This is just so exhausting. Either media outlets (1) STILL don't get that people suck and are only reading the headlines and need to adjust headlines to better reflect the content of the article,...
This is just so exhausting. Either media outlets (1) STILL don't get that people suck and are only reading the headlines and need to adjust headlines to better reflect the content of the article, or (2) They do get it and don't care enough to change. One is more malicious than the other, but both are pretty fucking bad.
honestly? most of them don't care or are so glacial to reflect on their errors in reporting during 2016 and afterwards in general that they might as well not care. the new york times newsroom...
This is just so exhausting. Either media outlets (1) STILL don't get that people suck and are only reading the headlines and need to adjust headlines to better reflect the content of the article, or (2) They do get it and don't care enough to change. One is more malicious than the other, but both are pretty fucking bad.
honestly? most of them don't care or are so glacial to reflect on their errors in reporting during 2016 and afterwards in general that they might as well not care. the new york times newsroom still stands behind its reporting on the hillary clinton email scandal even now for example, even though she was basically cleared by the FBI no less than twice, the story was ultimately a nothingburger, and it materially was one of several factors which provided the difference between a tight clinton mandate and donald winning the presidency despite losing the popular vote. newsrooms have completely failed to adapt to the new age of politics that donald seems to be creating, and at this rate, i'm pretty sure they're going to fuck their coverage up royally up in 2020 too.
I'd imagine that a lot of it boils down to Donald Trump's sells papers, and in a world where Paper Journalism is losing out to TV Journalism, TV Journalism is losing out to Reality TV, and they...
I'd imagine that a lot of it boils down to Donald Trump's sells papers, and in a world where Paper Journalism is losing out to TV Journalism, TV Journalism is losing out to Reality TV, and they are all fighting the soul consuming void that is Facebook, anything that can sell news will be used to sell news.
Idk, I personally would say “Doing your job correctly, not further leading the world into darkness, and writing the actual news and not a lie” are rewards and if you went into journalism I would...
Idk, I personally would say “Doing your job correctly, not further leading the world into darkness, and writing the actual news and not a lie” are rewards and if you went into journalism I would hope would be things you care about.
Yes, because the problem is journalists just don't want to do their jobs well. It has nothing to do with capitalism or how we consume news, or anything like that. Just lazy, bad journalists. In...
Yes, because the problem is journalists just don't want to do their jobs well. It has nothing to do with capitalism or how we consume news, or anything like that. Just lazy, bad journalists.
In case you didn't know, journalists, especially local journalists, are paid terribly little.
I recall getting $30 to drive an hour, sit through a two hour meetings, drive back, and then spend an hour writing that story. When I took a job in IT, my starting salary was more than what my prior editor made. That paper later did away with all of their local journalists to further cut costs.
If you want highfalutin morals guiding your news coverage then be prepared to pay for it. People want news, for free, instantly and they get it.
So, there seems to be a pretty glaring mistake in this article: When both the graphic and study clearly say that they did not refute the false statement 65% of the time, and only refuted it 35% of...
So, there seems to be a pretty glaring mistake in this article:
Of all the tweets about Trump's statements, 30 percent referenced something he said that was false and misleading. Of those tweets, 35 percent did not refute the false statement.
When both the graphic and study clearly say that they did not refute the false statement 65% of the time, and only refuted it 35% of the time. They switched their numbers. That's... pretty bad actually.
Especially tragic given the nature of the article. I read the comments of the yahoo news article, to see if anyone had noticed this error, and will now try never to read comments from yahoo news...
Especially tragic given the nature of the article.
I read the comments of the yahoo news article, to see if anyone had noticed this error, and will now try never to read comments from yahoo news articles ever again.
This is just so exhausting. Either media outlets (1) STILL don't get that people suck and are only reading the headlines and need to adjust headlines to better reflect the content of the article, or (2) They do get it and don't care enough to change. One is more malicious than the other, but both are pretty fucking bad.
honestly? most of them don't care or are so glacial to reflect on their errors in reporting during 2016 and afterwards in general that they might as well not care. the new york times newsroom still stands behind its reporting on the hillary clinton email scandal even now for example, even though she was basically cleared by the FBI no less than twice, the story was ultimately a nothingburger, and it materially was one of several factors which provided the difference between a tight clinton mandate and donald winning the presidency despite losing the popular vote. newsrooms have completely failed to adapt to the new age of politics that donald seems to be creating, and at this rate, i'm pretty sure they're going to fuck their coverage up royally up in 2020 too.
I'd imagine that a lot of it boils down to Donald Trump's sells papers, and in a world where Paper Journalism is losing out to TV Journalism, TV Journalism is losing out to Reality TV, and they are all fighting the soul consuming void that is Facebook, anything that can sell news will be used to sell news.
So we are the underlying problem?
I prefer blaming someone else, if you don't mind.
That's fair, I guess. On a macro level, we're all each other's problem, but that also means everything can be somebody else's problem.
I knew I was misanthropic for a reason. Now if only I could understand what you just said.
This is the right answer. News exists to sell ads.
Idk, I personally would say “Doing your job correctly, not further leading the world into darkness, and writing the actual news and not a lie” are rewards and if you went into journalism I would hope would be things you care about.
Yes, because the problem is journalists just don't want to do their jobs well. It has nothing to do with capitalism or how we consume news, or anything like that. Just lazy, bad journalists.
In case you didn't know, journalists, especially local journalists, are paid terribly little.
I recall getting $30 to drive an hour, sit through a two hour meetings, drive back, and then spend an hour writing that story. When I took a job in IT, my starting salary was more than what my prior editor made. That paper later did away with all of their local journalists to further cut costs.
If you want highfalutin morals guiding your news coverage then be prepared to pay for it. People want news, for free, instantly and they get it.
So, there seems to be a pretty glaring mistake in this article:
When both the graphic and study clearly say that they did not refute the false statement 65% of the time, and only refuted it 35% of the time. They switched their numbers. That's... pretty bad actually.
Especially tragic given the nature of the article.
I read the comments of the yahoo news article, to see if anyone had noticed this error, and will now try never to read comments from yahoo news articles ever again.
It sounds like the author wants the media to editorialize and sensationalize the headlines to support their viewpoints.