Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

“An independent journalist” who won't remain nameless

thehandbasket.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 111 posts

Re: “An independent journalist” who won't remain nameless

#41

Post by sandworm101 »

jimbob45 wrote: post #37
mullingitover wrote: post #23

It's funny that universities will throw you out immediately for plagiarism (some will throw you out if you're aware of it but don't report it ), but major publications will do it (this isn't the same as scholastic plagiarism, but it's the journalistic equivalent) out in the open and shamelessly with no repercussions.

There’s really very little objectivity in the study of English writing. It would make sense that teachers would gravitate to the only real objective part of their discipline - citations - in a desperate attempt to be able to reliably test students. No surprise the profession has embraced citations to the point of absurdity. Granted, teaching soft skills is hard but English teachers seem to have universally given up t…

There used to be. There once was a host of rules one had to follow, from spelling to sentence structure. Students were tested on thier objective ability to recognize and correct grammar. That is now dead. Schools accept junk so long as it nails the citation format. Students are taught that they can rely on culture and common knowedge rather than bother with proper language.

Re: “An independent journalist” who won't remain nameless

#42

Post by jancsika »

djoldman wrote: post #34

The news industry makes a lot of sense when viewed as a category of entertainment. Reporters write stories and people read them to be entertained. Newspapers make money when more people read the stories. No wonder that newspapers don't cite others... That's just an advertisement for their competitor. This isn't the only way to view the news industry but it certainly explains a lot.

> No wonder that newspapers don't cite others... That's just an advertisement for their competitor.

Just read the CBS article linked by the author. As she mentions it always cited WaPo. And it now it properly cites her, too:

"The Rwanda arrangements were first reported by the Washington Post, which also cited work by independent journalist Marisa Kabas, who had uncovered the recent deportation from the U.S. of an Iraqi national to Rwanda."

Re: “An independent journalist” who won't remain nameless

#43

Post by ab5tract »

djoldman wrote: post #34

The news industry makes a lot of sense when viewed as a category of entertainment. Reporters write stories and people read them to be entertained. Newspapers make money when more people read the stories. No wonder that newspapers don't cite others... That's just an advertisement for their competitor. This isn't the only way to view the news industry but it certainly explains a lot.

This is totally ahistorical. Regional newspapers would “break” stories that would then get picked up by national outlets.

In that system it was the standard to reference the paper that first reported the story.

People understandably have a hard time conceptualizing a highly dynamic and diverse news media landscape these days, but back when it was working like it was supposed to —- before Clinton-era reforms destroyed the laws protecting against consolidation -— it was not as simple to suppress a story because you had actual competition who would profit if you didn’t.

In other words, news wasn’t always so distinctly “entertainment” and the rules which govern news items in a landscape of less than a handful of media conglomerates are nothing like what used to govern in a less starkly dystopian version of the same.

Re: “An independent journalist” who won't remain nameless

#44

Post by a_bonobo »

t-3 wrote: post #8
xyst wrote: post #5

It shocks me to this day that news articles and journalists barely cite their sources. The best I have seen is shitty hyperlinked sources l, which are subject to link rot over time. Thus losing the context/source if underlying paper goes under or company decides to overhaul content system. What’s the point of learning APA or MLA citation in high school and college but journalists don’t even bother with it? Insane to…

If they cite their sources, next time you might just check the sources instead of them, or be able to tell when they're making shit up, or be able to see what they're careful not to say. Hiding the sources and being the middleman for truth gives journalists continued employment and increases their value.

I think this is the reason why articles about recent research in 99% of cases don't cite the research itself past something vague like 'Researchers from Harvard University have discovered..'.

It's maddening when you then have to look for the paper using the article's few hints, but usually turns out that the paper's claims are far more careful/'smaller scale' than the news article's claims.

Re: “An independent journalist” who won't remain nameless

#45

Post by sapphicsnail »

jimbob45 wrote: post #37
mullingitover wrote: post #23

It's funny that universities will throw you out immediately for plagiarism (some will throw you out if you're aware of it but don't report it ), but major publications will do it (this isn't the same as scholastic plagiarism, but it's the journalistic equivalent) out in the open and shamelessly with no repercussions.

