“Well, Gwynneth you’re an odd fellow, but I must say you steam a good clam.”
What a dick.
Not that I’m not agreeing with you, but…they’re writing news articles about news article comments??
Don’t tell reporters about youtube.
Smuckers is suing a sandwich maker, claiming crustless PB&Js are their trademark.
Smucker’s says the “round crustless design” of its Uncrustables sandwich is protected by trademark law.
That is NOT something to be proud of.
I’ve seen articles about YouTube videos if they are notable and/or controversial. Actually, I see them all the time. News articles will be written about anything that someone might find interesting. That has always been the case. That’s what journalism is.
I call that pandering. Journalism is “the diffusion of intelligence or of opinions by means of journals or newspapers and periodicals.” Journalism is what you should be reading, instead of the dreck about car wrecks and murders.
Writing articles on youtube comments? God, I hope not.
Yup, journalism. For centuries at least. Same old same old. You think newspapers have ever been different?
Scary Flake Keri Lake gets real with UPS dude.
Posting this only because of this tweet response:
Yeah, but FedEx is your leftie delivery service. Everyone knows the Right uses UPS.
Wait, aren’t those UPS trucks brown? Seems strange.
When newspapers were the single news source for most American families, they could afford to spend money on actual journalism – i.e. coverage of news that mattered to the common weal. They also had comics and crosswords and society pages and entertainment news and Dear Abby to pander to those who weren’t interested in the news. But no-one called that part journalism.
New Study Links COVID-19 Vaccination Status to Increased Risk of Car Crashes (msn.com)
[R]esearchers were able to identify that individuals who hadn’t gotten a COVID-19 vaccine were at a greater risk of traffic accidents. But it wasn’t because of the vaccine. The link actually comes down to risks associated with decision making—in relation to decisions concerning getting vaccinated, and also to obey (or not obey) traffic laws.
Ya know, my six year old grandson won’t eat the crust, so I carefully cut it off and put it inside the PB&J. I don’t have to throw it away, and he’s happy eating it. I hope I’m not infringing on someone’s intellectual property.
That’s a very generous and totally inaccurate reading of history.
What actually happened was that at some point late in the 19th century, competing newspapers found that sensationalism and avoiding excessive political slant increased readership and (more importantly) advertising revenue, i.e. ‘actual’ journalism was driven and supported by a profit motive based on the society pages and entertainment. To the extent this was about facts and journalistic integrity and so on, it was to avoid a reduction in advertising revenue, i.e. avoid pissing off the plebes so much they stop buying newspapers.
Basically the forerunner of the clickbait and outrage machine we decry today is what supported ‘real’ journalism, then as now.
Prior to that, news was nakedly partisan to a greater degree than today - newspapers were openly linked to specific political parties and views. I.e. people/families read and supported the newspapers that followed their own political slant. They, to a large extent, didn’t want legitimate facts but rather stories that supported their pre-conceived notions. But this wasn’t as profitable as murder-porn and clickbait - plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.
On the upside, this meant several decades of improved journalistic standards, but it appears this may be a relative historical blip.
We’ve come full circle to the point naked partisanship and a tenuous grasp of facts are once again more profitable than accurate, robust journalism, hence Fox News and its ilk. People haven’t changed. But the way to profit from them via news has evolved with the years.
I mean it’s even in the phrase we use for it; Yellow Journalism
wow! that is impressive.
The fact that the term requires a modifier means that that is not the generally accepted meaning of “journalism.”
Double down if you want, but journalism historically has been the reverse - not too concerned about facts and pandering to the political lean of readers. That described all newspapers until the late 19th century.
If anything, we’re returning to the historical norm of journalism rather than straying from it. And that really is a shame but certainly not something new.
That is my point.
I’m not defending the practice, just pointing out the reality of it. I think it sucks too.