Can we also talk about "WWE Commentator" Journalism? I've never seen anyone talk about it, and once you notice it it makes it impossible to take 90% of the news seriously. Every time you see an...
Exemplary
Can we also talk about "WWE Commentator" Journalism?
I've never seen anyone talk about it, and once you notice it it makes it impossible to take 90% of the news seriously.
Every time you see an article say "Ocasio-Cortez Slams Jerry Falwell Jr. in Debate over CPAC Comments" or "Democrats Blast Biden for Recalling 'Civil' Relationship with Segregationists" or "Jon Stewart Eviscerates the Media's Coverage of Trump" or "German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier TORCHES Trump...", now read the headline and article in the voice of a wrestling commentator.
It's crazy and almost satirical. And the craziest thing is that we've become so normalized to these hyper-violent tone headlines it's not even something we notice anymore.
If I had the chops for it, I'd be making weekly skits with "Celebrity death match" style animation using real headlines. Hell, I'm surprised the Daily show doesn't have a segment on it. lol
I'm certain (not "fairly certain", but "100% certain") that Jon himself did a bit on this sort of article title... during his first stint on the Daily Show. It seems almost impossible to look up...
Jon Stewart Eviscerates the Media's Coverage of Trump
I'm certain (not "fairly certain", but "100% certain") that Jon himself did a bit on this sort of article title... during his first stint on the Daily Show.
It seems almost impossible to look up now, though.
It's a short read on what I've felt is a particularly annoying style of article as of late, specially when there is no follow up unless the person or new feature is disliked (e.g. OpenAI with...
It's a short read on what I've felt is a particularly annoying style of article as of late, specially when there is no follow up unless the person or new feature is disliked (e.g. OpenAI with ads). The easy way out is to just "announce" (say it off hand once) and then just never release it. Since almost every example I've seen applies to the tech industry I've put it here, if it need to be moved let me know :).
I recall there being a lot of discussion about this during the 2008 financial crisis because CNBC (and others) were so desperate to get access to finance executives (for interviews and such to...
I recall there being a lot of discussion about this during the 2008 financial crisis because CNBC (and others) were so desperate to get access to finance executives (for interviews and such to drive ratings) that the media basically just aired whatever these people said, uncritically.
Those especially bother me. The demented fascist clown (those are honest observations, not insults) says everything and nothing in each 200 word sentence he babbles, why would you cite him?
Those especially bother me. The demented fascist clown (those are honest observations, not insults) says everything and nothing in each 200 word sentence he babbles, why would you cite him?
Not only that, but the media constantly “sanewashes” his statements to make them seem less stupid and crazy. A recent example of this was the deployment of ICE to airports to supplement TSA. There...
Not only that, but the media constantly “sanewashes” his statements to make them seem less stupid and crazy. A recent example of this was the deployment of ICE to airports to supplement TSA. There were several articles, including by CNN, filling in how this could possibly work without much information from the government. Clearly the media did more work spinning this ridiculous decision than Trump did.
They should never give explanations for his bad decisions and they should quote his rambling nonsensical answers as given instead of translating them to coherent English.
I remember reading articles during his first term about how difficult it was to interpret for him, I can't currently find anything on the topic that isn't a blog. More currently: Trump...
I remember reading articles during his first term about how difficult it was to interpret for him, I can't currently find anything on the topic that isn't a blog.
Even worse: “mayor of [town in the middle of nowhere] [who belongs to the opposite political party] says something dumb”. There are over 19,000 mayors in the US, some are bound to be idiots. Same...
Even worse: “mayor of [town in the middle of nowhere] [who belongs to the opposite political party] says something dumb”. There are over 19,000 mayors in the US, some are bound to be idiots. Same with spokesperson, high school principle, etc. At least Trump accurately represents his party.
Would you like to know more? Ed Zitron did a fantastic butthole-ripping of the current state of financial "journalism" back in December. Pairs well with this article. A snip: Analysts have, on...
John DiFucci from Guggenheim Securities said he was “blown away.” TD Cowen’s Derrick Wood called it a “momentous quarter.” And Brad Zelnick of Deutsche Bank said, “We’re all kind of in shock, in a very good way.”
