How thick do you have to be to work as a journalist?

Biggest lickspittle on boardz

Do they make you take tests to ensure there is some sort of brain damage before you get the gig? Check out this Pulitzer prize winning entry from the Sindo this morning:

Party for murdered Limerick biker plunged into darkness after power cut

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/crime/party-for-murdered-limerick-biker-plunged-into-darkness-after-power-cut-35998189.html

....So there was a power cut at a party for the murdered biker in Limerick. That's it. There was a power cut.
Incredibly, an editor took a look at this article and decided this was somehow newsworthy. I could understand if this was used as a paragraph in another story or report, but to have this as a headline is cringe worthy. Mediocre output from a mediocre industry.

Drunk chimpanzees on typewriters could do a better job than this.

If you've ever felt that you might not have the skills to compete in the modern world, just remember that on Sunday the 6th of July 2017, an article about a power cut at a party made the national papers. And someone received payment for this.

And they wonder why old media is dying.

Cubik

I don't think anyone wonders why old media is dying.

This is embarrassing stuff all right but it's one article, one reporter, one ultra rag of a publication = not all journalists.

Much of the time it's the publication's own ethos and the writer just has to comply with that. New media has seen journalism get worse. Look at all the vapid online publications there are now.

There are still good journalists - investigative reporters, conflict zone correspondents, and your plain old straight-up reporters of what actually happened, but agendas, salaciousness, bias... the bottom line is money - and the latter are what sells. This is more the publication's fault than the writer's though.

Most raggy papers have raggy nonsense. How big a Kardashians butt looks in some outfit just fills pages, but at least you know the world hasn't ended when you see that much.

Far more objectionable are things like the coverage of the Cavan family murder tragedy, and the slight nonsense of an explanation for the overlooking of the victims. Luckily that stuff is thin on the ground.

Journalists do a necessary job if we want to know what's happening around the world and in the corridors of power or streets. Not all of them are focused on cellulite or paparazzi shots of celebrities. Too many are though.

Shpudnik

Biggest lickspittle on boardz wrote: »

Do they make you take tests to ensure there is some sort of brain damage before you get the gig? Check out this Pulitzer prize winning entry from the Sindo this morning:

Party for murdered Limerick biker plunged into darkness after power cut

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/crime/party-for-murdered-limerick-biker-plunged-into-darkness-after-power-cut-35998189.html

....So there was a power cut at a party for the murdered biker in Limerick. That's it. There was a power cut.
Incredibly, an editor took a look at this article and decided this was somehow newsworthy. I could understand if this was used as a paragraph in another story or report, but to have this as a headline is cringe worthy. Mediocre output from a mediocre industry.

Drunk chimpanzees on typewriters could do a better job than this.

If you've ever felt that you might not have the skills to compete in the modern world, just remember that on Sunday the 6th of July 2017, an article about a power cut at a party made the national papers. And someone received payment for this.

And they wonder why old media is dying.

It was August. A good journalist would fact check.

Harry Palmr

The indo/sindo is bottom of the barrel and has been for 20 years now. As for the rest of 'em - they have no money, no staff, no ambition and no readers for hard copies which are the ones that actual pay the rent. In 10 years I do doubt there will be any daily paper that is primarily for "news" on the shelves. It'll be all supermarket checkout style digests for fashion, celebs, reality crime and some sport.

Richard Hillman

Journalism is quickly replacing people smuggling as the most unrespected profession.

I would say ethical journalists and ethical people smugglers are of about the same percentage

Richard Hillman

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Journalism is quickly replacing people smuggling as the most unrespected profession.

I would say ethical journalists and ethical people smugglers are of about the same percentage

Rubbish. There are journalists in every war-torn corner of the world, documenting every action and reaction, journalists presenting those facts in broadsheet newspapers and on news desks in newsrooms around the world, and to compare them with human traffickers is just hyperbole.

Don't read trash and you won't be reading trash. Get your news from reputable and serious sources, not The Sun and it's ilk.

Ken.

