|
Okay! I'll be serious and start a new thread while I'm thinking about it! Journalism's been on a slide for a while; the likes of Gawker and BuzzFeed have done a very good job of slicing off the publishing arms of venerable newspapers and outlets while folks like Gannets continue to buy out holdings, not to mention smaller holding groups like Community Newspaper Holdings or Shaw Media creating holdings over every small paper possible. There's the disaster that was patch.com, along with sites like Everyblock, which doesn't involve journalists at all, but is used by them for local news! Journalism in America is in hell, given allegations of fake news, stilted news, ignored news, and otherwise crappy news every single day. It's in a bad place and has been for a while. that's my intro, take it from here Victory Position has issued a correction as of 06:19 on Dec 11, 2016 |
#
¿
Dec 11, 2016 06:15
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 18:54 |
|
|
well, I woke up, so let's explore a weird facet of when AOL / THE HUFFINGTON POST tries to go local and fucks up royally! It's PATCH MEDIA! I'm a little lazy, so let's take a look at this part of the Wikipedia entry about it: "Patch was founded by Tim Armstrong, Warren Webster and Jon Brod in 2007 after Armstrong said he found a dearth of online information on his hometown of Riverside, Connecticut.[7] The company was then acquired by AOL in 2009 shortly after Armstrong became AOL's CEO. Armstrong told AOL staffers that he recused himself from negotiations to acquire the company and did not directly profit from his seed investment. He instead asked that his seed money be returned to him in the form of AOL stock when it split from Time Warner." Not so promising, especially when he asked for AOL stock, is it? Now, the idea of Patch Media is that there's a SINGLE editor/reporter/writer for each town covered. Choose the major city of your choice. Name a suburb. One person is tasked to do the leg work for every single thing in that suburb, whether 5,000 or 100,000 strong and write every story for it each day. Populate with police blotters and user-submitted content for whatever the local high schools or churches are doing. Sprinkle with AOL-provided content. Get paid $12.50/hr for your efforts. Repeat. It might sound crazy, but they haven't been doing well with this model. Jim Romenesko really doesn't like them. Ex-Patch people don't like that Romenesko doesn't like Patch! (You'll have to dive into the Romenesk-hole to find more stories, but this guy really loathes the whole concept as described above.) but hey, people really want to write, so who cares if the content dives as a result? edit: effort posting is really tough these days, jeez louise
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2016 20:49
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Do I need to go grab a primer literally fake news, not spin or editorialized stuff, but actually fully completely nonexistent stuff? With some exceptions, even the likes of Fox and Breitbart would massively skew and selectively report on events and items that existed. That's not fake news, that's sensationalist / editorial / slanted news that you can find heated debate on in the primary sources amalgamated in scholarly works on journalism in the 1800s (part 4 in a series on journalism up to, through, and after the American Civil War). Now this is a good post. It should be clarified that yellow journalism, while a pain in the rear end, has been around as long as bias itself, but is in no way the literal "out of the ether" kind of news articles generated for profit and outrage. Is is the platform that lends credence and power to the spread of this kind of crap? I'm not too knowledgeable about Facebook's ability to disseminate content over large demographics, but it's none too hard to curate a bundle of tweets into a Storify or crap out a ramshackle paper.li like most of the Occupy groups have chosen to do. There's a thing or two I want to get into concerning Atlantic/Slate-style "thinkpieces" that do little more than parrot each other on their respective sites, but that's for another post. Victory Position has issued a correction as of 16:06 on Dec 14, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2016 16:03
|
|
|
Misrepresentation of credentials still holds you to the standards of the profession. Brian Williams severely twisted the truth concerning his experiences in Iraq and was put to bear for it because of his position; some random jerk who circulates a story through Facebook can't be put to task for doing something that can amount to the same. To be more specific, I would say that the proliferation of "pop-up" news outlets, as you described the Denver Guardian, to be a subject worth discussing, as it seems that more or less anyone can thesaurus an organization together and sound legitimate enough to merit sharing. ...though, with that said, I'd like to see someone try to pass themselves off as the Chicago Defender in a fake article 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2016 05:05
|
|
|
new phone who dis posted:Trusting a bunch of ideological hacks to be the kingmakers of media will fail just as hilariously as an algorithm. Both forms of curation sucked and returning to the old way isn't the answer. Also, LOL that some of you actually think Snopes is still a good source for political debunking. it is, however, still the number one place to find out if someone was agitated to death after falling into a washing machine
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2016 00:56
|
|