There’s no good reason why TV news producers can’t make better use of the web and social media as channels. They’re brands people can and do trust, but their absence from Facebook and the like only leaves a void to be filled by the fakes.
Accusation-driven reporting is typical tabloid journalism, though even tabloids often get to the truth beyond the sensationalist headlines and opening grafs. This shit’s just ethically dubious clickbait, the kind of stuff they used to call ‘yellow journalism’.
A podcast from NPR about going deep into news stories one might otherwise breeze over on a given site or in a given paper. Doesn't look like there's been anything new since June but hopefully it's just been on a summer pause.
Ugh. It's all I can say.
It all boils down to this, from the final paragraph: "King’s editors had a responsibility to ensure that his accurate sourcing was reproduced when published, no matter the vagaries of their CMS. (King, too, should probably have been reading his articles once they were published.)"
Like anything else in media, infoviz must be subject to scrutiny. And the more sophisticated, the more it needs a closer look, 'cause everyone knows the trick about bar charts with a fudged x-axis, right?
My old comrade Markham cuts to the chase: it's not enough for infoviz/data journalism to be meaningful, it also has to be legible.
News orgs at all levels really need to consider the situation from their quarry's perspective before they pick up the phone or dash off a tweet or email.
It simply demonstrates disrespect to the recipient: not only the sexist assumption, but also that one couldn't be arsed to check.
Yes: whatever about the 'celebrity journalism' bullshit, where was the editorial guidance, whether before the assignment or during the writing of the piece? See also: How SB Nation Published Their Daniel Holtzclaw Story. And also: the Postlight Newsletter discusses possible workflow solutions to preventing flawed journalism getting out there (or at least managing things if that can't be avoided).
Whenever I need to draft interview questions in future, I will be referring to this.
"Nearly every social network now treats a link as just the same as it treats any other object — the same as a photo, or a piece of text — instead of seeing it as a way to make that text richer. You’re encouraged to post one single hyperlink and expose it to a quasi-democratic process of liking and plussing and hearting: Adding several links to a piece of text is usually not allowed. Hyperlinks are objectivized, isolated, stripped of their powers." There's a lot in this, and some of it is maybe a little too cynical (the almost techno-luddite suspicion of 'secretive' algorithms selecting our information streams is something that stands out) but there's no denying what Hossein 'Hoder' Derakhshan say about the fate of the hyperlink.
Online culture is moving so fast that its permanence is increasingly fragile.
Here's a nice way of describing the kind of thing us subeditors do day in, day out.
This is a must for journalists or anyone else who needs to parse the kind of press-release mumbo jumbo that causes more confusion than anything else.
How celebrities' increasing direct access to their fans, via Instagram and the like, has undermined the entertainment press, prompting them to seek ever more desperate measures, like fanboy profiles.
You want to say 'just keep it as a hobby' but the reality for most is, if you want any kind of following you can hope to monetise, you have to post something new almost daily, and doing that well is a full-time gig. Although, if the following you get are the kind of people who'll call you a 'sellout' for trying to make a living, then why even bother in the first place?
"If there’s a combination that makes an ideal copy editor it’s high intelligence and low ego, because if you’re looking for ego gratification copy editing is probably not the place to be." Absolutely! And I firmly believe all my years of editing has made me a better writer, even if only in terms of not being so precious about my own words. If something needs fixing, so be it.
Yes, there's still a role for us subs, as readers and publishers alike demand better quality across the board.
Filing this for future reference.
Next time I have to transcribe an interview, after giving Google Voice a shot, I think I'll be trying this. Because it's far, far easier to edit text than transcribe it from scratch. (I can't get any better than an hour per 10 minutes of audio. I know.)
There's a very important point here about the ownership of cultural artefacts, and how the digital era has defined that ownership squarely in favour of the corporate producer (leading to legal absurdities like software licences becoming a template for every kind of non-physical media). It's not just about games; if films are no longer being preserved on reels of celluloid, and only exist on the hard drives of some movie studio's IT department, how can we trust they'll still be around in decades to come?
I get what Greenslade is saying but let's be clear: reporting and subediting are two very different skills, so 'swapping jobs' won't really achieve the results he desires.