“There’s no better evidence of a seismic shift happening in computing than these results that you just put up,” Zelnick said on the earnings call.
These are the same people that retail and institutional investors rely upon for advice on what stocks to buy, all acting with the disregard for the truth that comes from years of never facing a consequence. Three months later, and Oracle has lost basically all of the stock bump it saw from the OpenAI deal, meaning that any retail investor that YOLO’d into the trade because, say, analysts from major institutions said it was a good idea and news outlets acted like this deal was real, already got their ass kicked.
And please, spare me the “oh they shouldn’t trade off of analysts” bullshit. That’s the kind of victim-blaming that allows these revered fuckwits to continue farting out these meaningless calls.
I'm also annoyed with these kind of articles. Unfortunately, these are powerful people and whatever they're claiming often matters, so it sometimes counts as news. But it's not news I want to read...
I'm also annoyed with these kind of articles. Unfortunately, these are powerful people and whatever they're claiming often matters, so it sometimes counts as news. But it's not news I want to read unless the journalist does additional work.
It's not really news. It's advertising. "CEO said a thing" is not something that actually happened, or will actually happen. It's press, released by the company. No different than the article...
It's not really news. It's advertising. "CEO said a thing" is not something that actually happened, or will actually happen. It's press, released by the company. No different than the article "Breaking: Coca-Cola is refreshing on a hot day, according to The Coca-Cola Company".
If you want to make it news, you need to do some actual analysis of what the statement likely means.
This varies. When Musk announced that he was going to buy Twitter, it did eventually happen. (After a lot of twists and turns.) But he's said a lot of other stuff that wasn't true. Similarly,...
This varies. When Musk announced that he was going to buy Twitter, it did eventually happen. (After a lot of twists and turns.) But he's said a lot of other stuff that wasn't true.
Similarly, Trump posts lots of nonsense but when he announced he was going raise tariffs, often he actually did.
Sure, but this is sort of a "broken clock is right twice a day" situation. Most of the things Musk and Trump say will happen, do not happen. The fact that every so often, what they say will happen...
Sure, but this is sort of a "broken clock is right twice a day" situation. Most of the things Musk and Trump say will happen, do not happen. The fact that every so often, what they say will happen does happen doesn't suddenly mean everything they say is news.
Given their track record, we'd be better off regularly reporting on the result of a coin flip.
Yeah I understand the newsworthiness of reporting what the US President says. To not report it is probably more irresponsible in some ways, but to not regularly mention alongside that reporting...
Yeah I understand the newsworthiness of reporting what the US President says. To not report it is probably more irresponsible in some ways, but to not regularly mention alongside that reporting that the US President is a habitual liar and that most of what he says just isn't true is irresponsible. I recognize they probably have to word it differently for legal reasons, and that saying anything like that at all these days is enough to have the FCC or other government agencies on them, but come on.
I realize sometimes what he says turns out to be true, but I don't think that gives him a pass to report what he says with sincerity. I don't think it's unfair to dismiss someone off the bat if they lie 90% of the time. I recognize that dismissal means that 10% of the time it's dismissing the uncommon instances where he tells the truth, but I wouldn't rely on anything else that has a 90% failure rate.
Reports should be saying things like "President Trump unleashes yet another incoherent racist rant advocating for illegitimate abuses of power." Because that's what they are. It sad we have to...
Reports should be saying things like "President Trump unleashes yet another incoherent racist rant advocating for illegitimate abuses of power."
Because that's what they are. It sad we have to watch courts go painfully slow to arrive at conclusions that a 3rd grader could in about 10 seconds.
Honestly, I don't feel like it counts as news at all unless there is additional context, follow up, or other perspectives in addition to the CEO's statement. I'd count any public statement by a...
Honestly, I don't feel like it counts as news at all unless there is additional context, follow up, or other perspectives in addition to the CEO's statement. I'd count any public statement by a CEO as marketing or PR, making this type of article really no different than copy-pasting a press release (which unfortunately also happens all the time).
