Jim Lehrer’s Rules of Journalism • Hacker News Board

Re: Jim Lehrer’s Rules of Journalism

#81

Post by siruncledrew » Sat, Jan 25, 2020, 6:59 PM UTC

kristianc wrote: post #6

Many journalists seem to have discovered that becoming noisy, performative blue tick ‘personas’, acting out journalism on Twitter, and saying things like ‘this, literally this’ a lot as a substitute for actual analysis is also good for their careers. They act out this status-dance of pretending to loathe every second of life in the toxic digital hellscape that, in the talk tracks and visibility it gives them is actua…

Journalists today don't even need any instruction, credentials, or experience to be "journalists". It's a media arms-race over who can monopolize territory in the information-space, and companies will take whoever gets them results - not only who is best at their job.

Who cares about paying for a staff of $60-80k/year well-seasoned investigative reporters that take weeks-months to produce vivid, informative pieces only for them to be forgotten about for another thing in the 24hr news cycle? Why not just pay a bunch of young people $18/hr to "rehash" 8 articles/day with a bunch of fluff and opinion to pump out more stuff to get more dollars? Why even bother going out into the world to gather information when I could just copy-paste the first story to come out, add a few pictures and edits, then release it to catch the demand-wave for content monetization while it's riding high, and call it a day?

The proliferation of 'fake news' is basically just "full-throttle" digital journalism that said, "Fuck it, why even wait around for real-life happenings to report on when I could just create my own and make money?"

Journalism is not anymore some "sacred art" or "esteemed profession", like a doctor or lawyer or scientist, it's just another avenue to make dollars from society through supply-demand.

Re: Jim Lehrer’s Rules of Journalism

#82

Post by Knulp » Sat, Jan 25, 2020, 6:59 PM UTC

I feel like the conversation is lacking a journalist point of view so I'm going to pitch in :) I usually don't say anything in this kind of debate (especially on Twitter ;) ) because it's pretty useless, but I love reading the community here and it's the first time that a debate disppoints me. I feel like it's one sided and completly lacking the usual counter-argument and debate. Also, bear with me if I make english mistakes - I'm french and it's not my native langage.

First I'd like to adress there's very different kinds of journalism, different set of skills associated with it and of course, a company they work for. As a job, working for the New York Times, for a local journal, for a tech magazine or for travel channel is completely different. I don't think people realise how different the job actually is from one media to the other. You can't say 'journalists' the same way you can't say 'engineers' because there's people doing software, people doing tests, people building machines, people advising companies and many other people doing many other things and having no idea how to do some other engineer job because it is... entirely different. We're not interchangeable and we don't all do the same job at all.

All medias are also different. Which implies different owners, rules, and bosses. As a journalist, you're like everyone else : you're an employee. You can have ethics, you can have thoughts or a list of rules. At the end of the day, it's a job and if your boss asks you to do something completly stupid, you can either say no, loose that job and possibly die of hunger. Or you roll with it and hope very very hard it will not stay on the internet. (Spoiler alert : it will and you'll be ashamed of it all your life.) You do have rights in some countries; but first, like many rights, not everyone know them; and second, those rights don't necessarily protect you. Maybe the media can't fire you right away or because you refused working, but a few months later, when they're considering reconducting your contract, you'll just get cut. It's just sad math. Not everyone can afford to be a hero.

Re: Jim Lehrer’s Rules of Journalism

#83

Post by Knulp » Sat, Jan 25, 2020, 6:59 PM UTC

Knulp wrote: post #82

I feel like the conversation is lacking a journalist point of view so I'm going to pitch in :) I usually don't say anything in this kind of debate (especially on Twitter ;) ) because it's pretty useless, but I love reading the community here and it's the first time that a debate disppoints me. I feel like it's one sided and completly lacking the usual counter-argument and debate. Also, bear with me if I make english…

