For anyone thinking that’s solely a joke, I’ve seen this to be absolutely true.
Why does “corporate backing” have anything to do with journalism of which the main point is investigating and spreading informative news? The way I see it if your definition is correct no WONDER young people couldn’t give a damn less about traditional journalism, because corporate media sucks.
I don’t think it’s so much “Corporate” as “established” - ie, there needs to be some accountability.
Thus, if Fred Bloggs the reporter wrotes an article which might be politely described as “largely fabricated” (but not actually defamatory), his editor is going to Have A Very Stern Talking To Him about it. And that editor has probably had A Very Stern Talking To from someone above him. And the receptionist has probaly had a lot of Very Annoyed Talking Ats from random people on the phone. And, depending how serious it is, the journalist’s professional organisation may get involved. And since most journos in an area know each other, word is going to get out that Fred Bloggs wrote THAT story, which could affect his career. There will, in short, be repercussions.
If Fredd Bloggs the blogger writes an article which might be politely described as “largely fabricated” (but not actually defamatory), what’s realistically likely to happen? A few angry comments in the comments section, maybe a couple of e-mails. There’s basically no guarantee of Professional Standards being adhered to or followed.
Agreed but there is a huge difference between “corporate backing” and “established reputable journalism”. Fox News is “corporately backed” and I wouldn’t trust anything they say unless it was also reported by a real news organization. There are many online news sources that are worth listening to that don’t have obvious corporate backing.
Also even legitimate mainstream media outlets have had HUGE failures in the past few years, they are completely over-rated as a way to get your news nowadays, which is why so many traditional journos go out of their way to trash “bloggers” because it’s better than talking about how none of the mainstream media questioned 9/11 or any other number of spectacular failures that prove the corporate media is about profits and not making waves with the U.S. gov’t by calling them on their bullshit.
I’m not sure what to make of this. Was 9/11 offering interviews in which the mainstream media just asked softball questions?
Sorry I meant, the mainstream media didn’t make a big fuss about the fact that a bunch of Saudis caused 9/11 and somehow we ended up invading Iraq. The whole invasion of Iraq and it’s public support at the time was a media failure of monumental proportions.
Scholar Beardpig, as far as I’m concerned you’re a journalist. Or an editor if you want to be. You aren’t straying into the realm of dishonesty unless you claim to be a Foriegn Correspondent from the New York Times, or some other claim that is specifically untrue. Now if you’re doing this to get people to pay attention to you, they could easily say “That sounds interesting, tell me about what you do”, and then you’ve got to provide something better than “I check punctuation” to hold their interest. But if someone asks you what you do, journalist is a perfectly good answer to start the conversation with.
Damn, and I thought you were about to start talking about nano-thermite and holographic missiles. 