Honestly I hate the “Company says they eat babies” headlines more, since 99% of the time the companies didn’t say anything (mega corps don’t tend to be the talkative type!) and are just clickbait...
Honestly I hate the “Company says they eat babies” headlines more, since 99% of the time the companies didn’t say anything (mega corps don’t tend to be the talkative type!) and are just clickbait bordering on journalistic malpractice.
Although part of that is that Reddit and etc fall for the clickbait every single time, so they’re very over represented
A lot of our policies have been built on this. Ever wondered why the United States still doesn't have a decent high-speed rail network? Because CEOs like Elon Musk and Richard Branson promised...
A lot of our policies have been built on this.
Ever wondered why the United States still doesn't have a decent high-speed rail network? Because CEOs like Elon Musk and Richard Branson promised that they could develop the Hyperloop and revolutionize the industry. Meanwhile China have been building tens of thousands of miles of maglev tracks to the point where getting across the entire country is both convenient and affordable.
Vactrains aren't even a new concept. We've been toying with the idea of building railway tunnels in low-pressure tubes to minimize or eliminate air resistance for years. And again, it looks like China are leading the race...
I don’t see how that follows. Musk opposed the California high speed rail project and proposed an unlikely alternative, but California voters passed the referendum anyway and the state has been...
I don’t see how that follows. Musk opposed the California high speed rail project and proposed an unlikely alternative, but California voters passed the referendum anyway and the state has been trying to build it ever since. The cost overruns and delays don’t seem to be Musk’s doing.
The real problem is that the US is just incapable of long term strategic planning. California HSR is a perfect example: big and flashy, but doesn’t address the reality that the US does not know...
The real problem is that the US is just incapable of long term strategic planning. California HSR is a perfect example: big and flashy, but doesn’t address the reality that the US does not know how to make passenger rail anymore. That’s a skill that can be learned, but HSR off the bat is too big of a jump.
All the money that went into planning the project could have gone into expanding local rail. Just look at the clusterfuck just in the Bay Area, where Caltrain and BART barely intersect and there are major dead zones with no passenger rail in South Bay.
Funding local transportation options is not only better bang for your buck, but it’s training the workforce and supply chain that has the experience to later tackle big projects like HSR.
I don't feel that lack of knowledge is a defining problem for big infrastructure in the US, that can be imported from other countries that can manage it, many countries in the EU for example have...
I don't feel that lack of knowledge is a defining problem for big infrastructure in the US, that can be imported from other countries that can manage it, many countries in the EU for example have rail systems that could be seamlessly built in the US.
What I've seen as the main problem is an extension of NIMBY-ism, where everyone owns the land and knowing what the government has put forward for this project they can demand almost any amount for that piece of land, and that goes on for every piece of track laid. An unpopular fix is eminent domain, and while unpopular at the time, in the long run it seems like the only way to make large infrastructure projects viable, since it also puts pressure on land owners to be fair in the price they demand.
I've seen it in effect, a popular restaurant in my area maybe 10-20 years ago had a beautiful garden that was smack dab in the middle of where a highway was being built. The government tried to negotiate, the owners said no, the government said eminent domain. I remember everyone everywhere complaining, but after a few years when everyone saw the value of the road, the same people complaining then admit it was the correct choice. But for any of that to matter the first sentence you said needs to change unfortunately.
The real problem is that the US is just incapable of long term strategic planning.
Can we also talk about "WWE Commentator" Journalism?
I've never seen anyone talk about it, and once you notice it it makes it impossible to take 90% of the news seriously.
Every time you see an article say "Ocasio-Cortez Slams Jerry Falwell Jr. in Debate over CPAC Comments" or "Democrats Blast Biden for Recalling 'Civil' Relationship with Segregationists" or "Jon Stewart Eviscerates the Media's Coverage of Trump" or "German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier TORCHES Trump...", now read the headline and article in the voice of a wrestling commentator.
It's crazy and almost satirical. And the craziest thing is that we've become so normalized to these hyper-violent tone headlines it's not even something we notice anymore.