Another point is that there's this image that being a good journalist means investigating. Movies or tv shows never mention the actual money you're getting for publishing online. I often see discussion here on how much engineers make. Everytime I read those, I can't believe the numbers. So let's talk money. In France the middle ground for an online paper is getting paid between 40 dollars for a short piece and 120 for a long one. That's usually 8000 characters for long ones, so more or less 800 to 1000 words. If you want to do a good job, it requiries usually two days : you have to research, get people's contacts. Agree on a time for three or four interview which are going to last between 30 minutes and an hour each. Then if you have everything (rarely happens) you have to write. If no one answers or you realize the subject was actually much more complicated than you thought, it might take a week or a month. The nature of the job makes it hard to know how long exactly something is going to take if you want to do it right... But at the end of the day, the amount of money you get paid doesn't change and you might just get paid 100 dollars for two days work, and that's before taxes. I'll talk about my own experience as a freelancer for a year here, and I'm actually one of the very lucky ones because I had work. I calculated that this year, I often got paid 1 or 2 euro the hour. I earned 300 or 400 a month - well, usually it's more 1500 a month, then nothing for two month, then 200, then 600, then nothing again... Often I got paid four months after being published - and sometimes on Paypal. I also worked for a big American media and they pay you the same amount as in France - except at the end you get a check and your bank at home will also cut its own share of it and you'll end up with two times less money. I am absolutely not exagerating. Of course, I stopped being a freelancer because I couldn't make it work. Yes, my job was more interesting and I was travelling and getting to cover more exciting stuff. But it couldn't compensate the stress that came with having literaly no money and my savings going down and down and down and down. So now I have a job that is actually one of the rare ones where I can do a good job in France and get paid ok. I'll still never earn more than 20 to 25K a year after taxes. But I'm lucky. Really. So imagine how it is for mostly everyone else.

Re: Jim Lehrer’s Rules of Journalism

#84

Post by Knulp » Sat, Jan 25, 2020, 7:00 PM UTC

Knulp wrote: post #83

Knulp wrote: post #82

I feel like the conversation is lacking a journalist point of view so I'm going to pitch in :) I usually don't say anything in this kind of debate (especially on Twitter ;) ) because it's pretty useless, but I love reading the community here and it's the first time that a debate disppoints me. I feel like it's one sided and completly lacking the usual counter-argument and debate. Also, bear with me if I make english…

Another point is that there's this image that being a good journalist means investigating. Movies or tv shows never mention the actual money you're getting for publishing online. I often see discussion here on how much engineers make. Everytime I read those, I can't believe the numbers. So let's talk money. In France the middle ground for an online paper is getting paid between 40 dollars for a short piece and 120 fo…

So I'd like to take the debate here where I think it should lie: with the companies' management. The problem isn't the journalists - there's good ones, bad ones like everywhere and they can't shoulder all the trust crisis that's out there. The problem is that no one is really checking who posts what online. Medias have had a history of having an article go through 3 to 4 people before getting okayed and being published. I actually hate that you only have one name on an article because it is really not a solo work (or at least it never should be). Often I have read articles I wrote and was unable to recognize them. Or they were cut of a part I though balanced the whole argument I was making. In those cases I feel like it's unfair only my name get written down because I'll get all the criticism. In other cases, we were really two working on an article and the editing work was formidable. But somehow in the end, I'm the only one getting the credit for it, which also feels unfair to my colleagues.

All those problems are not easy to solve. They beg many questions : is there just too many people in journalism ? Should companies shrink so they finally get profitable again and the remaining staff can do quality work - at the expense of thousands of people that would get without a job ? Should there only be subscription-based info ? But then does that mean no one without money would get the right to good information ? Should every company sort out a way to be both a newsroom (one that doesn't make much money or even none at all) and develop multiple activities on the side like an ad company, so that they can stay afloat (some have succeeded that way but it's not a valid point for everyone) ? I don't have an answer and mostly every media is trying to figure out their way out of all this. The thing is it's easy to criticize from outside that the managment is shit... but the ships are sinking and when you're sinking, you're not thinking ahead as to which direction you're going to take, or what part of the boat you're going to make better. First you try to figure out how to get all the water out and keep all the people inside alive. It's not an excuse, just the context we have to deal with.

