The internet is full of all sorts of wackiness, content aggregators do perform a useful function.
My issue with Thejournal is they portray themselves as hip/cool/cuttingedge/independent - but their comment policy is Stalinist...

red menace wrote: »

Is it really?
They do credit the source always

Heavenly Uninterested Mustache wrote: »

In response to the two posts ahead of mine, what I think what the poster may be saying is that a lot of people aren't recognising the difference

You can reference stories until the cows come home and that is perfectly acceptable, and even the norm, as long as you mention your source
It's when you don't do this that plagiarism occours

I've never seen anyone pass work over as their own on the journal, for that reason I've never seen plagiarisim
Maybe some aren't getting the point of the site?
It exists so you can get to one plce, or your app can, and can see the highlights of the days news and sources are always linked. And you can comment if you're brave enough to have a reputable account to do so.
It's a good sote imo

If anybody uses somebody elses idea, it's copying. . .

epgc3fyqirnbsx

policarp wrote: »

If anybody uses somebody elses idea, it's copying. . .

That is true.

BUT, and entire thesis (sorry I can't be arsed to know the plural) and ever college paper I ever wrote was quoting large chunks from articles/essays written by others and this is, well this is progress, present an idea and draw on it and yadda yadda yadda

As long as you reference there is no 'stealing' unless you refernce a book or somefink like that

I have written may articles that have been printed in journals literally acorss the globe, and used in FYP's and thesis and indeed presidential speeches but as long as they were referenced it hasn't upset me*




*This paragraph is complete bollox

RichieC

news aggregation sites don't normally write their own stories.

ascanbe

Dionysus wrote: »

A few years back a very wealthy Irish-American named Chuck Feeney funded an organisation in Dublin, the Centre for Public Inquiry. The Centre was established to investigate things of public interest. Very shortly, the rightwing Minister for Justice, Michael McDowell, leaked a story to that awful Tony O'Reilly rag, the Sunday Independent, which aimed to discredit the principal investigative journalist in the Centre for Public Inquiry.

Chuck Feeney withdrew his money and the Centre for Public Inquiry closed down. The Irish establishment could sleep that bit easier. We need such an organisation more than ever now. It could play an enormous role in this society in exposing the corruption, nepotism and cronyism which underlines deals across this state, and undermines our democracy in the process.

As many of you know, from the early 1980s, Chuck Feeney secretly donated over $1 billion to Irish society, particularly to our education system. There is not a single university, street or anything else named after him - at his own request. He was obsessive about privacy. The guy wears a $10 wristwatch, and runners. He has Ireland's interests at heart. Contrast this with the ego of Tony O'Reilly and the rest of the "Irish" people who make a point of being tax exiles from this state, while demanding that university buildings bear their surnames. It's quite disgusting how the home-grown Irish mafia gang up on an outsider who is willing to finance an investigation into various forms of corruption in the Irish establishment.

We urgently need a well-funded independent Centre for Public Inquiry to keep an eye on the establishment in Ireland, and investigate their wrongdoings. This old boys' club has to be smashed, despite the objections of far-right ideologues like Michael McDowell and Tony O'Reilly's "Independent" newspapers' group.

Saw an ad on TV this evening for tomorrow's Sunday Independent: O'Reilly's rag.
Apparently the big 'story' is about how Brian Lenihan Jr. was such an incredible 'patriot'; like people needed to be reminded of this 'fact' after the love-in conducted by certain sections of the media, them included obviously, after his death.
So the guy who made the fateful decision, for whatever reason/as a result of whatever coercion, that has doomed this country is, infact, one of this country's greatest 'patriots', apparently.
Of course it just so happens that the decision he made was the one Tony O'Reilly, et al, wanted him to make as they thought it was in their best interest.
Even now, when the true implications of this betrayal are beginning to unfold, they still hang on to the hope that it was, indeed, right for them, even though it's beginning to dawn on even them that isn't the case, that the country is sinking as a result of it, and that they're despicable c*nts.
Tomorrow's piece on Lenihan is, i can only presume, a piece of 'doth protest too much' wishful thinking.

policarp

Heavenly Uninterested Mustache wrote: »

*This paragraph is complete bollox

Yeats?