There’s really very little objectivity in the study of English writing. It would make sense that teachers would gravitate to the only real objective part of their discipline - citations - in a desperate attempt to be able to reliably test students. No surprise the profession has embraced citations to the point of absurdity. Granted, teaching soft skills is hard but English teachers seem to have universally given up t…

The whole point of the humanities is to deal with topics that are more subjective by nature. That's what makes them beautiful. It's a feature not a bug. If you want some objective facts about language study Linguistics.

Re: “An independent journalist” who won't remain nameless

#47

Post by aaron695 »

mullingitover wrote: post #23

It's funny that universities will throw you out immediately for plagiarism (some will throw you out if you're aware of it but don't report it ), but major publications will do it (this isn't the same as scholastic plagiarism, but it's the journalistic equivalent) out in the open and shamelessly with no repercussions.

[dead]

Re: “An independent journalist” who won't remain nameless

#48

Post by psychoslave »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #38
djoldman wrote: post #34

The news industry makes a lot of sense when viewed as a category of entertainment. Reporters write stories and people read them to be entertained. Newspapers make money when more people read the stories. No wonder that newspapers don't cite others... That's just an advertisement for their competitor. This isn't the only way to view the news industry but it certainly explains a lot.

There's also a professional divide between "journalists" and "bloggers" [0]. If anyone can start their own website and write stuff, without getting any kind of qualification or accreditation, and without following any editorial policy or maintaining any kind of journalistic integrity, and still get credited with a story, then journalism itself has an identity crisis. Meanwhile, (some) journalists at (some) news organ…

The difference between the casual blogger and the professional journalist are not of nature, but degrees on different axes.

The main difference from a societal point of view are obviously all the privileges and duties given to a pro in a field, be it writing or anything else actually.

Independence is ever denial or lie when it comes to social interaction. No one is an island, or if you prefer, under the sea even island are connected on solid grounds and all kinds of life forms are able to travel from one island to an other. There is nothing as an absolutely isolated zone.

Also you can be trappist, but simultaneously claiming to be the president of the universe won't hold much attention.

Re: “An independent journalist” who won't remain nameless

#49

Post by monkeyelite »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #38
djoldman wrote: post #34

The news industry makes a lot of sense when viewed as a category of entertainment. Reporters write stories and people read them to be entertained. Newspapers make money when more people read the stories. No wonder that newspapers don't cite others... That's just an advertisement for their competitor. This isn't the only way to view the news industry but it certainly explains a lot.

There's also a professional divide between "journalists" and "bloggers" [0]. If anyone can start their own website and write stuff, without getting any kind of qualification or accreditation, and without following any editorial policy or maintaining any kind of journalistic integrity, and still get credited with a story, then journalism itself has an identity crisis. Meanwhile, (some) journalists at (some) news organ…

The divide is almost entirely in status - not in actions or morals. It’s important to remember they are competitors and both have an interest in guarding their audience.

More cynically, almost all news these days is PR. There is very little new information entering the system from journalists - just synthesis of information provided to them. So traditional journalists are not unlike bloggers in this way either.

Re: “An independent journalist” who won't remain nameless

#50

Post by chimeracoder »

jancsika wrote: post #42
djoldman wrote: post #34

The news industry makes a lot of sense when viewed as a category of entertainment. Reporters write stories and people read them to be entertained. Newspapers make money when more people read the stories. No wonder that newspapers don't cite others... That's just an advertisement for their competitor. This isn't the only way to view the news industry but it certainly explains a lot.

> No wonder that newspapers don't cite others... That's just an advertisement for their competitor. Just read the CBS article linked by the author. As she mentions it always cited WaPo. And it now it properly cites her, too: "The Rwanda arrangements were first reported by the Washington Post, which also cited work by independent journalist Marisa Kabas, who had uncovered the recent deportation from the U.S. of an Ira…

> Just read the CBS article linked by the author. As she mentions it always cited WaPo. And it now it properly cites her, too:

I wouldn't say it properly cites her. It says that the Washington Post reported it first, which is nonsensical because in the very same sentence it says that Washington Post cited Kabas.

Post reply on HN