Side note : there's also a problem of journalist schools. That's my own opinion, but I actually think they are very bad for the job - because you won't learn more than in a media, and it makes all the journalists come out very similar. Problem is, if you don't do them, you have no network and, at least in France, you actually can't intern in big medias. Twitter is a similar bubble to the bubbles school create. Twitter makes journalists feel like what they see or talk about has a bigger influence than it really has. But that's not a problem that's only with journalists. It's also with the platforms and it's been argued that it's all over the internet.

Re: Jim Lehrer’s Rules of Journalism

#85

Post by Knulp » Sat, Jan 25, 2020, 7:00 PM UTC

Knulp wrote: post #84

Knulp wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another point is that there's this image that being a good journalist means investigating. Movies or tv shows never mention the actual money you're getting for publishing online. I often see discussion here on how much engineers make. Everytime I read those, I can't believe the numbers. So let's talk money. In France the middle ground for an online paper is getting paid between 40 dollars for a short piece and 120 fo…

So I'd like to take the debate here where I think it should lie: with the companies' management. The problem isn't the journalists - there's good ones, bad ones like everywhere and they can't shoulder all the trust crisis that's out there. The problem is that no one is really checking who posts what online. Medias have had a history of having an article go through 3 to 4 people before getting okayed and being publish…

Then... I want to adress one final fact which is that it's easier to say it's the "journalists" fault if information has gotten so bad. Journalists for sure hold responsability in this but the public that doesnt value the work, isn't willing to pay for it and will click on whatever is coming up without caring about sourcing... Well, that crowd also has its share in how bad the situation has gotten. I don't think you can blame journalists for all the fake news websites that came up and how they often became the first things you got to access. The tools for visibility that we have to deal with are completely not appropriate for responsible journalism and also require an amount of time that will never be worth the money (Google, Facebook etc). Those fake news website play dirty and of benefit greatly from it.

In one of the medias I worked for, it does say something that one of the most visited article of the year was about a tenia worm that was in someone's intestine and took literally ten minute to write, edit and publish. None of the very interesting piece of good journalism got as much attention. If you want to do good reporting that will shine, you need good keywords, a video, tons of links... And a long text for good SEO. They can't all have that. And because of the lack of money, all those steps are often asked of the journalists themselves. How can you do a good job if you have to get a good idea while browsing the internet because you don't have time to go out, talk to people and take the risk it will be all for nothing ? Then you have to sell your idea to your boss. Then research. Then interview. Then maybe do a video. Then maybe edit it. Then write the story. Then also doing editing and all the linking. Then publishing. Then promoting it with your own media so you get recognised by your coworkers. Then promoting it online. Then get another idea. All that in one morning of course because where's your worth as a stable employee if you can't publish 5 articles a day ?

I'm not saying journalists are not responsible for what is happening, that all the points you made weren't good points or that I have any answers. I'm just getting tired of always reading hate and simplistic arguments like "Anyway, Buzzfeed is shit" and "Journalists are only caring about twitter". Those are the symptoms, not the cause of the illness. And it would do great to move the debate elsewhere if we want to cure this. It won't be done by journalists alone. A journalist doesn't exist without an audience and this will have to be a common effort or journalism is just going to die and well, it's only my opinion, but I don't think the world will be better for it.

Sorry that rant ended up being a whole book. But if you get there, I would love to hear what you think and we can discuss this outside of hate and "they" and "journalists" and "toxicity".

Re: Jim Lehrer’s Rules of Journalism

#86

Post by coffeefirst » Sat, Jan 25, 2020, 7:01 PM UTC

proximitysauce wrote: post #15

It's much more rare though and it's almost entirely absent when looking at political coverage. Two journalists I can think of off the top of my head who have acted with outstanding integrity in recent years are Ronan Farrow and Julie K. Brown (broke the Weinstein and Epstein stories respectively). Part of what makes their journalism so strong is that they had to fight the entire industry to get their stories out. Pol…

There's plenty of political reporters doing excellent work. Get off Twitter and turn off cable news, they're a mess. But outside of that world there's no shortage of professionals who take the work seriously AND go through a fact checking process.

