Topic: The Demise of Traditional Media (Read 20610 times)

Mongrel · « **Reply #140 on:** July 13, 2013, 01:30:55 AM »

Dammit Thad, I was just coming here to post that.

Good to see that unpaid interns are worth the price they're paid (the names were "confirmed" by an unpaid NTSB summer intern).

Friday · « **Reply #141 on:** July 13, 2013, 04:37:33 AM »

They will literally read anything on their prompter ala "I'm Ron Burgandy?", I guess

the best part is how carefully she pronounces all the names, as if she's aware that if she doesn't say them right she'll end up saying holy fuck

Mongrel · « **Reply #142 on:** July 13, 2013, 09:23:25 AM »

"Wellllll, this was like fact-checked and stuff, I guess?"

Ocksi · « **Reply #143 on:** July 13, 2013, 01:51:00 PM »

Of course news anchors will read anything off the teleprompter. They aren't digesting what they're saying, they're focusing on enunciation and pronunciation as they read the prompter aloud. I don't know why she's pinned as a dipshit for going along with it.

Mongrel · « **Reply #144 on:** July 13, 2013, 01:56:58 PM »

Let me ask you: Do you think it is literally impossible to think about the content of a sentence while simultaneously making sure your enunciation is clear?

Brentai · « **Reply #145 on:** July 13, 2013, 02:47:28 PM »

I get the feeling that anchors are heavily admonished for attempting to second-guess the report. As people have pointed out, the one in question seemed quite aware that something was wrong.

Mongrel · « **Reply #146 on:** July 13, 2013, 03:19:23 PM »

In this case I just think she trusted that it had been fact-checked. Like "This sounds wrong, but... they checked this... right?"

Thad · « **Reply #147 on:** July 14, 2013, 04:07:33 PM »

"It is a job that discourages any exercise of even the most basic personal judgement" is never a defense I've been terribly sympathetic to.

That said, she's the last in a line of people who really should have fucking caught that. Blaming it on an intern is cute, but how many people have to see those names between receiving the tip and reading it on the air? Every single one of those people is some varying degree of an idiot.

(Well, that's not entirely true. I'm sure at least a couple in there -- possibly including the intern -- caught the joke but went ahead with it anyway and just PRETENDED not to have noticed.)

I know sometimes people see a name and don't hear it phonetically in their heads. (Hell, one of the major plot twists in American Gods relies on this exact assumption; a minor character's name is a play on words that is patently obvious if you read it aloud but easy to miss if you don't.) And it'd be one thing if it were just ONE name. Or hell, two.

But four? Nah. Anyone who looked at that for more than a few seconds should have realized there was zero probability that it was legitimate, whether an unpaid intern claimed it was verified or not.

I don't think it would have been remiss for the anchor to break from the script and say "I'm sorry, this is obviously some kind of joke; I'm sure we'll get to the bottom of it and have more on the story as it develops." But it should damn well have been caught before it ever made it to air.

Brentai · « **Reply #148 on:** July 14, 2013, 04:33:16 PM »

Well, in this instance, no, but I can think of enough scenarios where anchors have to report on something completely unbelievable with a perfectly straight face. I mean, they do cover politics. On the weird off chance that those had been their actual names, acting like they were a joke would have pretty much sank her career.

I get where you're going with this, but the woman aint exactly waterboarding people here. "Get through the colossal mess with as much tact as possible and try not to call attention back to it" was probably honestly the best choice.

Thad · « **Reply #149 on:** July 14, 2013, 04:59:43 PM »

Quote from: Dick-Dragoon on July 14, 2013, 04:33:16 PM

I get where you're going with this, but the woman aint exactly waterboarding people here.

Or flying a plane.

Seems to me this is the PERFECT story to make a point about the importance of telling someone they're doing their job wrong.

But you're right, she didn't exactly have anything to gain by it (aside from not looking like an idiot in a viral video, I suppose). I think that's the problem as much as anything.

Brentai · « **Reply #150 on:** July 14, 2013, 05:42:27 PM »

Most of the hearsay about the crash right now involves people not doing what they were supposed to be trained to do, so if anything that would strengthen the argument for discipline. I don't think it really relates though.

Mongrel · « **Reply #151 on:** September 15, 2013, 03:14:07 PM »

Saw this tweet on some journalism feed:

Quote

Glimpse of journalism's future on Merkel campaign trail today - camera drone flying above the crowd in Dresden.

Thad · « **Reply #152 on:** September 19, 2013, 04:16:34 PM »

TV was on in the break room at lunch today.

One of the cable news stations (CNN, I think) was interviewing two people who recently sat by the shooter on a plane.

Mongrel · « **Reply #153 on:** September 19, 2013, 05:38:35 PM »

Quote from: Thad on September 19, 2013, 04:16:34 PM

TV was on in the break room at lunch today.

One of the cable news stations (CNN, I think) was interviewing two people who recently sat by the shooter on a plane.

Did you mean to post that here? I guess I can see why it might be here, so I'm not sure?

Royal☭ · « **Reply #154 on:** September 20, 2013, 12:18:40 AM »

It's very clearly about the frivolousness of media. Nobody should care what two people who once sat next to a shooter on a plane have to say about the shootings.

Zaratustra · « **Reply #155 on:** September 20, 2013, 12:28:45 AM »

BUT DID HE LOOK LIKE A NORMAL PERSON

Mongrel · « **Reply #156 on:** September 20, 2013, 01:53:01 AM »

Quote from: Royal on September 20, 2013, 12:18:40 AM

It's very clearly about the frivolousness of media. Nobody should care what two people who once sat next to a shooter on a plane have to say about the shootings.

Yeah, that's the angle I figured Thad was going for if he did mean to post it here.

Mongrel · « **Reply #157 on:** October 02, 2013, 05:02:04 AM »

News editor loses his shit, blaming a rather odd demographic for, well, the demise of traditional media

Quote

Indeed, newspapers still can sell themselves to traditional households—two-parent families involved with their children, schools, churches, sports, civic groups, and such. But newspapers cannot sell themselves to households headed by single women who have several children by different fathers, survive on welfare stipends, can hardly speak or read English, move every few months to cheat their landlords, barely know what town they're living in, and couldn't afford a newspaper subscription even if they could read.

Haha holy shit.

Also, here is their "newly redesigned" website:

Big screenshot

And it's behind a pay-wall!

R^2 · « **Reply #158 on:** October 02, 2013, 05:18:15 AM »

Huh. I had no idea those people were such prolific newspaper-buyers in the eighties and nineties. Who'd think that shedding such a limited demographic would destroy an entire industry?

Büge · « **Reply #159 on:** October 02, 2013, 05:59:52 AM »

"Welfare Queen awaaaaaaay!"

News:

Author Topic: The Demise of Traditional Media (Read 20610 times)