The end of Journalism (1 Viewer)

[bueno]

I'm not sure why this is so hard to comprehend. The complaint being put forward is that some media outlets aren't reporting news that people need to hear. But as long as advertising funds the media outlet, media outlets take too much risk reporting what people need to hear. Say for example CBS decides to report the same things Fox is reporting on the premise that people need to hear this news. The CBS viewers would say "I'm not listening to this conservative crap" and turn the channel to NBC. This would cause CBS to lose those viewers, which would cause CBS to lose the advertisers trying to reach those viewers. That is why CBS (and any media outlet) will always, and I repeat ALWAYS, report the news their veiwers want to hear. Reporting news they need to hear is too risky.

But the advertisers advertise on all the networks and news channels, whether conservative crap or liberal crap. So what if the political demographics of a news program changes? The advertisers are trying to capture as large a market share as possible - content of the news programs is a secondary concern. The advertisers do not have control over content - the viewers do. The advertisers are an effect, not a cause.

 

[SlimShady]

Oh boy.Politics really brings out the ridiculous.First, journalists are infringing upon Palins first amendment rights, and now journalism is itself dead. Keep the hits coming, guys. Only a few more days until the election is over and the people have spoken.

Problem is that most of the people get all their information from the biased media.The media has been biased for a long, long time. And there are certain companies biased in certain directions more than others, but overall, everybody wants to convey a message.The truth about the article is that there is a significant bias in the media.The failure though, is that true, objective journalism has been dead a long, long time. And to use current events to say now is the time it finally died it ludicrous.In fact, it itself, is biased.

This whole idea that the media is one entity is silly. Are individual news outlets biased, perhaps, not terribly biased except for Fox News, but perhaps. But from the variety of media sources we have, from TV to internet to blogs...things get covered. You guys wouldn't know about real issues if they weren't covered in some media form or another.The problem that the OP and many others are posting is that the issues that are most important to THEM aren't getting huge amounts of press. Now, mostly this is spouted out regarding political issues, where there are pretty polar sides to the issues. If one person on one side doesn't think particular issues of importance to him/her are getting enough attention, they'll cry foul. Is there a foul, really, or is the stuff just not newsworthy? It's hard to tell.But it's ridiculous to say that journalism is dead. The only thing that is alive and well is partisanship, and that seriously affects the way in which people see the media...and most people don't complain about the media when it doesn't have to do with politics.

actually the old guard media is dead, or if not completely in the coffin they are sinking into the grave. newspaper circulation rates are way down, the New York Times stock just went to "JUNK" status by Moody's, the Los Angeles Times just layed off another 75 people, less people watch CBS, ABC, NBC than ever, mostly bluehairs at that. The future of the media is the internet. What's left of the old guard media may as well be renamed the media wing of the Democrat party. You won't find balance there as that field is filled with old libs that want to cling to some bleak future after years of trying to create some self fulfilling career in "journalism" only to be jilted by a changing time where their career is in jeopardy as their companies fail and downsize. The only place you can find a balanced press is on the net.

 

[Balance]

comon damnit the suspense is killing me.

HOW DOES IT END?!?

 

[bueno]

Oh boy.Politics really brings out the ridiculous.First, journalists are infringing upon Palins first amendment rights, and now journalism is itself dead. Keep the hits coming, guys. Only a few more days until the election is over and the people have spoken.

Problem is that most of the people get all their information from the biased media.The media has been biased for a long, long time. And there are certain companies biased in certain directions more than others, but overall, everybody wants to convey a message.The truth about the article is that there is a significant bias in the media.The failure though, is that true, objective journalism has been dead a long, long time. And to use current events to say now is the time it finally died it ludicrous.In fact, it itself, is biased.

This whole idea that the media is one entity is silly. Are individual news outlets biased, perhaps, not terribly biased except for Fox News, but perhaps. But from the variety of media sources we have, from TV to internet to blogs...things get covered. You guys wouldn't know about real issues if they weren't covered in some media form or another.The problem that the OP and many others are posting is that the issues that are most important to THEM aren't getting huge amounts of press. Now, mostly this is spouted out regarding political issues, where there are pretty polar sides to the issues. If one person on one side doesn't think particular issues of importance to him/her are getting enough attention, they'll cry foul. Is there a foul, really, or is the stuff just not newsworthy? It's hard to tell.But it's ridiculous to say that journalism is dead. The only thing that is alive and well is partisanship, and that seriously affects the way in which people see the media...and most people don't complain about the media when it doesn't have to do with politics.

actually the old guard media is dead, or if not completely in the coffin they are sinking into the grave. newspaper circulation rates are way down, the New York Times stock just went to "JUNK" status by Moody's, the Los Angeles Times just layed off another 75 people, less people watch CBS, ABC, NBC than ever, mostly bluehairs at that. The future of the media is the internet. What's left of the old guard media may as well be renamed the media wing of the Democrat party. You won't find balance there as that field is filled with old libs that want to cling to some bleak future after years of trying to create some self fulfilling career in "journalism" only to be jilted by a changing time where their career is in jeopardy as their companies fail and downsize. The only place you can find a balanced press is on the net.