Re: Jim Lehrer’s Rules of Journalism

#87

Post by Knulp » Sat, Jan 25, 2020, 7:14 PM UTC

Reedx wrote: post #61

kristianc wrote: post #6

Many journalists seem to have discovered that becoming noisy, performative blue tick ‘personas’, acting out journalism on Twitter, and saying things like ‘this, literally this’ a lot as a substitute for actual analysis is also good for their careers. They act out this status-dance of pretending to loathe every second of life in the toxic digital hellscape that, in the talk tracks and visibility it gives them is actua…

This is the result of the attention economy and the fact that nothing generates engagement like anger. That's what gets the most clicks and does so much cheaper than real journalism. So performative outrage is what becomes incentivized, both in the news and on twitter in a self-reinforcing cycle. Those who generate and harness the most outrage are the winners of the game. How do we fix this? That's an open question.…

Let's take Buzzfeed.

Most of what they post is utter clickbait and not really informative. They also do amazing pieces of investigation because this model brought them money and they wanted to use it to do better work.

See this article from 2018 that was nominated for a Pullitzer Prize. https://www.buzzfeed.com/heidiblake/from-russia-with-blood-1...

Does that mean you rate Buzzfeed as cancer - including the great reporting they sometimes do ? Or each article independently ? But then who does it ?

Open questions here as well ^^

Re: Jim Lehrer’s Rules of Journalism

#88

Post by kristianc » Sat, Jan 25, 2020, 7:36 PM UTC

claudiawerner wrote: post #80

iagovar wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This not an interpretation of that tweet but the current trend in journalism. Is pretty easy to follow actually. Do the exercise to look up for authors of inflammatory articles on Twitter. It's like they've said: Alright, truth is impossible to reach, so let's throw everything out window.

It's hard to see what you're actually saying. The tweet is clearly a joke, and makes no reference to PTSD, triggering, or anything else. The Slack notification sound also makes me freeze up.

You mean it’s not time to contemplate the effects of workplace trauma and capitalism?

https://twitter.com/imani_barbarin/status/122088704700891545...

Re: Jim Lehrer’s Rules of Journalism

#89

Post by luckylion » Sat, Jan 25, 2020, 7:37 PM UTC

Knulp wrote: post #87

Reedx wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the result of the attention economy and the fact that nothing generates engagement like anger. That's what gets the most clicks and does so much cheaper than real journalism. So performative outrage is what becomes incentivized, both in the news and on twitter in a self-reinforcing cycle. Those who generate and harness the most outrage are the winners of the game. How do we fix this? That's an open question.…

Let's take Buzzfeed. Most of what they post is utter clickbait and not really informative. They also do amazing pieces of investigation because this model brought them money and they wanted to use it to do better work. See this article from 2018 that was nominated for a Pullitzer Prize. https://www.buzzfeed.com/heidiblake/from-russia-with-blood-1... Does that mean you rate Buzzfeed as cancer - including the great rep…

Radio active material can anecdotally give you super powers, but usually it just gives you cancer. It's generally a good idea to avoid it, because the chances that you don't wake up being able to fly are too high.

The same goes for Buzzfeed in my opinion. Yes, there may be something of value every other year, but generally it's shit. You don't want to regularly ingest shit on the off chance that there's some delicious candy in there somewhere.

Re: Jim Lehrer’s Rules of Journalism

#90

Post by claudiawerner » Sat, Jan 25, 2020, 7:53 PM UTC

kristianc wrote: post #88

claudiawerner wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's hard to see what you're actually saying. The tweet is clearly a joke, and makes no reference to PTSD, triggering, or anything else. The Slack notification sound also makes me freeze up.

You mean it’s not time to contemplate the effects of workplace trauma and capitalism? https://twitter.com/imani_barbarin/status/122088704700891545...

It certainly is that time, but not because of Slack notifications.