Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Mongrel]

Well, seeing as how for-pay online news sites have died the hard death and the genie of the free news site is now out of the bottle, what magical money tree would you suggest be tapped to pay reporters salaries?

Newspapers have been taking ads for well over a century, from both individuals and businesses. It's a bit disingenuous to pretend that this is some new form of horrible corruption.

[Doom]

but aggregators are in danger of killing their golden geese and if they do so we will all be much poorer for that.

It's a bit disingenuous to pretend anything of value would be lost either.

[Brentai]

I'm not following this argument at all.  Question: are you under the impression that aggregators are directing traffic away from the sites that they are feeding from?

[Mongrel]

but aggregators are in danger of killing their golden geese and if they do so we will all be much poorer for that.

It's a bit disingenuous to pretend anything of value would be lost either.

Snide comments about the current dismal state of journalism aside, I don't think we can really pretend that the public would be served by a grand collapse of the conventional news media.

Say there was a grand scandal where a substantial number of recent engineering graduates were cutting corners on building design, making shoddy buildings that killed people. Somehow I don't think the appropriate response is either 'abolish engineering school' or 'all buildings will now be designed by online volunteer comittees'.

I'm not saying that won't be possible in the future. But it's certainly not going to happen RIGHT NOW.

I'm not following this argument at all.  Question: are you under the impression that aggregators are directing traffic away from the sites that they are feeding from?

In the case of aggregators that reprint all or most of the text from the orginal articles, yes. I agree that a fair-handed aggregator will simply provide links.

[Doom]

Say there was a grand scandal where a substantial number of recent engineering graduates were cutting corners on building design, making shoddy buildings that killed people. Somehow I don't think the appropriate response is either 'abolish engineering school' or 'all buildings will now be designed by online volunteer comittees'.

  This comparison is so terrible I don't even I just I I I rrrrrrr rrrrrrr rrrrrrr



"Can't do it immediately" isn't much of an argument against abolishing and reforming journalism, honestly. Maybe a fear that it'd just be restructured into an even worse beast by the corporate masters, sure, that is a valid jibe. But "deal with it, how dishonest is the American media really" was getting old from your side of the fence the last ten times you said it, you old kill joy.

[Brentai]

To challenge your metaphor, "close every single engineering school ever" is clearly not a proper response.  "Close every single engineering school that is not performing satisfactorily, even if that means all of them, and replace them with better-regulated institutions" certainly is, even if in real world terms the transition may be somewhat painful and expensive.

s/engineering school/journalistic institution/g as necessary.

[Mongrel]

Say there was a grand scandal where a substantial number of recent engineering graduates were cutting corners on building design, making shoddy buildings that killed people. Somehow I don't think the appropriate response is either 'abolish engineering school' or 'all buildings will now be designed by online volunteer committees'.

  This comparison is so terrible I don't even I just I I I rrrrrrr rrrrrrr rrrrrrr



"Can't do it immediately" isn't much of an argument against abolishing and reforming journalism, honestly. Maybe a fear that it'd just be restructured into an even worse beast by the corporate masters, sure, that is a valid jibe. But "deal with it, how dishonest is the American media really" was getting old from your side of the fence the last ten times you said it, you old kill joy.

I'm not saying to "deal with it". I have never said that.
I am only saying that blowing it all up is stupid.

Forget the parable. We have an institution, it is - let's face it - a Business. A business that is nominally intended to serve the public good. It is not doing that very well right now. It just strikes me as extraordinary stupid to say we should be abolishing the profession as a result. If our professionals are not serving us well right now, there are things we should be doing but 'replace all the professionals with amateurs and dilettantes' is not a workable solution.

If you think I am being flippant with that last line, please direct me to an online-only newspaper with the resources comparable to a conventional print publication (old print publications that have packed up and moved entirely over to the Internet notwithstanding - actually this may be the way things go in a lot of places).

Reporting the news well takes resources and, as with any profession, a degree of professionalism. Both of which are in short supply to online-only news outlets. Given time, this may change, in fact, it probably WILL change. But as of right now, all the most respected online news sites are mere extensions of well-respected print publications. And I do not want to think about what a government could do in even a five-year stretch where no serious news investigations take place. Please don't say something excruciating like "that's what we already have". Even in the darkest days of the Bush Empire, there were more than a few papers doing good work and publishing stories. If the news media were truly as monolithically slavish as it is being painted here, it would be all MISSION ACCOMPLISHED banners 24/7.