Not trying to defend them but Ireland is such a small place that they have to use this crap to fill papers.

I remember working with some South African guys a few years ago and they couldn't believe how every murder and car crash seemed to make the front page or within the first 5 pages of every paper.

tomwaterford

Conspectus wrote: »

Not trying to defend them but Ireland is such a small place that they have to use this crap to fill papers.
.

There doesn't seem to be half as much this type rubbish In the examiner though?


Not that I'm the best for buying the paper every day anyways

Ken.

tomwaterford wrote: »

There doesn't seem to be half as much this type rubbish In the examiner though?


Not that I'm the best for buying the paper every day anyways

I think the last time I went in to a shop and brought a newspaper was 4 years ago I brought the Carlow Nationalist because there was a picture in it of my Grandfather with my uncle,his daughter,her daughter and her daughter. 5 generations.

Before that it was a good 5 years since i brought one.

Richard Hillman

Candie wrote: »

Don't read trash and you won't be reading trash. Get your news from reputable and serious sources, not The Sun and it's ilk.

Very intentionally insulting post.

Care to provide a mainstream reputable news source that does not spin or selectively report the news?

Biggest lickspittle on boardz

tomwaterford wrote: »

There doesn't seem to be half as much this type rubbish In the examiner though?


Not that I'm the best for buying the paper every day anyways

The Examiner is one of the worst offenders I'm afraid. They used to have a good solid reporting strategy up until a few years ago. Then they decided to make their online site the Irish version of buzzfeed. That viral sidebar they have is the cringiest thing I have seen in a long time.

Just as an example, this is the second article on that viral sidebar:

http://www.irishexaminer.com/examviral/you-can-now-buy-toilet-roll-with-donald-trumps-classic-tweets-printed-on-it-800956.html


When the fcuk did a bunch of 12 year old schoolgirls take over the Examiner?

Cubik

Biggest lickspittle on boardz wrote: »

The Examiner is one of the worst offenders I'm afraid. They used to have a good solid reporting strategy up until a few years ago. Then they decided to make their online site the Irish version of buzzfeed. That viral sidebar they have is the cringiest thing I have seen in a long time.

Just as an example, this is the second article on that viral sidebar:




When the fcuk did a bunch of 12 year old schoolgirls take over the Examiner?

Online they have to compete with the vacuous likes of Her, Joe, The Daily Edge, etc now. I don't follow any newspapers on Facebook now, apart from parody ones and one local paper. Reason being, they link to the rubbish on Facebook.

I follow several on Twitter though - I find that a handy way of filtering. On Twitter they'll only tweet the news stories, plus there isn't a comments section per se (just a handful of tweets occasionally).

Richard Hillman

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Very intentionally insulting post.

Care to provide a mainstream reputable news source that does not spin or selectively report the news?

That was a general point and not aimed at you in particular.

As long as news sources are staffed by human beings they'll be informed by their own biases, there is no such thing as a completely objective viewpoint in any media, imo. It's probably best to read or watch a few different outlets and use one's best judgement.



I don't live in Ireland so what I read and watch isn't going to be much use to you.

jamesthepeach

Candie wrote: »

Most raggy papers have raggy nonsense. How big a Kardashians butt looks in some outfit just fills pages, but at least you know the world hasn't ended when you see that much.

Far more objectionable are things like the coverage of the Cavan family murder tragedy, and the slight nonsense of an explanation for the overlooking of the victims. Luckily that stuff is thin on the ground.

Journalists do a necessary job if we want to know what's happening around the world and in the corridors of power or streets. Not all of them are focused on cellulite or paparazzi shots of celebrities. Too many are though.

This.
And it's the sole reason we have the khardasians. One of those butts fills two pages.
Normal arses just can't compete when it comes to filling up a paper.

reason vs religion

1) it's the online Indo. Different editor and staff from the print edition. The site models the Daily Mail's, which has a mixture of print content and vapid celebrity and human interest stories exclusive to online. This article is one of the latter. It's not representative of journalism in the Indo or of other broadsheets more widely.

