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

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.