Finally, I'm not saying it's intentional on your part but you guys are seriously ignoring the elephant in the room that is the consumer. If people want to read drivel and pap, if they flock to trash that tells them only what they want to hear, then they must share the blame for not demanding better.

[Mongrel]

To challenge your metaphor, "close every single engineering school ever" is clearly not a proper response.  "Close every single engineering school that is not performing satisfactorily, even if that means all of them, and replace them with better-regulated institutions" certainly is, even if in real world terms the transition may be somewhat painful and expensive.

s/engineering school/journalistic institution/g as necessary.

That's fine I'm totally down with that, but that's a nuanced view that isn't really represented by blanket stements of "Kill em all! Rawr!". that's not really what you guys were saying. "nothing of value would be lost" is pretty blunt. 

I would ask one question though: Who decided what gets shut down? How?

The government? The public that's lapping up the tripe being peddled?

I'm happy to agree that the traditional media have in many (if not most) cases become terribly lazy, slipshod, or outright corrupt. But for now at least our new internet sources are playing angry college pamphleteer to our slovenly corporate behemoths. Neither is really even close to ideal.

[Mongrel]

THREADSPLITTYMERGETHINGUMBOB.

There you go Thad, now you can post in this topic after all.

[Doom]

I am touched that you would quote my post for no reason other than to let everyone read it twice. It was a pretty good post I think but I try to be humble.

I'm not saying to "deal with it". I have never said that.

I am sure avid readers can find your charming Canadianisms themselves.

I am only saying that blowing it all up is stupid.

Good thing I am arguing for reform and oversight, then!

Forget the parable. We have an institution, it is - let's face it - a Business. A business that is nominally intended to serve the public good. It is not doing that very well right now. It just strikes me as extraordinay stupidy to say we should be abolishing the profession as a result.

See above. I guess I am a naive fool with high-minded ideals but there should be a strict definition and separation of news as a business and news that engages in business. You have to sell out-dated tree-based pamphlets to suckers, sure, but maybe you can see why we'd all be a little better off if Fox News was abolished entirely. They can still show cartoons, I guess.

If our professionals are not serving us well right now, there are things we should be doing but 'replace all the professionals with amateurs and dilettetants' is not a workable solution.

I'll take an honest "amateur" over a professional hack any day. Cool position assuming that everyone not associated with a big professional news organization cannot possibly speak the truth any better than they could, I guess!

If you think I am being flippant with that last line, please direct me to an online-only newspaper with the resources comparable to a conventional print publication (old print publications that have packed up and moved entirely over to the internt notwithstanding - actually this may be the way things go in a lot of places).

You can't fool me old man Kill.

Reporting the news well takes resources and, as with any profession, a degree of professionalism. Therefore, only the funded can tell us the true news?

Both of which are in short supply to online-only news outlets.Therefore, their words are false?

I'm being a prick here, but come on.

Given time, this may change, in fact, it probably WILL change.

I would ask one question though: Who decided what gets shut down? How?

The government? The public that's lapping up the tripe being peddled?

Good point and basically my only acceptable outcome, barring some sort of destiny/life-changing desire and momentum to go change things myself. I opted to simply never enter journalism in the first place.

But as of right now, all the most respected online news sites are mere extensions of well-repected print publications.

If you're not going to bother looking, I'm not either.

And I do not want to think about what a government could do in even a five-year stretch where no serious news investigations take place. Please don't say something excruciating like "that's what we already have".

TRUTH HURTS DON'T IT

Even in the darkest days of the Bush Empire, there were more than a few papers doing good work and publishing stories. If the news media were truly as monolithically slavish as it is being painted here, it would be all MISSION ACCOMPLISHED banners 24/7.

As an aside, that's why I'd go with reform over actual blow-it-all-up. Maybe there are people who get nice jobs and can still report serious, hard-hitting stories as they occur.

And maybe playboy.com and a pair of "unprofessionals" broke the Tea Party origins.

Aside Aside as I write that: And they didn't need a bunch of business-sponsored money to do some simple online page history checks. The same medium that could mark the doom of print news is providing most of the tools to do so on both ends of Reporter and Reader. Walkin' around and askin' questions hasn't gotten more expensive aside from gas prices joke goes here.

Finally, I'm saying it's intentional on your part but you guys seriously ignoring the elephant in the room that is the consumer. If people want to read drivel and pap, if they flock to trash that tells them only what they want to hear, then they must share the blame for not demanding better.