2) you assume that the story was written because the journalist was too stupid to see its vapidity and that the journalist and editor saw journalistic value in the story. Neither is likely true. I'm sure the unnamed journalist hates writing those articles and does so only to satisfy the demand from online readers. Even if I'm wrong, as before, that type of journalist is utterly unrepresentative of the industry as a whole.


OP is clearly one of those idiots who never reads a newspaper, but occasionally comes across some sensationalist or clickbait article and then gleefully inculpates it as the cause of the declining circulations of print media. But "new media" is no media! Those responsible for the decline in traditional news media are either consuming propaganda instead or are disengaging. It's utterly false to think that people who would once have reluctantly got their news from "biased, elitist newspapers" are now getting their information online from crusading, ethical social media journalists. What's more, the new media of twitter or wherever is utterly dependent on traditional media for anything other than announcing that a news event has taken place. What comes next -- reliable information, context, background, significance, etc -- can only be got from news organisations, who are in a position to investigate. And new media feeds off that. In short, traditional media still sets the news agenda, even if fewer and fewer people are getting news from them directly.

Mod-Banned for personal abuse

somefeen

The story isn't just about the power cut.
If you read the full thing it also gives some detail about biker gangs and more info about the feud and some other texan crowd that are now involved.

Also if you read it, it seems people thought the power cut was directly related to the party. Story reports it wasn't which has some value in dispelling local rumours.

So yeah its a bit more in depth than " Power cut at bikers party".

dudara

Why does vacuous journalism exist? Because people read that stuff. So it's equally worth blaming people who think reading out about power cuts or Kim Kardashian's ass is worthwhile

jamesthepeach

jamesthepeach wrote: »

This.
And it's the sole reason we have the khardasians. One of those butts fills two pages.
Normal arses just can't compete when it comes to filling up a paper.

I like that jamesthepeach has so much to say about butts.

I hear Kardashian butts have their own gravitational fields.

jamesthepeach

Candie wrote: »

I like that jamesthepeach has so much to say about butts.

I hear Kardashian butts have their own gravitational fields.

I wouldn't get too close to them.
The info sent their last reporter to get a story on that gravitational field and they haven't been heard from since. They must have crossed the event horizon.

Biggest lickspittle on boardz

Candie wrote: »

Rubbish. There are journalists in every war-torn corner of the world, documenting every action and reaction, journalists presenting those facts in broadsheet newspapers and on news desks in newsrooms around the world, and to compare them with human traffickers is just hyperbole.

Don't read trash and you won't be reading trash. Get your news from reputable and serious sources, not The Sun and it's ilk.

Well the thing is....the 'respectable' and serious sources have lowered their standards significantly in the past few years. So it is getting harder and harder to just get solid facts, instead of hysteria. Up until the US presidential election, I would have considered CNN as relatively safe in terms of facts.

Then they went totally and utterly insane in their obsession with attacking Trump, and cheer leading for Hillary Clinton. To the point where they colluded with her to rig the debate by leaking her the questions beforehand. And then we had the utterly discredited, and bizarre story of Trump supposedly pissing on a bed with hookers. It subsequently was revealed to be a 4chan hoax that went viral.

Ultimately, the entire industry is taking more aggressive and divisive positions in terms of ideological puff pieces and throwing in opinion pieces dressed up as facts.
And the old respectable institutions are some of the worst offenders.

tomwaterford

Biggest lickspittle on boardz wrote: »

The Examiner is one of the worst offenders I'm afraid. They used to have a good solid reporting strategy up until a few years ago. Then they decided to make their online site the Irish version of buzzfeed. That viral sidebar they have is the cringiest thing I have seen in a long time.

Just as an example, this is the second article on that viral sidebar:

http://www.irishexaminer.com/examviral/you-can-now-buy-toilet-roll-with-donald-trumps-classic-tweets-printed-on-it-800956.html


When the fcuk did a bunch of 12 year old schoolgirls take over the Examiner?

Tbh kid i just Don't read the viral sidebar?