If I had the chops for it, I'd be making weekly skits with "Celebrity death match" style animation using real headlines. Hell, I'm surprised the Daily show doesn't have a segment on it. lol
I love your expression, WWE Commentator Journalism. It captures it perfectly.
I'm certain (not "fairly certain", but "100% certain") that Jon himself did a bit on this sort of article title... during his first stint on the Daily Show.
It seems almost impossible to look up now, though.
https://www.mic.com/articles/123491/jon-stewart-completely-eviscerates-all-the-eviscerating-he-s-been-doing
Surprisingly, this isn't the one I meant, but it's fitting that he also did one right before leaving.
It's a short read on what I've felt is a particularly annoying style of article as of late, specially when there is no follow up unless the person or new feature is disliked (e.g. OpenAI with ads). The easy way out is to just "announce" (say it off hand once) and then just never release it. Since almost every example I've seen applies to the tech industry I've put it here, if it need to be moved let me know :).
I recall there being a lot of discussion about this during the 2008 financial crisis because CNBC (and others) were so desperate to get access to finance executives (for interviews and such to drive ratings) that the media basically just aired whatever these people said, uncritically.
Pretty much holds true for 95% of "Trump says..." headlines, too.
Those especially bother me. The demented fascist clown (those are honest observations, not insults) says everything and nothing in each 200 word sentence he babbles, why would you cite him?
Not only that, but the media constantly “sanewashes” his statements to make them seem less stupid and crazy. A recent example of this was the deployment of ICE to airports to supplement TSA. There were several articles, including by CNN, filling in how this could possibly work without much information from the government. Clearly the media did more work spinning this ridiculous decision than Trump did.
They should never give explanations for his bad decisions and they should quote his rambling nonsensical answers as given instead of translating them to coherent English.
This is spot on. They pretend he said something... well not meaningful, but at least grammatically comprehensible, thus lying to the readers.
I remember reading articles during his first term about how difficult it was to interpret for him, I can't currently find anything on the topic that isn't a blog.
More currently: Trump administration says sign language services ‘intrude’ on Trump’s ability to control his image
ASL for Donald Trump.
I mean, in saner times you would listen very seriously to every public comment the leader of the largest military in the world has to say.
Even worse: “mayor of [town in the middle of nowhere] [who belongs to the opposite political party] says something dumb”. There are over 19,000 mayors in the US, some are bound to be idiots. Same with spokesperson, high school principle, etc. At least Trump accurately represents his party.
Trump is the best Republican there's been in 40 years in that vein.
Would you like to know more?
Ed Zitron did a fantastic butthole-ripping of the current state of financial "journalism" back in December. Pairs well with this article. A snip:
Analysts have, on some level, become the fractional marketing team for the stocks they’re investing in. When Oracle announced its $300 billion deal with OpenAI in September — one that Oracle does not have the capacity to fill and OpenAI does not have the money to pay for – analysts heaved and stammered like horny teenagers seeing their first boob
These are the same people that retail and institutional investors rely upon for advice on what stocks to buy, all acting with the disregard for the truth that comes from years of never facing a consequence. Three months later, and Oracle has lost basically all of the stock bump it saw from the OpenAI deal, meaning that any retail investor that YOLO’d into the trade because, say, analysts from major institutions said it was a good idea and news outlets acted like this deal was real, already got their ass kicked.
And please, spare me the “oh they shouldn’t trade off of analysts” bullshit. That’s the kind of victim-blaming that allows these revered fuckwits to continue farting out these meaningless calls.
I'm also annoyed with these kind of articles. Unfortunately, these are powerful people and whatever they're claiming often matters, so it sometimes counts as news. But it's not news I want to read unless the journalist does additional work.
It's not really news. It's advertising. "CEO said a thing" is not something that actually happened, or will actually happen. It's press, released by the company. No different than the article "Breaking: Coca-Cola is refreshing on a hot day, according to The Coca-Cola Company".
If you want to make it news, you need to do some actual analysis of what the statement likely means.
This varies. When Musk announced that he was going to buy Twitter, it did eventually happen. (After a lot of twists and turns.) But he's said a lot of other stuff that wasn't true.