If people want to read tabloids, fine. Tabloids are clearly labeled. But reform my news so that the flow of information is pure and refined. And never pretend that because the mass thinks it's cool, who could object? Otherwise I'd go back to being a prick in the Pokemon thread.

[Mongrel]

Ah yes. You always know things are getting dumb when you hit the line-by-line reply stage.

I am touched that you would quote my post for no reason other than to let everyone read it twice. It was a pretty good post I think but I try to be humble.

I quoted it because there were three more posts between yours and mine. Woo.

I'm not saying to "deal with it". I have never said that.

I am sure avid readers can find your charming Canadianisms themselves.

Cute. Just so long as you don't have to back up anything you say. That's a good journalist.

I am only saying that blowing it all up is stupid.

Good thing I am arguing for reform and oversight, then!

It's a bit disingenuous to pretend anything of value would be lost either.

 

You know I sometimes often make dumb blanket statements which start an argument. Guess what? I don't have an exclusive license on that.

Forget the parable. We have an institution, it is - let's face it - a Business. A business that is nominally intended to serve the public good. It is not doing that very well right now. It just strikes me as extraordinay stupidy to say we should be abolishing the profession as a result.

See above. I guess I am a naive fool with high-minded ideals but there should be a strict definition and separation of news as a business and news that engages in business. You have to sell out-dated tree-based pamphlets to suckers, sure, but maybe you can see why we'd all be a little better off if Fox News was abolished entirely. They can still show cartoons, I guess.

If our professionals are not serving us well right now, there are things we should be doing but 'replace all the professionals with amateurs and dilettetants' is not a workable solution.

I'll take an honest "amateur" over a professional hack any day. Cool position assuming that everyone not associated with a big professional news organization cannot possibly speak the truth any better than they could, I guess!

If you think I am being flippant with that last line, please direct me to an online-only newspaper with the resources comparable to a conventional print publication (old print publications that have packed up and moved entirely over to the internt notwithstanding - actually this may be the way things go in a lot of places).

You can't fool me old man Kill.

Reporting the news well takes resources and, as with any profession, a degree of professionalism. Therefore, only the funded can tell us the true news?

Both of which are in short supply to online-only news outlets.Therefore, their words are false?

I'm being a prick here, but come on.

Son, you are living in a god-damned dreamworld if you think reporting the news doesn't take resources.

At the very very least, lawyers cost a hell of a lot of money. Detailed investigations, protection of sources, the ability to travel freely and on short notice, access to records, equipment, legal challenges - all these take time and money. The fact that Playboy broke a story once over something insufferably retarded, does not invalidate the whole concept of investigative journalism. Nor does two guys with a blog breaking a story invalidate a lifetime of learning that a good, sound journalist has accrued. Good, fair journaists are not mythical bogeymen used to scare the Bill O'Reillys of the world, they do exist, even if they are the minority these days. 

And my saying this DOES NOT mean, that I am advocating for corporate mastodons to fund in-house PR machines disguised as 'independant' news sources. I'm trying to have a fair discussion here you guys keep trying to paint me into as the defender of the Fox News bunch.

Yes. You ARE being a prick. And it's stupid because you're looking for an enemy where there isn't one. I already agreed that we have a serious problem. 

Given time, this may change, in fact, it probably WILL change.

I would ask one question though: Who decided what gets shut down? How?

The government? The public that's lapping up the tripe being peddled?

Good point and basically my only acceptable outcome, barring some sort of destiny/life-changing desire and momentum to go change things myself. I opted to simply never enter journalism in the first place.

If I was being more of a dick, I would call that cop-out. But I don't have the answer either - that's why I asked: to put the damn question up for discussion.

But as of right now, all the most respected online news sites are mere extensions of well-repected print publications.

If you're not going to bother looking, I'm not either.

And I do not want to think about what a government could do in even a five-year stretch where no serious news investigations take place. Please don't say something excruciating like "that's what we already have".

TRUTH HURTS DON'T IT

Even in the darkest days of the Bush Empire, there were more than a few papers doing good work and publishing stories. If the news media were truly as monolithically slavish as it is being painted here, it would be all MISSION ACCOMPLISHED banners 24/7.

As an aside, that's why I'd go with reform over actual blow-it-all-up. Maybe there are people who get nice jobs and can still report serious, hard-hitting stories as they occur.

And maybe playboy.com and a pair of "unprofessionals" broke the Tea Party origins.