But the internet "press" is far from unbiased, and I can only read the stories on sites that I agree with.

 

[Ron_Mexico]

Oh boy.Politics really brings out the ridiculous.First, journalists are infringing upon Palins first amendment rights, and now journalism is itself dead. Keep the hits coming, guys. Only a few more days until the election is over and the people have spoken.

How did you view journalistic integritywhen they lied down like sheep when Bush waspushing for this horse#### WMD War in Iraq ?.

Does a mistake make journalism dead?Does laying down for a republican president show their liberal bias?Why would they purposefully help out the conservative president, and then help a liberal obama get into office if they were just straight liberal? These talking points don't make a whole lot of sense when a story that lasts longer than a few months is woven with the real events.

Laying down for a President who is banging the drum to start a farce waris void of journalistic integrity regardless of party affiliation..

 

[Death Bytes]

I'm not sure why this is so hard to comprehend. The complaint being put forward is that some media outlets aren't reporting news that people need to hear. But as long as advertising funds the media outlet, media outlets take too much risk reporting what people need to hear. Say for example CBS decides to report the same things Fox is reporting on the premise that people need to hear this news. The CBS viewers would say "I'm not listening to this conservative crap" and turn the channel to NBC. This would cause CBS to lose those viewers, which would cause CBS to lose the advertisers trying to reach those viewers. That is why CBS (and any media outlet) will always, and I repeat ALWAYS, report the news their veiwers want to hear. Reporting news they need to hear is too risky.

But the advertisers advertise on all the networks and news channels, whether conservative crap or liberal crap. So what if the political demographics of a news program changes? The advertisers are trying to capture as large a market share as possible - content of the news programs is a secondary concern. The advertisers do not have control over content - the viewers do. The advertisers are an effect, not a cause.

This isn't true. Brands know who their products appeal to. Everyone needs cars, but some makes and models appeal to liberals and democrats but don't appeal to conservatives and republicans, and vice versa. This is true of a lot of brands of different products.It's also not true that advertisers are trying to capture as large a market share as possible. The company is trying to get as much market share as possible, but an ad/commercial is far more effective if it's targeted. An ad/commerical that's properly targeted to appeal to 0.01% of the population can end up producing more revenue than an ad that's trying to target 10-20% of the population. That's because that 0.01% is known by the company to be a "highly likely buyer". Being able to target at a granualar level is powerful in advertising, which is why advertisers are so enthralled with the social networking sites, as they can pick and chose different types of people to see their ads. Facebook may have 100,000,000 users, but an advertiser can create an ad where only college males currently in a relationship and has a gun hobby see their ad. That's a powerful advertising targeting tool to be able to do that.So while the advertisers do not have control over a media outlets content, the advertisers are looking to make connections at a narrow level with consumers, and not at a broad level. Narrow level news reporting helps advertisers reach the customers they are trying to reach.

 

[Offa]

Would you prefer that the governemnt fund the media instead?

Why would that be such a terrible idea?

 

[Ron_Mexico]

Would you prefer that the governemnt fund the media instead?

Why would that be such a terrible idea?

The Federal government partially funds the best US Media outlet in the country.PBS

 

[bueno]

I'm not sure why this is so hard to comprehend. The complaint being put forward is that some media outlets aren't reporting news that people need to hear. But as long as advertising funds the media outlet, media outlets take too much risk reporting what people need to hear. Say for example CBS decides to report the same things Fox is reporting on the premise that people need to hear this news. The CBS viewers would say "I'm not listening to this conservative crap" and turn the channel to NBC. This would cause CBS to lose those viewers, which would cause CBS to lose the advertisers trying to reach those viewers. That is why CBS (and any media outlet) will always, and I repeat ALWAYS, report the news their veiwers want to hear. Reporting news they need to hear is too risky.

But the advertisers advertise on all the networks and news channels, whether conservative crap or liberal crap. So what if the political demographics of a news program changes? The advertisers are trying to capture as large a market share as possible - content of the news programs is a secondary concern. The advertisers do not have control over content - the viewers do. The advertisers are an effect, not a cause.