Similarly, Trump posts lots of nonsense but when he announced he was going raise tariffs, often he actually did.
Sure, but this is sort of a "broken clock is right twice a day" situation. Most of the things Musk and Trump say will happen, do not happen. The fact that every so often, what they say will happen does happen doesn't suddenly mean everything they say is news.
Given their track record, we'd be better off regularly reporting on the result of a coin flip.
Yeah I understand the newsworthiness of reporting what the US President says. To not report it is probably more irresponsible in some ways, but to not regularly mention alongside that reporting that the US President is a habitual liar and that most of what he says just isn't true is irresponsible. I recognize they probably have to word it differently for legal reasons, and that saying anything like that at all these days is enough to have the FCC or other government agencies on them, but come on.
I realize sometimes what he says turns out to be true, but I don't think that gives him a pass to report what he says with sincerity. I don't think it's unfair to dismiss someone off the bat if they lie 90% of the time. I recognize that dismissal means that 10% of the time it's dismissing the uncommon instances where he tells the truth, but I wouldn't rely on anything else that has a 90% failure rate.
Reports should be saying things like "President Trump unleashes yet another incoherent racist rant advocating for illegitimate abuses of power."
Because that's what they are. It sad we have to watch courts go painfully slow to arrive at conclusions that a 3rd grader could in about 10 seconds.
Honestly, I don't feel like it counts as news at all unless there is additional context, follow up, or other perspectives in addition to the CEO's statement. I'd count any public statement by a CEO as marketing or PR, making this type of article really no different than copy-pasting a press release (which unfortunately also happens all the time).
Honestly I hate the “Company says they eat babies” headlines more, since 99% of the time the companies didn’t say anything (mega corps don’t tend to be the talkative type!) and are just clickbait bordering on journalistic malpractice.
Although part of that is that Reddit and etc fall for the clickbait every single time, so they’re very over represented
A lot of our policies have been built on this.
Ever wondered why the United States still doesn't have a decent high-speed rail network? Because CEOs like Elon Musk and Richard Branson promised that they could develop the Hyperloop and revolutionize the industry. Meanwhile China have been building tens of thousands of miles of maglev tracks to the point where getting across the entire country is both convenient and affordable.
Vactrains aren't even a new concept. We've been toying with the idea of building railway tunnels in low-pressure tubes to minimize or eliminate air resistance for years. And again, it looks like China are leading the race...
I don’t see how that follows. Musk opposed the California high speed rail project and proposed an unlikely alternative, but California voters passed the referendum anyway and the state has been trying to build it ever since. The cost overruns and delays don’t seem to be Musk’s doing.
The real problem is that the US is just incapable of long term strategic planning. California HSR is a perfect example: big and flashy, but doesn’t address the reality that the US does not know how to make passenger rail anymore. That’s a skill that can be learned, but HSR off the bat is too big of a jump.
All the money that went into planning the project could have gone into expanding local rail. Just look at the clusterfuck just in the Bay Area, where Caltrain and BART barely intersect and there are major dead zones with no passenger rail in South Bay.
Funding local transportation options is not only better bang for your buck, but it’s training the workforce and supply chain that has the experience to later tackle big projects like HSR.
I don't feel that lack of knowledge is a defining problem for big infrastructure in the US, that can be imported from other countries that can manage it, many countries in the EU for example have rail systems that could be seamlessly built in the US.
What I've seen as the main problem is an extension of NIMBY-ism, where everyone owns the land and knowing what the government has put forward for this project they can demand almost any amount for that piece of land, and that goes on for every piece of track laid. An unpopular fix is eminent domain, and while unpopular at the time, in the long run it seems like the only way to make large infrastructure projects viable, since it also puts pressure on land owners to be fair in the price they demand.
I've seen it in effect, a popular restaurant in my area maybe 10-20 years ago had a beautiful garden that was smack dab in the middle of where a highway was being built. The government tried to negotiate, the owners said no, the government said eminent domain. I remember everyone everywhere complaining, but after a few years when everyone saw the value of the road, the same people complaining then admit it was the correct choice. But for any of that to matter the first sentence you said needs to change unfortunately.