Journalism is becoming extinct.



The only reason why journalism and newspapers were a thing was because the means of publishing and getting the word out were extremely guarded....now the internet exist. Now anybody with a computer or a webcam can report on local and national stories, now anybody with basic typing skills can essentially make their own newspaper articles and gain a following, and most do it for free cause they are bored.

There is no demand for a journalist anymore, everybody can be a journalist, and when everyone can be a journalist, then it becomes a meaningless title.
 
Last edited:
Though unrelated to the OP, there was a recent study and polling done by the Knight Foundation which basically unloaded a thick load of matter of fact common sense.


Basic takeaway is that the Foundation did a study polling some 20,000 people apparently and the main conclusions which are expanded on (though the article isn't that long) is that while Americans have high aspirations for their news media, they find it not only increasingly more polarizing, eager to present slanted points of view and push their own political agenda as well as younger people being more distrustful of the news media then older types. Many of the critiques are bipartisan but not all. Ultimately this results in a populace that feels the news media is largely responsible for the political divide and ultimately a diminishing lack of faith in the news media in its traditional roles, including holding those in power accountable to the public.
 
Though unrelated to the OP, there was a recent study and polling done by the Knight Foundation which basically unloaded a thick load of matter of fact common sense.


Basic takeaway is that the Foundation did a study polling some 20,000 people apparently and the main conclusions which are expanded on (though the article isn't that long) is that while Americans have high aspirations for their news media, they find it not only increasingly more polarizing, eager to present slanted points of view and push their own political agenda as well as younger people being more distrustful of the news media then older types. Many of the critiques are bipartisan but not all. Ultimately this results in a populace that feels the news media is largely responsible for the political divide and ultimately a diminishing lack of faith in the news media in its traditional roles, including holding those in power accountable to the public.


I agree with the sentiment.
 
Is journalism a real animal, or a mythical species? What even is “real” journalism?

Real journalism is probably being sufficiently close to some ideal type, I'd wager. But that still doesn't answer much. I guess "real journalism" has to have a sufficient level of quality and earnestness.
 
Real journalism is probably being sufficiently close to some ideal type, I'd wager. But that still doesn't answer much. I guess "real journalism" has to have a sufficient level of quality and earnestness.

Real journalism is nothing more than discovering and disseminating the truth.
These people you lambast as being liars and frauds and hacks believe that they are doing nothing but that. Many of them are rather earnest about it too. Quality has gone down, certainly, but I don't think the kind of manipulation is a new phenomenon. In fact, I believe that the ideal of the journalist as an objective and neutral reporter of the facts is a very new idea born out of modern liberal democracies.
 
These people you lambast as being liars and frauds and hacks believe that they are doing nothing but that. Many of them are rather earnest about it too. Quality has gone down, certainly, but I don't think the kind of manipulation is a new phenomenon. In fact, I believe that the ideal of the journalist as an objective and neutral reporter of the facts is a very new idea born out of modern liberal democracies.
I disagree; because quite frankly, you'd have to be utterly insane to believe many of the things they publish these days are true. I mean, when you've got a reporter insisting that protesters are "mostly peaceful", while a building is visibly burning in the background, the whole exercise begins to resemble a parody more than anything else.
 
I disagree; because quite frankly, you'd have to be utterly insane to believe many of the things they publish these days are true. I mean, when you've got a reporter insisting that protesters are "mostly peaceful", while a building is visibly burning in the background, the whole exercise begins to resemble a parody more than anything else.
How do you know that journalism wasn't always like this? How do you know that there was this honest, objective journalism in the past?
 
How do you know that journalism wasn't always like this? How do you know that there was this honest, objective journalism in the past?

Never did, some journalists were just more honest and less crazy than others

Now, the market will deal with the previous flaws for a comparatively more objective or at least less obnoxious journalism that doesn’t require a huge waste of cash in college
 
Never did, some journalists were just more honest and less crazy than others

Now, the market will deal with the previous flaws for a comparatively more objective or at least less obnoxious journalism that doesn’t require a huge waste of cash in college
I suppose they've become more blatantly crazy. The question is: have they started lying, or are they just getting worse at lying? Because it's my supposition that journalism in America has never been about some kind of impartial devotion to the truth.
 
I'd tend to agree. I think journalism has always been this way.

Today, when everybody has a camera on them, it's become visible because proof is so much easier to gather and journalists can't control the flow of information anymore. The curtain's been ripped away and we can see the guy operating the Wizard of Oz statue.
 
I suppose they've become more blatantly crazy. The question is: have they started lying, or are they just getting worse at lying? Because it's my supposition that journalism in America has never been about some kind of impartial devotion to the truth.

Gotten worse at lying, there’s a lack of subtlety in their emotions being displayed and they also forget that people can look around what they say

Like going “mostly peaceful” whilst surrounded by burning buildings

It’s even harder when you try portraying yourself as the “rebellious underdog” whilst having loads of cash, power and influence

It’s like saying Trump’s got no Anti-Trump media whilst having so many Anti-Trump news stations around

You can’t be both the underdog and the guys in charge or "most popular" people at the same time

It’s almost as obnoxious as pretending something cliche is unique or uncommon
 
Last edited:
I suppose they've become more blatantly crazy. The question is: have they started lying, or are they just getting worse at lying? Because it's my supposition that journalism in America has never been about some kind of impartial devotion to the truth.

A little of column A and a little of column B, I recognize that there has always been corrupt journalism, but I think we had an era of honest journalism that has wound to a close and we only have the remnants of it.
 
A little of column A and a little of column B, I recognize that there has always been corrupt journalism, but I think we had an era of honest journalism that has wound to a close and we only have the remnants of it.

My way of thinking is that one side NEEDS to lie in order to win, whilst the other is constantly aghast that they barely even have to these days and probably think they’ll be considered liars anyway if they show proof or evidence
 
The problem with American journalism is this.

During the 1990s in order to cut costs the newspapers fired a lot of their overseas departments to save money, and so lost the expertise of people who knew what they were doing. These cost cutting measures continued and more expertise was lost. Then the age of click bait happened.

Suddenly you could make a lot of money by creating a sensationalist article and you could hire some newby journalist right out of school to do it. It was very profitiable but its also a limited market and it got saturated fast so more cost cutting measures were induced.

Here's the thing about journalism, the people with the knowege and expertise to get the truth their kind of pricy, some 'activist' with an ax to grind is dirt cheap and they made the mistake of thinking they could control them.

They couldn't and today the news is dying because their all chasing 8% of the market, they mostly just talk to each other and live in a kind of bubble and lost a lot of the skillset they used to have. A lot of news organizations are going to die and have to die. There are too many people chashing too small of the population. A market correction is coming and they really should learn how to code.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top