The "Internet News Source"

[Timsup2nothin]

I just discovered this thing in my town. They call themselves an internet news source and have claimed a venerated name from the world of journalism; Times, no less. They have a website that is pretty much template consistent with any newspaper site. Of course, just like any modern media their website is backed by their presence on Facebook and every other form of social networking known to man.

Their claim is that they are "up to the minute" as compared to the local daily paper, which would seem to be a good thing. They also don't have any ads from the mayor of one of our local cities, who controls probably 40% of the available advertising revenue in the valley so every media organization other than this one gives him grotesque preferential treatment. I originally thought this lack of selling out to him was a good thing, but now I think that maybe this thing is just beneath his notice.

Anyway, the real problem is that looking at this "news source" it has become obvious that it isn't any sort of "new journalism for the modern world," it is pretty much just the "editor," who is an obvious social media maven, playing dress up. The website isn't a media site with representation on social media, it's pretty much just an extension of a Facebook account that adds a pretense of credibility to what would otherwise be just a Facebook user spouting off. There isn't even a pretense of the most basic concepts of journalism. Yet if all of her followers actually are locals they represent about ten percent of the population, and from their comments it seems they treat this woman as the reincarnation of Cronkite.

Is this a common thing now?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Pretty much anyone can set up a "news site" nowadays. It doesn't make them legitimate, and certainly doesn't guarantee that anything they might say is factually accurate.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Pretty much anyone can set up a "news site" nowadays. It doesn't make them legitimate, and certainly doesn't guarantee that anything they might say is factually accurate.

I sort of knew that, at some level. It just never dawned on me that people would then take the "now I'm a news site" as if it really created credibility.

 

[Zelig]

Pretty much anyone can set up a "news site" nowadays. It doesn't make them legitimate, and certainly doesn't guarantee that anything they might say is factually accurate.

Sounds pretty much the same as print media.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Sounds pretty much the same as print media.

Not really. Even the lowest of journalists, such as television news, do follow certain basics most of the time. You very seldom see single source stories, for example, where that is basically the norm in social media.

 

[classical_hero]

 

[Zelig]

Not really. Even the lowest of journalists, such as television news, do follow certain basics most of the time. You very seldom see single source stories, for example, where that is basically the norm in social media.

Native advertising is frequently single-sourced.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

At least that one, we should assume, isn't going to be taken too seriously!

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Native advertising is frequently single-sourced.

Yeah, but generally speaking news contains stuff besides native advertising, which isn't.

 

[Zelig]

Yeah, but generally speaking news contains stuff besides native advertising, which isn't.

Sure, but the entire point of native advertising is for people to not realize the difference.

Yes, websites have a lower barrier to entry than either print or tv, but the average quality of print and tv is still terrible, so I don't find it particularly notable that there are also terrible websites.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Sure, but the entire point of native advertising is for people to not realize the difference.

Yes, websites have a lower barrier to entry than either print or tv, but the average quality of print and tv is still terrible, so I don't find it particularly notable that there are also terrible websites.

Fair point.

So I guess we need to expect that the public perception of current events will become more and more disassociated from what is actually going on. This does not bode well.

 

[Narz]

One of the main problems is not even necessarily whether the news contains facts but whether opinions obscure or twist the facts. Opinion/editorial news seems to be overtaking the original ideal of unbiased news.

For instance some guy on FB I know posted something from some random source about how women somehow pick up male DNA from everyone they sleep with (I found the original article, it was just c/ped on FB.

http://www.collective-evolution.com...wice-about-who-you-are-getting-into-bed-with/

Although their interpretation of the original study (you pick up DNA from sex even if you are not impregnated) is probably bogus even if it wasn't the moralistic tone (sperms give you evil male DNA so never have sex!) masquerades as information when it's just someone's opinion & value judgement (even if their conclusion - women pick up DNA from every man they are with, is true, whether it is good, bad or neutral was not discussed).

People are desperate to know what value judgements to cling to, forget trying to juggle all the information, human beings haven't evolved to handle so much. Most folks just want to find the tiniest hints of facts & use them to bolster up their worldviews. You'll see lots of "news sources" catering to such folks.

Off topic, I really hate slut-shaming, people who try to scare women into not having sex should be locked in solitary confinement!

 

[Zelig]

Fair point.

So I guess we need to expect that the public perception of current events will become more and more disassociated from what is actually going on. This does not bode well.

I've got a pretty dim view of current events - even if the media were performing well, it's not very useful for most people's daily life to keep up on current events, and you can nearly always get better information in retrospect by reading an analysis (or hell, just the wiki page) after the fact.

