:rolleyes: Then look up the fucking words before you hit “submit.” It would have taken less time than writing a footnote.
I don’t mind a delayed lede in a story like that. That’s more feature-y to me, rather than a straight, hard news story, and the inverted pyramid structure isn’t really necessary or desired, IMHO. It could probably be cut short by a paragraph or two, though, before it gets to the point. For a news story like in the OP, though, give me all the basic facts in the first paragraph or second at the most.
How many of the people on here bitching about the quality of journalism actually subscribe to a paid source of quality journalism? There’s still plenty out there but they’re a niche market now, most people just aren’t interested in reading in depth quality articles about current affairs.
Advertising funded news sources will always have to go for click bait to maximise their revenue.
An entirely incorrect title, and rightfully corrected. Why call it “Grammar School” when the students are asked to learn things other than grammar, like mathematics, civics, history and geography? It would be like calling a grocery store the “lettuce store.” Don’t you prefer a more accurate name?
People are as smart as they have ever been. Children are as smart and as well educated as ever. Journalism, meanwhile, has never been (for the most part) an especially skilled or impressive form of written expression. It has long been the most formulaic writing imaginable. Indeed, many of the complaints here are that people dare stray from the formula.
Exactly! But that is a legitimate complaint.
Good journalism is always “who what when where and sometimes why”. It’s not novel writing, and barring editorial opinion columns, it is about the facts. The formula works.
Although they were the standard for a while, muckraking and yellow journalism were not good things. Investigative journalism is. And of course, good writing has always been the standard.
Current journalism, or more accurately, “journalism”, is light on facts, often written in crappy form or format (collected tweets without context substituting for actual writing), and often devoid of substance.
Who is going to rout out the corruption, exposes the excess of corporations, bring down the powerful, if not competent journalists? Not tweeters!
Bite me.
You want to know what happened to Journalism? Read the following to All Staff from the Managing Editor/Content of the Bay Area News Group, The Mercury News/East Bay Times, dated April 22,2016. Note the Comments section at the end of the article.
Why is it necessary that formula always be followed? It may work, but why can’t other approaches work?
No, it really hasn’t. Standard newspaper prose has never been “good” as a standard. It’s been grammatically correct, which is certainly not a bad thing, but for the most part it always feel far short of good writing. It almost always was, and almost always is formulaic, simplistic, and dull.
To impart rudimentary information, it works, but is hardly inspiring writing and is pretty easy to learn.
Yeah yeah, I saw “Spotlight,” too.
Explain WHY other forms of media can’t do the same thing a newspaper writer did (which was usually just rote repetition of facts; not a lot of Woodward and Bernsteins actually out there.) Why is the only way to bring down the powerful a particular form of distribution of news that hit its peak around 1973? Is there no other approach?
…
About this story: Two guys dead in a trailer, and foul play is not suspected? 
This isn’t the start of a news story. This is the start of a tru-crime novel. This Guyshould be narrating.
The article say “Joshua Druin…was one of the victims.” Of what, if foul play is not suspected?
(never mind)
I got the Amber Alert (as did, it seemed, the entire freaking state) and ignored it because it’s three hours from that area (Farmington or Shiprock) to Albuquerque. Plus it was the middle of the night. And while I’m sorry for the girl and her family, I can’t believe that “Hey, do you kids want to come with me in my van?” actually worked.
Anyway, local news has been reasonably good on reporting the story. I haven’t seen anything like the crap from the national media you posted.
Hell, suspicion still abounds that a journalist set off the explosion that sank the USS Maine in 1898 in a bid to sell more papers by starting a war. I’m not sure there’s much room to go downhill.
I blame the Associated Press. Anyone who wants to relay news can just pay the AP for their articles. Everybody wants to take the easy way out, so they just buy from AP instead of doing their own reporting. I do wish that somebody would at least add their own pictures, or commentary to it. If I wanted to see an article exactly as it was posted on cnn.com, I would have read it there.
No, seriously. You’re complaining about someone else’s failure to adequately edit an article that you’re reading for free and you can’t spare 15 seconds to get a simple spelling issue correct? When you already know that you are likely to get it wrong?
It’s a good thing I wasn’t pitting a grammatical nitpick.
I did look it up. Several places. Likethis one, which seems to suggest that I got it right. The site title is ‘confusing words’, which suggests to me that others may have confusion about it also. Since their examples weren’t 100% like mine, there was still a chance I would get it wrong.
Perhaps, if I were an editor, I would have crossed out ‘got passed’ with my big red pen and inserted ‘escaped the notice of’, but that just doesn’t seem to have the same rhythm.
OK, lets get back to the subject of the decomposing body of the Fourth Estate.
Society doesn’t value good journalism, so its not getting any. It’s that simple.
^
This. The rise of special interest platforms posing as news sources has shown that too many people would rather confirm their biases than get honest objectivity. Makes you wonder if Watergate could be uncovered today.