Aside Aside as I write that: And they didn't need a bunch of business-sponsored money to do some simple online page history checks. The same medium that could mark the doom of print news is providing most of the tools to do so on both ends of Reporter and Reader. Walkin' around and askin' questions hasn't gotten more expensive aside from gas prices joke goes here.

I think I replied to this collected gabble above.

Finally, I'm saying it's intentional on your part but you guys seriously ignoring the elephant in the room that is the consumer. If people want to read drivel and pap, if they flock to trash that tells them only what they want to hear, then they must share the blame for not demanding better.

If people want to read tabloids, fine. Tabloids are clearly labeled. But reform my news so that the flow of information is pure and refined. And never pretend that because the mass thinks it's cool, who could object? Otherwise I'd go back to being a prick in the Pokemon thread.

I'm not talking about tabloids. I'm talking about most news these days. Look at how large and hideous the celebrity pages have become. It's almost inescapable.

If we displayed even half the obsession for our leaders every word and action that we do for some of these random china dolls, our democracies would be a hell of a lot healthier.

[Doom]

Ah yes. You always know things are getting dumb when you hit the line-by-line reply stage.

I actually just like it, it is not a part of the patented Doom-tech arsenal.

I quoted it because there were three more posts between yours and mine. Woo.

thatsthejoke.jpg

Nothing of value was lost

Doom, if they abolished all current journalism, what would you think?

Doom: And nothing of value was lost.

Doom, you just want to blow it all up! Isn't there another way?

Doom: If we are not Mad Stan, I guess I could go for some reform.

AH HAH, YOU ARE A TWO-FACED FELLOW.

Doom: :( ): Oh no.

Is this the part where I mention that you are also known for winning arguments with yourself?

The fact that Playboy broke a story once over something insufferably retarded

Sup personal bias. "Just because they did it doesn't mean I have to value it objectively." I thought you might appreciate the one time I bothered to reply to your half-assed "well, JUST PROVE ME WRONG THEN :smug:" questions.

I don't support Fox

So when I say reform and oversight is good, and that we can probably get a lot more good from "amateurs" then from professional hacks, did you make a colossal typo in agreeing with me?

It was sort of the first serious thing I said, so let me say it again: The News needs business support to run. I get that. The News should not allow itself to become engulfed by such and become exclusively a Business. This is what I really believe!

Yes. You ARE being a prick. And it's stupid because you're looking for an enemy where there isn't one. I already agreed that we have a serious problem.

I'm not looking for an enemy, but just so you believe me:

If I was being more of a dick, I would call that cop-out, but i don't have the answer either - that's why I asked: to put the damn question up for discussion.

You know what I would propose in this discussion? Reform and Oversight! At best I could hope for as neutral a government body as we could hope for(Ha!) or more realistically one of those actually neutral think-tank groups. Real power in the hands of scholars and the unbiased? madness

I think I replied to this collected gabble above.

By equating journalism to a service that is literally impossible without a crack legal team and a private jet I guess, also by "it doesn't matter to ME so it doesn't matter."

I'm not talking about tabloids. I'm talking about most news these days. Look at how large and hideous the celebrity pages have become. It's almost inescapable.

If we displayed even half the obsession for our leaders every word and action that we do for some of these random china dolls, our democracies would be a hell of a lot healthier.

Example of tabloids is that tabloids are bodies of information that can rarely convey breaking information, but the average consumer will recognize their shoddy average.

Now just go Reform and Oversight the current body of The News so that everyone knows what is tabloid-bad and what isn't and we're cooking with gas.

[Brentai]

That's fine I'm totally down with that, but that's a nuanced view that isn't really represented by blanket stements of "Kill em all! Rawr!". that's not really what you guys were saying.

Yes it is.

Forget it, it looks like the Word Train has left Iron-Mongrel's-Imaginary-World Station anyway.

[Mongrel]

Doom, if they abolished all current journalism, what would you think?

Doom: And nothing of value was lost.

Doom, you just want to blow it all up! Isn't there another way?

Doom: If we are not Mad Stan, I guess I could go for some reform.

AH HAH, YOU ARE A TWO-FACED FELLOW.

Doom: :( ): Oh no.

Is this the part where I mention that you are also known for winning arguments with yourself?

I stand by my previous statement. You guys made several blanket comments that we'd be better off if the current old guard were destroyed. I disagreed.

If you want to come in a half page later and temper that view by saying you want reform that's fine. What's dumb is pigeonholing me a defender of the corporate old guard for questioning your intial off-the-cuff comment. Or pretending you were advocating a moderate view point from the beginning.