I guess in the case of poor enough media, one's perception of current events, given more information, actually gets worse rather than simply non-existent.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I've got a pretty dim view of current events - even if the media were performing well, it's not very useful for most people's daily life to keep up on current events, and you can nearly always get better information in retrospect by reading an analysis (or hell, just the wiki page) after the fact.

I guess in the case of poor enough media, one's perception of current events, given more information, actually gets worse rather than simply non-existent.

THAT!

 

[downtown]

FWIW, I'm a professional journalist.

It's hard to critique much without actually seeing the website, but very generally, sure, the internet makes it easier for anybody to enter the news business, which is both a great thing, and a crappy thing. The Facebook algorithms can make it hard for somebody who is not a super discerning news consumer to get duped by crap, and the rush to be first to a story, even at the expense of accuracy, is very strong to any outlet that gets a large portion of their traffic from search or social. Of course, that motivation has been true in the media since like....forever.

Now, I don't get too huffy about a lot of the hand wringing over Ethics In Journalism, because I think many of the most popular complaints actually don't matter that much, and the biggest issues don't get much attention. I write a fair amount of single sourced stories. So does ESPN, so does every good sports section in the county. Whether that's okay depends entirely on the story and the source (and the subject matter).

I don't mind too much about the media keeping their "opinions" out of the story, bc I think it's impossible for anybody to be unbiased. Who we talk to, how we frame our experiences, what we think is important when we report....all of that is influenced by our biases. The most honest thing we can do for a reader is let those biases be public, and to have an unwavering commitment to the actual facts. We can be fair and honest while still having an opinion.

There are bigger problems, imo. And I hardly think the big problems are unique to digital media.

 

[Agent327]

I don't particularly care about a journalist's opinions. One reads news to find out about what's new. Opinions aren't news (unless someone's opinion changed: that would be news).

And this trend to put the journalist's 'personal experiences' in the story is making the journalist part of the news. If I want 'personal experiences' I can read a novel or watch one of these 'true story' movies - or read columns. I'm of the oldfashioned brand where the journalist is not the news, but the bringer of news. And news isn't news if it's not fact. Just my opinion.

 

[Quintillus]

There's a sort of Internet-only news outlet where I live, but it's generally pretty well received as a compliment to the local newspaper. It helps that it's carved out a niche of focusing on local development projects - new businesses, community events, and so forth - that often fly under the radar of the mainstream newspaper. So if you want to find out about the big fire that happened, local crime reports, or big projects like rebuilding a dam, the newspaper is your source. But if you want to keep up on what's going around in your neighborhood, eclectic festivals, or public transit projects, the local Internet news site is probably more likely to cover it. It's kind of like a less depressing version of the local Metro section of the paper.

As to the importance of opinions - I think it depends on the facts. I'm okay with non-neutral parties covering football, even though he's clearly not a neutral party, since it's not that important if the reporter is neutral there, and the flair you get from a non-neutral party can make it more enjoyable without detracting from what you learn. And with human interest stories, it's often acceptable for the author to not be 100% neutral - although if they're biased too much towards any one side, it decreases the credibility of the whole article. But with something like hardware reviews, it is important. Presenting the facts as they are, even if they contradict what the reviewer wishes to be true, is of course of paramount importance. But not exposing one's own biases in those reviews is also important. Most people would have personal preferences, perhaps due to having a lemon from a certain brand. But for truly neutral reviews, the reviewer should make an effort to avoid letting that impact the article.

Although I'm sure there are good examples of journalists exhibiting this, the one that comes to mind for me is my political science teacher, who had groups from all over the political spectrum come in and talk to our class. I have no idea what his personal political views are. I'm sure he has a political opinion, but he did an excellent job of not presenting his biases to the class, and allowing us to draw our own conclusions.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

A while back I saw a TV report on a German local news blog which was positive all the way. In the wake of the fall of local news sources the region was left with pretty much one single news source which was heavily entangled with the local elites and as I recall already on several occasions the blog had released some really good stuff, among other things a story the local formal paper apparently would not have published simply because it did not wish to step on the wrong toes. That blog was just a single guy really passioned about the job and loving the free work style the Internet enabled him to lead.

As others already have more or less said: the problem with Internet news sites standing on their own is their unpredictability. If the people at the helm rock, it will rock, because they will enjoy greater freedom, flexibility and independence than a big clumsy money-heavy actual paper. They will not have to come to terms with a complicated network of various interests (by no means all revolving around journalistic quality). On the other hand, if the people at the helm suck, the online paper will greatly suck, too, with no established structures to tame or correct their suckiness. This will put greater responsibility on the shoulders of the consumer to make a wise choice. #
And then of course, it seems very questionable to me weather web journalism can mature to in general actually fill the hole the print crisis is tearing. Too much distraction and free stuff on the web. So I still think there should be a free press tax.