It's very good for match reports on the gaa though (as is the star rather suprisingly)


And other news reports of international affairs is quite good/balanced imo....


(I don't tend to read opionon pieces either)

Harry Palmr

somefeen wrote: »

The story isn't just about the power cut.
If you read the full thing it also gives some detail about biker gangs and more info about the feud and some other texan crowd that are now involved.

Also if you read it, it seems people thought the power cut was directly related to the party. Story reports it wasn't which has some value in dispelling local rumours.

So yeah its a bit more in depth than " Power cut at bikers party".

Pity the sub-editor didn't have as much faith in his/her readership as you do

Robsweezie

there is research suggesting journalism is among the least respected, tabloid and broadsheet.

https://www.indy100.com/article/these-are-the-12-most-and-least-trusted-professions-in-britain--bJWXJhZKEe

http://www.itv.com/news/2016-01-22/survey-reveals-most-and-least-trusted-professions/

i wouldve thought that myself. perhaps theres a view that journalists dont offer as much to society as doctors, nurses and teachers, who are among the most respected.

''you're saving peoples lives, well done, you're looking after the sick, fair play... you're helping young people reach their potential, hats off to you....but YOU, a journalist eh? so you just write bull**** stories?'' fuuck off.''

tabloid and sensationalist journalism has poisoned the well for the genuine journalists, who wish to do more than expose someones coke habit or twist someones words.

they're seen as nosey, intrusive. camping outsie grieving familys homes, doorstepping the vulnerable, going to funerals of dead children for a story. but its not all like that. the profession may attract such nosey people, which goes against the principle of minding your own business.

Cubik

Cubik wrote: »

There are still good journalists - investigative reporters, conflict zone correspondents, and your plain old straight-up reporters of what actually happened, but agendas, salaciousness, bias... the bottom line is money - and the latter are what sells. This is more the publication's fault than the writer's though.

People keep saying this, it's as if people refuse to give up the noble dream of having a media that operates in the public interest and defends democracy. It's also like the sole defence of the Sunday Independent for the past 40 years- "well Gene Kerrigan is thoughful/fair/radical". One swallow doesn't make a summer. In Irish society, where are these public interest journalists and investigations? You can name a handful of Today Tonight/Prime Time Investigates programmes and go back to Joe McAnthony, Frank Connolly, Vincent Browne, Mary Raftery or Fintan O'Toole investigations over the past 40 years that were hugely impressive, but that's about it. For the entire pseudo-profession of journalism in Ireland. Very much exceptions to the rule. They were outliers. Their work is constantly hijacked by people trying to push journalists, God save us, as defenders of democracy. Pass the bucket.

It is therefore very fair comment to dismiss the entire pseudo-profession as a compromised, agenda-driven, power-driven, truth distorting, old boys network - the overwhelming majority of whom have been in the sycophantic service of Anthony O'Reilly for the past 40 years until he, finally, went bankrupt. The outstanding feature of all that time of O'Reilly's dominance was the silence of all journalists (including the ones in The Irish Times & RTÉ which were not controlled by O'Reilly) about O'Reilly's dodgy deals and undermining of democracy by his control of so much of the media (the meeting between O'Reilly & Ahern and Cowen before the 2007 general election is the most infamous example of this). The entire profession bit their lips, and carried on attacking those whom O'Reilly wanted to attack. It was a mob, each and every week. Most unforgivably were the relentless, coordinated personal attacks on John Hume in the early 1990s for talking with Gerry Adams/starting the Peace Process. Nobody in journalism or political life had the courage to oppose Independent Newspapers - nobody. This is the reality of the "free press" in Ireland. Let it all burn, rapidly.