This isn't true. Brands know who their products appeal to. Everyone needs cars, but some makes and models appeal to liberals and democrats but don't appeal to conservatives and republicans, and vice versa. This is true of a lot of brands of different products.It's also not true that advertisers are trying to capture as large a market share as possible. The company is trying to get as much market share as possible, but an ad/commercial is far more effective if it's targeted. An ad/commerical that's properly targeted to appeal to 0.01% of the population can end up producing more revenue than an ad that's trying to target 10-20% of the population. That's because that 0.01% is known by the company to be a "highly likely buyer".

Being able to target at a granualar level is powerful in advertising, which is why advertisers are so enthralled with the social networking sites, as they can pick and chose different types of people to see their ads. Facebook may have 100,000,000 users, but an advertiser can create an ad where only college males currently in a relationship and has a gun hobby see their ad. That's a powerful advertising targeting tool to be able to do that.

So while the advertisers do not have control over a media outlets content, the advertisers are looking to make connections at a narrow level with consumers, and not at a broad level. Narrow level news reporting helps advertisers reach the customers they are trying to reach.

The bolded statement has to be the most ignorant thing ever said in the history of the FFA. Advertisers are always trying to capture as large a market share as possible. That is the point of advertising!While you have a point with the smaller market segments (i.e. Save the Children wouldn't advertise on MTV), the advertisers that dominate the major news networks are ones that cut across a wide range of demographics. They are not ones that appeal to a narrow segment. To say that Pepsi is not trying to capture a larger market share relative to Coke (for example) displays a complete lack of understanding of marketing in general. TV and radio advertising, because of the cost must appeal to a broad segment of the population. You can do granular advertising in emails or on the internet, but it simply doesn't work in the major media.

TV and radio advertising are meant to reach a broad market, not a granular one. College males currently in a relationship with a gun hobby is too narrow a demographic to target on the major media outlets. That assumption is absolutely absurd.

 

[bueno]

Would you prefer that the governemnt fund the media instead?

Why would that be such a terrible idea?

The Federal government partially funds the best US Media outlet in the country.PBS

As demonstrated by their market share.

 

[Chadstroma]

I doubt journalism survived the runup to the Iraqui war.Anything they are doing now is better than what they were doing then.

Wat?

 

[Chadstroma]

There's no question about it. The media got Obama elected.

The media doesn't vote. American Citizens do. They are the ones who vote for the candidates, not the media.

The media does not declare war either. Congress does. Check your history and explain how the Spanish-American War started.

 

[Chadstroma]

Oh boy.Politics really brings out the ridiculous.First, journalists are infringing upon Palins first amendment rights, and now journalism is itself dead. Keep the hits coming, guys. Only a few more days until the election is over and the people have spoken.

How did you view journalistic integritywhen they lied down like sheep when Bush waspushing for this horse#### WMD War in Iraq ?.

So, the media is suppose to have better intelligence than the American Intelligence Community? The media is suppose to have better intelligence than pretty much all of the major intelligence agencies in the world? The media was suppose to know that Saddam made, yet again, a horrible calculation in that he needed to appear to have the WMD programs active to fend off Iran? Really? There is a whole lot to be critical of the media about, I do not think this is one of them.

 

[Chadstroma]

Bias is human and the media is full of humans. Why is it so shocking to see errors and or bias in the media?

I do not think it is the death of journalism but I do think that there has been a decline in the striving to be professional and setting aside personal views to report it as it is.

I think a lot of those in the media lie to themselves that they are just presenting life as reality. Just as a lot of people who post here, as an example of human nature, have an absolutism about their beliefs being the one and only truth.

 

[spacevan]

Oh boy.Politics really brings out the ridiculous.First, journalists are infringing upon Palins first amendment rights, and now journalism is itself dead. Keep the hits coming, guys. Only a few more days until the election is over and the people have spoken.

Problem is that most of the people get all their information from the biased media.The media has been biased for a long, long time. And there are certain companies biased in certain directions more than others, but overall, everybody wants to convey a message.The truth about the article is that there is a significant bias in the media.The failure though, is that true, objective journalism has been dead a long, long time. And to use current events to say now is the time it finally died it ludicrous.In fact, it itself, is biased.

Objective journalism never existed. At least not in the US. Media bias goes back to the founding fathers (and their relatives).

It was never THIS bad though.

