Printable View
How're we doing?
We certainly have tons of information at our fingertips. And we don't have to wait days, hours, or minutes to get the latest news. Within seconds there's video, pictures, commentary, blogs, op-eds, 'articles' from every corner of the earth, on the internet web and cloud.
Journalism has taken quite a hit, though. Particularly 'investigative' journalism, and the kind of writing that not only informs but educates.
What do you think?
Here's 13 Incredible Opinions Spawnie Has On Information In The Digital Age
Where are the GIFs with cats in them?
Disagreed, investigative journalism is far more invigorated now than ever.
Information is easier to get then ever the issue is that people don't trust anymore.
The media has lost a ton of credibility with their shenanigans (a good thing in general) however the flip side is that now people doubt what could be safely considered fact. The internet has created whole forums and sites devoted to group think, only using sources that are "Friendly." Its one of the reasons why I enjoy this site so much - while our population is small we do have a lot of different perspectives.
Well said. There are too many "me too" sites out there that have just friendly voices that re-affirm each others prejudices.
Good well-sourced and thoughtful investigative journalism has taken a hit in that it's easily lost in the unending sea of sites that copy each other in order to generate clicks from attention-challenged readers.
That says more about the readers than the news publications though.
Disagreed. It may be flooded by the amount of crap that is generated nowadays but with the nowadays there are more people than every investigating - thoughtfully and well-sourced - even if others aren't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
more, but the sources are different, speadout across smaller user bases, and/or lacking in a credible history, and that scares people. When the New York Times killed its Environmental Desk, Global Warming coverage dropped, while the percentage of denial articles rose. A year later other sources are starting to fill in the gap, but the leader seems to be Dread's favorite, Al Jazeera, since he has so many colorful nicknames for them.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Smaller operations are more likely to be silenced since they don't have the funds to fight lengthy court battles (thats if they aren't bought out to begin with).
Then again, only 6 corporations control 90% of the media in America; down from 50 30 years ago.
So...you don't trust online dictionaries? Doesn't this board offer a spell check function?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Yikes. And how many corporations "control" the device and delivery modes used to access "news and information"? My guess is less than ten.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Fewer than ten. :o
For anyone insinuating that having a corporation control a media source somehow leads to a pro-business bias for that source, I'd really like to know your take on MSNBC...
Not that you asked me but my take is they are a Google wanna-be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
More is not better. A large number of people "investigating" and reporting the same sources under the same flawed assumptions and with the same flawed understanding is not incredible, it just generates a great deal more noise. I'll concede that there are some advantages even with crowdsourced investigations but my personal experience has been that it sometimes takes a great deal of work in the form of googling to find a person who's done even more work with finding and analyzing primary sources. Ie. finding good investigative reporting/journalism requires, in my experience, a thorough investigative patient kinda obsessed reader.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
You could probably draw parallells to various forms of bias in scientific publishing, as well as to good things in the same industry.
I stopped paying attention to the board's spell-check function, it kept getting things wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Being
Another parallel I was mulling over -- degrees in Education and Journalism that don't necessarily produce great teachers or journalists, like degrees in Media/Communications that crank out TV personalities reading tele-prompters. Might be better to have experts in certain fields do the teaching, investigating, reporting, writing. Would that encourage quality and in-depth analysis on the front-end, with more educated (not just 'informed') readers on the back-end?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
You could just have a person do a BA in their field of interest and then an MA in journalism.
A minor in Journalism (or Media Communications) would be sufficient. So long as major degrees mean graduating with expert knowledge of a specific field, minors are secondary "helpers", usually for employment prospects.
The assumption being that one can teach all there is to know about journalism in about 3-4 undergrad classes. :noob:
Perhaps. The more important "assumption" is that expertise in any field can't be gained by getting a degree in Journalism.
And expertise in journalism can't be gained by studying other fields. :noob:
Is there an echo in here?
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...12061/abstract
Given the choice between reporting on the study above and the latest run-in with the law by Bieber et al., I wonder which the media will cover. :o
Should we ask oil-wealthy Nigeria why they didn't clamp down on Boko Haram sufficiently....or blame media for not covering it until over 300 female students were abducted? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I'm going to guess that the unwillingness of the Nigerian media to cover these events well contributes to the government's lackluster response.
It's still a guess. We don't really know if information/news is driven by media or journalists or governments.....in countries that don't have a "Free Press", Fourth Estate protections, or 'sunshine laws' like the US does.
edit: In that context, I can understand why some countries have designated internet access a "right".
What makes you think Nigeria doesn't have a free press? :confused: It's not perfect, but it's not exactly heavily regulated or repressed...
You tell me....why didn't "news reports" that a terrorist group like Boko Haram was marauding and kidnapping....make Nigerian officials take notice?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Edit: Along the same lines, Malaysia doesn't have a heavily regulated or repressed press...but they don't really have a "Free Press" as we define it in the US. Neither does South Korea, apparently.
*Bump*
Interesting op-ed from the Deputy Editor of the Jewish Chronicle in the UK over the failings of the New York Times, identified by others online.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/...-gaza-coverage
TL;DR: The NYT scraped emotive fake news from Twitter, being propulgated by people with an agenda and stuck it on its front page. Others online did the basic fact-checking the NYT should have done and showed where it was false.
The age of 'papers of record' doing all the investigative journalism is dead, but while people online can be interested in spreading conspiracy theories and fake news - others online can be determined to get to the truth and shine a spotlight upon it.
-
Tbf, Gaza itself is a human shield—anything you do there, you do with a human shield. Entire Palestinian families—including children and grandparents—have been destroyed in the latest round of attacks. Meanwhile, on The Jewish Chronicle's Wikipedia page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Je..._and_criticism
I feel like, when your publication's wikipedia entry has a long section on how it's been forced to apologize and pay damages for false and defamatory claims on multiple occasions in just the past few years, you might not be a good candidate for writing about the incidental journalistic missteps of better publications. Unless, of course, you're penning a piece for a ludicrous shitrag that gives the most odious racists and conspiracy theorists in England a platform :haha:
The crisis of journalism is also present in education. The anti-intellectualist culture.
Dumb people are easier to manipulate than smart people. It has been years of anti-intellectualist culture.
The anti-intellectualist culture is finally reaping what it sow.
So suddenly no brainer thoughts become a major discovery because intellectuals have been exiled for being "geeks" and "nerds".
* The word "intelligence" is about being smart, but in the anti-intellectualist culture it is military information.
* The word "Intellectuals" in anti-intellectualist culture describes entitled people who propagate ideas on how to efficiently dumb down people by changing the meaning of words.
* Data and information are sought as more relevant for decision making than knowledge, experience and wisdom
* The word "expert" and "consultant" refers to entitled people who are hired to tell top management what could be learned by talking to front desk employees. Many people do not understand the difference between knowledge and experience.
* Thinking is difficult. This is why most people judge. And the anti-intellectualist culture judges people a lot.
instead of remarking all these tiny nuances that result of anti-intellectualist culture, you better try to end anti-intellectualist culture. Anti-intellectualist culture is the cult that worships the dumb.
The whole idea of "conspiracy theory" paired with anti-intellectualist culture and censorship implies that "you are dumb and we protect you from conspiracy theories that could harm you".
Anti-intellectual culture really needs censorship and doctrine to guide people because for years they did not develop the intelect to protect themselves. Questioning doctrine and censorship leads to nowhere. You either have anti-intellectual culture or you don't.
Questioning the nuances of anti-intellectual culture does not abolish the need to protect dumb people.