But worse than all of these drink-sodden, agenda-driven fúcktards in journalism are the people who buy the rags of Independent Newspapers, and The Irish Times (I definitely wouldn't have said that about The Irish Times 10 years ago). Has anybody met somebody who buys the Sunday Independent, for instance, and isn't a complete grade A ignorant cultureless, crypto-imperialist/fascist shallow superficial bastard? 191,594 of them in Ireland, at the last count. The very worst newspaper in the English-speaking world by a long, long shot.

reason vs religion

reason vs religion wrote: »

OP is clearly one of those idiots who never reads a newspaper

Having once in my naïve idealistic late teen/early adult years been a voracious reader of newspapers, I can say with absolute certainty that if there are idiots, they are the ones still reading, and most especially buying, the agenda-driven, broken-record compromised muck of Eoghan Harris/Eilis O'Hanlon/Brendan O'Connor/Stephen Collins/Patsy McGarry and the rest of them.

In 2017 there is a world of well-researched, enlightening articles and investigations at our fingertips to read. To choose the above muck over that is, by any standard, the idiocy.

Cubik

Deleted User wrote: »

Having once in my naïve idealistic late teen/early adult years been a voracious reader of newspapers, I can say with absolute certainty that if there are idiots, they are the ones still reading, and most especially buying, the agenda-driven, broken-record compromised muck of Eoghan Harris/Eilis O'Hanlon/Brendan O'Connor/Stephen Collins/Patsy McGarry and the rest of them.

In 2017 there is a world of well-researched, enlightening articles and investigations at our fingertips to read. To choose the above muck over that is, by any standard, the idiocy.

So as I said, there are still good journalists.

I wouldn't read any of those columnists (or others) in a fit either.

reason vs religion

Deleted User wrote: »

Having once in my na idealistic late teen/early adult years been a voracious reader of newspapers, I can say with absolute certainty that if there are idiots, they are the ones still reading, and most especially buying, the agenda-driven, broken-record compromised muck of Eoghan Harris/Eilis O'Hanlon/Brendan O'Connor/Stephen Collins/Patsy McGarry and the rest of them.

In 2017 there is a world of well-researched, enlightening articles and investigations at our fingertips to read. To choose the above muck over that is, by any standard, the idiocy.

Arg: because I once did something that I no longer see as worthwhile, I have an unassailable insight into its merits... Okey dokey!

Where, good sir, can one find this "world of well-researched, enlightening articles"? Don't say magazines like the New Yorker or Atlantic, because they are traditional media. Don't say the output of think tanks or other NGOs, because that constitutes actual research and is often too technical and/or too focused and indepth for the general reader. Remember, in order to contradict my argument, it is crucial that they be written without having in any way relied on traditional media.

Also, do you realise that colour columnist are but a minority of journalists and obviously write with bias.

darkdubh

Biggest lickspittle on boardz wrote: »

The Examiner is one of the worst offenders I'm afraid. They used to have a good solid reporting strategy up until a few years ago. Then they decided to make their online site the Irish version of buzzfeed. That viral sidebar they have is the cringiest thing I have seen in a long time.

Just as an example, this is the second article on that viral sidebar:

http://www.irishexaminer.com/examviral/you-can-now-buy-toilet-roll-with-donald-trumps-classic-tweets-printed-on-it-800956.html


When the fcuk did a bunch of 12 year old schoolgirls take over the Examiner?

Don't forget the weekly clusterfcuk that is the saturday column by thirty something teenager Louise O Neill.

reason vs religion

reason vs religion wrote: »

Arg: because I once did something that I no longer see as worthwhile, I have an unassailable insight into its merits... Okey dokey!

Entertaining, given that you began this by calling another poster an "idiot" because they (you, revealingly, concluded without any evidence) don't follow your example and read newspapers. You really haven't thought this irony through, have you.

reason vs religion wrote: »

Where, good sir, can one find this "world of well-researched, enlightening articles"?

So, you want to be taken by the hand and essentially given a guide to the internet beyond the Sunday Independent/rag Irish journalism? This is exactly the unquestioning, direction-seeking mentality which explains why you're still reading that drivel, you know.

This might be useful, though:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A81IwlDeV6c

reason vs religion

Deleted User wrote: »

Entertaining, given that you began this by calling another poster an "idiot" because they (you, revealingly, concluded without any evidence) don't follow your example and read newspapers. You really haven't thought this irony through, have you.