Wow Statorama, you get around pretty good with that white cane and those blinders on. Objectivity has completely gone out the window and most people only listen, or believe, the stories that serve their purpose. Their purpose being NOT HAVING TO THINK FOR THEMSELVES.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Malcolm Gladwell’s Plagiarism ProblemIs the New Yorker’s star writer—and author of The Tipping Point—guilty of plagiarism, as two bloggers suggest, or not attributing material to sources properly?
The pseudonymous blogging duo at Our Bad Media—who most recently indicted CNN host and foreign policy intellectual Fareed Zakaria on charges of rampant plagiarism—have a new target: star New Yorker writer and mega-bestselling author Malcolm Gladwell.

In a lengthy bill of particulars posted Thursday morning on their Web site, @Blippoblappo and @Crushingbort—their deceptively silly Twitter handles—accused Gladwell of three instances of alleged plagiarism dating back to 2010.

Using the sarcastic headline “Tipping Points: Malcolm Gladwell Could Use a Few”—a reference to the title of one of the celebrity social theorist’s more influential books—the bloggers list three allegedly problematic New Yorker articles by Gladwell: a June 24, 2013 piece titled “The Gift of Doubt”; a May 16, 2011 piece titled “Creation Myth”; and an Oct. 4, 2010 column titled “Small Change.”

@Blippoblappo and @Crushingbort added that “few have questioned the originality of Gladwell’s work in The New Yorker. After reviewing a very small sample of his articles from the last few years, we’ve found a few that lifted quotes and other material without attribution. One column in particular appears to have lifted all of its material on a historic civil rights protest from one book written 40 years earlier.”

In his response to the charges, Gladwell affected a tone of sangfroid and referred inquiring minds to his long New Yorker essay from 2004, “Something Borrowed,” that “perhaps best captures my feelings on the subject.”

In the piece, Gladwell asked, “Should a charge of plagiarism ruin your life?” His answer generally was no. In an email to Newsweek, Gladwell added: “I think [New Yorker editor] David Remnick is about to (or already has) said something on this.”

Indeed, Remnick issued a statement in which he didn’t go out of his way to defend his prized writer; to the contrary, he agreed with @Blippoblappo and @Crushingbort that Gladwell in his 2010 piece should have credited Miles Wolff’s 1970 book, Lunch at the Five and Ten, for a detailed description of a 1960 sit-in at a Woolworth’s in Greensboro, North Carolina, during the civil rights movement.

“We try to make judgments about source attribution with fairness and in good faith. But we don’t always get it right,” Remnick wrote. “In retrospect, for example, we should have credited Miles Wolff’s 1970 book about Greensboro, because it’s central to our understanding of those events. We sometimes fall short, but our hope is always to give readers and sources the consideration they deserve.”

Remnick added: “The issue is not really about Malcolm. And, to be clear, it isn’t really about plagiarism. The issue is an ongoing editorial challenge known to writers and editors everywhere—to what extent should a piece of journalism, which doesn’t have the apparatus of academic footnotes, credit secondary sources?”

Gladwell might be happier with the comments of one of his supposed victims, tech journalist Jeffrey S. Young, who said in an interview with the Daily Beast that he was unconcerned and even flattered that Gladwell had cribbed a quote without attribution from his 1987 biography of Steve Jobs—another allegation by Our Bad Media.

The offending quote—from Young’s reporting on a talk by Xerox engineer Larry Tesler--concerned Jobs’s visit to a Xerox product development facility, being entranced by that company’s early version of a personal computer, and asking whether, for a million dollars, Xerox would “open its kimono” to Apple.

“Plagiarism is not something I’m worried about,” Young said, adding that he has been accused of the crime himself. “I’m not going to claim any plagiarism. Would I like to see attribution? That would be nice. But it’s really a slippery wicket…It’s all kind of a big mass and we all stir it up and, hey, whatever.”

In the 2013 piece, Our Bad Media argues, Gladwell plagiarized facts about the 19th century Troy-Greenfield railroad by not crediting the ur-source, historian John Sawyer.

The prosecutorial bloggers—who in a recent email exchange with Newsweek claimed they aren’t journalists but simply enjoy sniffing out media malpractice as a hobby—are clearly not fans of Gladwell’s oeuvre.

“Malcolm Gladwell has made a name for himself peddling social theories that attempt to explain our world in simple-to-understand and incorrect ways,” they write, noting that “virtually every one of Gladwell’s ridiculously popular books has been met with criticism for playing fast and loose with the facts and using anecdotes as evidence of some larger truth.”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/11/malcolm-gladwell-s-plagiarism-problem.html

Those infernal anonymous bloggers & commenters!

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

This seems like a really interesting piece, and I'll try to get back to it when I can.