"What you need to know"... That expression really rankles me. 90% of what follows that expression now invariably turns out to be false and 50% of it is manipulative propaganda (largely redundant, I know).
I don't. I have a yahoo email and I get a feed there, althoughaybe feed is the wrong word. I like a lot of sources so I read it sometimes. The Explainer thing cracks me up.
I think the chasm between when you entered the field and where it is today can be blamed on the idea that many of your colleagues think they are smarter than their readers & viewers. When you have a group of journalists who look down on the very people who read or view their content, it becomes okay, even an imperative to set the "Correct & proper" agenda. To properly educate the consumer.
Generally, I think journalism is where it is today because of the idea that many (not all) journalists feel they are the smartest people in the room.
I think you may be right about the current state of what passes for journalism. But I have come to understand (in part due to a fellow CSer, Shane) that it is a result of the death of newspaper journalism. In essence for most of the 1900s newspapers were the source of news. People paid for papers so papers could afford writers. People bought more papers so papers could afford staff. People bought more papers so powerful editors arose in the newspapers staff. Those editors created what I know as journalistic integrity and standards. Then the internet came along. People quit buying papers. The system collapsed and the idea of journalistic accountability is non-existent at this time.
Lynne, I would add when the newspapers were replaced by the Internet, the economics changed dramatically when you contrast the two. A newspaper journalist had time to check the facts, do some research, question the players, etc. and then if worthy, the editors would edit and run the story and people would buy the newspaper. Once we moved to a click based economy, and 24/7 instant news cycles, it put the economic survival of тАЬnewsтАЭ outlets in the тАЬget it out there first and get the clicksтАЭ mode rather than тАЬget it out there right even if we will not survive mode.тАЭ
There are still "powerful editors" in other (more "modern") media (TV, radio, Twitter, Insta, etc.). The problem is they were all educated in the "modern" version of the U.S. university/journalism school. THAT'S the problem.
Both, I suspect. When the Leftward shift began, it was mostly that education "radicalized" journalism students. But the further Left the Media gets, the more students are attracted to it because it allows them a bully pulpit for their already-existing activism.
"What you need to know"... That expression really rankles me. 90% of what follows that expression now invariably turns out to be false and 50% of it is manipulative propaganda (largely redundant, I know).
I am the judge of what I need to know.
I keep seeing something in my yahoo news feed called Explainer. Yeah, sure it does.
Why do you trust Yahoo to curate what news you see there?
I don't. I have a yahoo email and I get a feed there, althoughaybe feed is the wrong word. I like a lot of sources so I read it sometimes. The Explainer thing cracks me up.
"Explainer" and "What you need to know about" are for Millenials and Z's, apparently they like to be spoon fed.
Similar to mansplaining
That means a man having to explain something to womxn
Thanks for the info.
I believe it's been pretty much discarded. WaPo still employs it, but it's pretty much a joke.
I have a journalism degree. IтАЩm now 62 years old. The 45 years between my youthful vision of the craft and today may as well be 10,000 millennia.
I think the chasm between when you entered the field and where it is today can be blamed on the idea that many of your colleagues think they are smarter than their readers & viewers. When you have a group of journalists who look down on the very people who read or view their content, it becomes okay, even an imperative to set the "Correct & proper" agenda. To properly educate the consumer.
Generally, I think journalism is where it is today because of the idea that many (not all) journalists feel they are the smartest people in the room.
I think you may be right about the current state of what passes for journalism. But I have come to understand (in part due to a fellow CSer, Shane) that it is a result of the death of newspaper journalism. In essence for most of the 1900s newspapers were the source of news. People paid for papers so papers could afford writers. People bought more papers so papers could afford staff. People bought more papers so powerful editors arose in the newspapers staff. Those editors created what I know as journalistic integrity and standards. Then the internet came along. People quit buying papers. The system collapsed and the idea of journalistic accountability is non-existent at this time.
Lynne, I would add when the newspapers were replaced by the Internet, the economics changed dramatically when you contrast the two. A newspaper journalist had time to check the facts, do some research, question the players, etc. and then if worthy, the editors would edit and run the story and people would buy the newspaper. Once we moved to a click based economy, and 24/7 instant news cycles, it put the economic survival of тАЬnewsтАЭ outlets in the тАЬget it out there first and get the clicksтАЭ mode rather than тАЬget it out there right even if we will not survive mode.тАЭ
Exactly. Thanks for filling out the facts.
There are still "powerful editors" in other (more "modern") media (TV, radio, Twitter, Insta, etc.). The problem is they were all educated in the "modern" version of the U.S. university/journalism school. THAT'S the problem.
Is it actually the education that makes them this way? Or a different kind of student drawn to the field?
Both, I suspect. When the Leftward shift began, it was mostly that education "radicalized" journalism students. But the further Left the Media gets, the more students are attracted to it because it allows them a bully pulpit for their already-existing activism.