This is embarrassing to read, Fuaranach. You're fabricating a contradiction where none exists. There is no irony in that I critically analysed the validity of your argument, having previously made an intentionally provocative claim against someone else for which I could never hope to find evidence.

So, you want to be taken by the hand and essentially given a guide to the internet beyond the Sunday Independent/rag Irish journalism? This is exactly the unquestioning, direction-seeking mentality which explains why you're still reading that drivel, you know.

No, I want you to attempt to substantiate your point. And I don't read the Sindo (or, at least, do so only irregularly)!

Cubik

reason vs religion wrote: »

Arg: because I once did something that I no longer see as worthwhile, I have an unassailable insight into its merits... Okey dokey!

Where, good sir, can one find this "world of well-researched, enlightening articles"? Don't say magazines like the New Yorker or Atlantic, because they are traditional media. Don't say the output of think tanks or other NGOs, because that constitutes actual research and is often too technical and/or too focused and indepth for the general reader. Remember, in order to contradict my argument, it is crucial that they be written without having in any way relied on traditional media.

Also, do you realise that colour columnist are but a minority of journalists and obviously write with bias.

Exactly. Journalism isn't just opinion columns (a form of journalism that is pretty much redundant in my opinion now, due to platforms like here on Boards). Some columnists' writing is just shockingly bad (you'd see much better by average punters on social media) like the aforementioned Louise O'Neill, whom I read recently say Ireland is like The Handmaid's Tale while the 8th amendment is in effect.

We need news reporters though.

Richard Hillman

Journalist's now a days are activists and not reporters.

A lot of them also use this cliche of "we're supposed to hold the government to account". No you're not. You are supposed to report the news. The political opposition can do that and you can report what both sides say.

Biggest lickspittle on boardz

Candie wrote: »

Rubbish. There are journalists in every war-torn corner of the world, documenting every action and reaction, journalists presenting those facts in broadsheet newspapers and on news desks in newsrooms around the world, and to compare them with human traffickers is just hyperbole.

Don't read trash and you won't be reading trash. Get your news from reputable and serious sources, not The Sun and it's ilk.

This isn't necessarily true. For example, we have the Syrian Observatory For Human Rights which was being quoted as a definitive source during the Syrian conflict, as though it was gospel truth. In actual fact, the SOHR is a one man operation, namely one Osama Suleiman. He conducts the organisation from Coventry, UK. And yet this massive influence on Western public opinion isn't even based on the ground in Syria. And that's just one example, there are plenty of other examples of questionable sources being given free air time or column inches to push an extreme agenda. It would be one thing if this was counter-balanced with an opposing viewpoint, but usually it isn't.

For me, the big problem isn't so much the slant the media are putting on things. That's been going on since the print press was invented. What concerns me is the amount of information that is being conveniently left out when it doesn't suit the agenda of the media. I would go so far as to say that some organisations are no longer media, but are blatant propagandists now.

For Forks Sake

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Journalist's now a days are activists and not reporters.

A lot of them also use this cliche of "we're supposed to hold the government to account". No you're not. You are supposed to report the news. The political opposition can do that and you can report what both sides say.

Same should also apply to broadcast journalism as well, the 1%s (Murphy, Coppinger et al) get an utterly disproportionate amount of airtime.

Cubik

For Forks Sake wrote: »

Same should also apply to broadcast journalism as well, the 1%s (Murphy, Coppinger et al) get an utterly disproportionate amount of airtime.

Yeah, strange how they regularly complain about "the mainstream media" but it's not problematic enough for them to refuse airtime.

Biggest lickspittle on boardz

For Forks Sake wrote: »

Same should also apply to broadcast journalism as well, the 1%s (Murphy, Coppinger et al) get an utterly disproportionate amount of airtime.

They play a very clever game, when you think about it. Clare Daly is the daughter of an Army Officer, while Paul Murphy is a Gongaza old boy, with an uncle who is an RTE journalist. So they are very much part of the 1% elite that they claim to detest.

