Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The Soup Nazi
It's amazing how many assumptions you can cobble together. First of all, I AM a journalist myself (or, rather, I was until I couldn't stand it anymore in this hellhole I live in); I went to university and graduated and everything. I have not attacked U.S. print journalists in general and it wasn't my intention to. I do read your "local newspapers" when I get the chance — Christ on a stick, didn't I praise "smaller newspapers with real investigating zeal" just, what, THREE posts above? You don't quite strike me as a stoner, so something else is melting your reading comprehension away. Kanye West is my guess.
|
Whoah buddy. Slow it down.
Most of my last re: Journamism post was just me, pontificating about how the media has responded to Trump's declaration of war. I was reallly offering a counterpoint to my own complaint, further above, that there was too much editorializing and not enough fact-presenting going on in major news media outlets.
All I said to you was:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Me
Go easy on print journalists. They NEED their jobs, NEED their industry to survive to keep those jobs. Many don't have the skills to make the leap to full time digital shit. So, read some local newspapers and get a feel for how they're quietly, and diplomatically, fighting Trump with information, plain and simple.
|
I don't think this was much of a leap on my part. You did say print journalists were just behind their TV counterparts. I think the gap is a little wider myself. That's all.
(Then again I've read some really terrible small local newspapers, so I'm really just saying the good guys are out there, even if it doesn't seem like it. Hard to imagine how this would get your hackles up so much since, the way I see it, we pretty much agree on everything from religion to media ethics. It's just that you're kind of a combative dude.
Quote:
|
: One thing about your post does make me glad, though: I never thought your Apple-loving self would ever say "digital shit"...
|
Oh I love Apple yeah. For sure. But I really hate the way reporting has become such a click bait fuckaround in the digital age. I was judging AP entries for 2016 in February, and people would write intros to their submissions where they said "This story was viewed by 12,000 people in 24 hours and re-tweeted 156 times, with an average view time of 1.4 minutes."
What? Really? Wow! What the fuck does that have to do with anything? I'm here to judge the quality of your news reporting. The views tell me nothing about your story's import in the community, and the view time only tells me that the average reader didn't read your story. WHY ARE YOU TELLING ME THIS?
ETA: My point about the digital shit is that some of the best writers I work with — some real, honest to god, good ass journalists, don't even know how to use Twitter. They're in their 60s, and they've laid their dues many times over, but they only last in the field because they found a place to settle, out in 20 years or more there, and their writing is indispensable. If they were to lose their jobs, I'm not sure what they'd do. Start taking classes in social media at a local high school? Sounds like a shitty way to spend one's twilight years.
ETA: Let's leave Mr. West out of this