Damn right I'm going to call someone out on that. 

That's fine I'm totally down with that, but that's a nuanced view that isn't really represented by blanket stements of "Kill em all! Rawr!". that's not really what you guys were saying.

Yes it is.

No it isn't. See? I can do this too.

If that wasn't what you guys MEANT to say, then perhaps your posts should have been phrased better.

Sup personal bias. "Just because they did it doesn't mean I have to value it objectively." I thought you might appreciate the one time I bothered to reply to your half-assed "well, JUST PROVE ME WRONG THEN :smug:" questions.

Okay, that's my fault for not being clear and I'll man up on this one. I honestly wasn't saying that that the the Tea Party shit was an irrelevant story. I was saying that the Tea Party bullshit in-and-of-itself was retarded. Grumbling along with my grumbling, so to speak.

So when I say reform and oversight is good, and that we can probably get a lot more good from "amateurs" then from professional hacks, did you make a colossal typo in agreeing with me?

It was sort of the first serious thing I said, so let me say it again: The News needs business support to run. I get that. The News should not allow itself to become engulfed by such and become exclusively a Business. This is what I really believe!

I agree that reform is needed. I don't agree that ALL AMATEUR HOUR is the answer. My reasons for this were stated in more detail in the post above, but overall I think professionals still have a role to play and should be supported.

This does not mean that I think there's no room for amateurs. But extremes are in no one's interest.

You know what I would propose in this discussion? Reform and Oversight! At best I could hope for as neutral a government body as we could hope for(Ha!) or more realistically one of those actually neutral think-tank groups. Real power in the hands of scholars and the unbiased? madness

Honestly? My gut reaction to this is that it's pretty vague. If you're gonna fight this hard, you need to have better solutions too. Carrots and sticks m'boy.

Example of tabloids is that tabloids are bodies of information that can rarely convey breaking information, but the average consumer will recognize their shoddy average.

Now just go Reform and Oversight the current body of The News so that everyone knows what is tabloid-bad and what isn't and we're cooking with gas.

See, now this, this is getting somewhere. Other helpful things might be to force the re-adoption of the Fairness doctrine. The first place we can look for solution is to ask what other regulations governing journalism have been imposed (or repealed) by Regan/Bush era foolishness?

By equating journalism to a service that is literally impossible without a crack legal team and a private jet I guess, also by "it doesn't matter to ME so it doesn't matter."

Hyperbole about private jets aside. Yes. As I stated above "Lawyers cost money".

[Transportation]

So is this thread about the demise of the newspaper as a medium? This is a problem that doesn't just affect the U.S., you know. It'll affect those magical lands with better reporting.

And I seriously doubt that these magically objective internet sites have enough funding to send journalists to all the continents in the world. There are too many and internet ads do not give you that much money.

And that playboy article was primarily fucking google detective work. Show me some examples where they have the funding to cross-reference all the crazy shit you see in Abu-Ghraib or Watergate for a more historical example.

News of this scale needs a serious amount of funding. If it crashes and burns we'll be left crawling in the dark. Not because the Media makes shit up sometimes, but because there'll barely be anything there.

I'll need a list of things blogger/aggregators/whatever have done that are not glorified anecdotes or Op-ed pieces. These sites feed on the much lampooned traditional media like parasites and I see no reason for them to spontaneously develop independence or standards. The Media used to have those and still does on a few occasions and torching that institutional memory in favor of internet diaries is childish revenge at best.

Not to mention the much superior Non-U.S. media who will suffer the same problem

The only real solutions to this are massive reform or pretending the U.S. can make PBS as important as the BBC. The latter seems more likely as for profit reporting seems on the way out and some kind of public or charity-based model is the most likely.

[Norondor]

I think i may have accidentally confused the stances of most people here by posting in the thread at all, thus making the canadians among us think that everyone, not just me, is in favor of drastically reforming the media, by which i mean stringing up Rupert Murdoch in times square with his guts hanging out.

[Mongrel]

stringing up Rupert Murdoch in times square with his guts hanging out.

I was about to reply "Now see, I'd be totally down with that." when I realized that I couldn't count on none of you taking that at face value.

 

[Brentai]

The Word Train just ran off of the rails and is now flying right off the Cliffs of Irony.

[Transportation]

So are these pretend arguments or real ones?

I'd like to know, as I am meeting some conservative friends later and I want to conserve my outrage.

[Mongrel]

The White Cliffs of Irony, thank you.