Now, this puts them in a very unique position, where they get to play the part of supposedly disaffected, but somewhat controlled opposition. They are prepared to rock the boat with occasional 'revolutionary' stances, but nothing too extreme.

They know very well that in a real leftist revolution, they and their families would be some of the first to be put up against the wall, as history has demonstrated time and time again. The naive posers and idealistic dreamers finish up with their brains hanging out of their heads in a mass grave. The cut throats have no place for dreamers, it's brutal repression all the way.

So Murphy, Daly etc. are more than happy to milk the 'bad boy' image and pursue a perfectly comfortable champagne socialist lifestyle.
Their ilk have been doing it for the best part of a century now.

andekwarhola

The Indo is a rag and provides crap like that for its readership who lap that stuff up.

Saying that it's somehow indicative of an overall death of all traditional media is a case of looking for effects to suit a cause.

Biggest lickspittle on boardz

Rihanna's Crop Over costume slays social media

Social media almost collapsed under the reaction to Rihanna's costume on Monday as the singer attended the Crop Over festival in Barbados.
The 29-year-old had teased fans by uploading photos of her new turquoise hair on Instagram over the weekend.
But the look was completed on Monday as she stepped out in a jewel-encrusted costume with green and pink feathers. (And not much else).
"We are not worthy," was one of many fan reactions on Twitter.
Another added the singer "officially killed me" with the costume, while others said she was "blessing the internet".

http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-40860595

This is an article on the BBC site today. It looks like they're going for the buzzfeed approach too. The quality of that writing is shocking, it's like a discussion you would overhear between a bunch of teenage girls at Dundrum shopping centre.

reason vs religion

Biggest lickspittle on boardz wrote: »

Rihanna's Crop Over costume slays social media



http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-40860595

This is an article on the BBC site today. It looks like they're going for the buzzfeed approach too. The quality of that writing is shocking, it's like a discussion you would overhear between a bunch of teenage girls at Dundrum shopping centre.

Why are you taking an article from the entertainment section of the BBC website (which has hugely varied content, from cookery to language learning) and then branding the whole site as Buzzfeed-esque? It's daft.

And wonderfully ironic that your criticism of the writing in the article includes a run-on sentence!! :D In fact, there is nothing wrong with the writing -- it's well controlled and appropriate for the audience.

TheDoc

I think its worth remembering the shifting world traditional journalism and media is dealing with, in terms of the digital transformation.

With such viscous competition in the space, nevermind the shift in customer/demographic, who have difficulty nowadays actually informing themselves correctly, where some randomer on a blog can be a persons cornerstone for thought development and construct, it's not surprising there is issues in many newspapers.

Being forced to move to a more "clickbait" style editing, cutting corners, more mistakes, less time for investigative journalism with priority put on exclusive and here and now stories, it shouldn't be shocking to find there is difficulties.

What definitely shouldn't happen though, as like the OP has done, is tarnish a profession that has been in operation for so long, has been a pivotal medium in civilisation and the world we know for over a century, and provided some incredible talents and people. And still does, you will still find incredible journalism and writing in papers, not on blogs or forums or reddit or twitter.

It should always be remembered journalists like most employees answer to managers, who answer to senior managers, who answer to executives, who answer to boards and shareholders. Most papers and news agencies and spaces are all getting the same message fed down from the top, and its a push to commercialised clickbait to generate revenue streams. Very few journalists exist anymore like even 20 years ago where they catch a scoop or a story, go to their editor and basically tell their boss they are running with it. There is very few journalists left with that sort of sway or credit. Most are dictated to and most are provided their coverage for the day or a week. And any investigative stuff and the likes, is all done in their own personal time, without pay.

While I agree there is plenty of ****e out there, I'm not so quick to welcome the complete digital age, where some unaccredited blogger is now the narrative shaper or opinion former. I'm yet to really find an online resource where the writing quality or skillset comes close to what you find in papers.

And also worth remembering, that this stuff appears in papers, because there is a demographic for it.

draiochtanois

This post has been deleted.