3 ms·

Why is it always an external failure rather than an internal one whenever a media outlet of some kind screws up? We can't follow the most basic of journalism s

Why is it always an external failure rather than an internal one whenever a media outlet of some kind screws up? We can't follow the most basic of journalism standards? Can't afford it, sorry. We told an outright lie? We couldn't hire fact checkers, sorry. Our front page is covered in low-quality clickbait trash? Nobody wants to pay for news, sorry. This kind of blameshifting comes off very familiar to anyone who's heard large movie/music companies blaming their marketing/promotion/quality failures on piracy.

jdkoeck 10y ago
Boils down to one thing: don't expect quality from something you haven't paid for.
- Karunamon 10y ago
  That goes both ways: Don't call yourself a journalist if you don't expect to be held up to those standards.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
coldtea 10y ago
>Why is it always an external failure rather than an internal one whenever a media outlet of some kind screws up? I don't believe that is the case, and the question is not pertinent to (or alluded by) what I wrote so I am not qualified to answer it. I merely pointed some historical developments behind less good news coverage. That doesn't absolve anyone of their responsibility -- neither the journalist that puts his name under a bad article, nor the people who are not willing to pay and award good content, but nevertheless complaint for its lack, as if the deserve it by birthright. In other words: you get what you paid for (and the corollary: you only have a right to complain for what you paid for).
- Karunamon 10y ago
  Unfortunately you did it in such a way as to excuse a failure to meet the most basic of the basic expectations as a financial problem, when it's really an ethical problem. As if we have no right to expect someone who calls himself a journalist to hew to standards.
  - coldtea 10y ago
    >As if we have no right to expect someone who calls himself a journalist to hew to standards. We can call them out for not adhering to the standards of the profession, but unless those online mediums make enough to get actual talent (and editors, copy editors, proof readers, fact checkers, etc.) we should not have a realistic expectation of even basic quality from them.

jdkoeck 10y ago

Boils down to one thing: don't expect quality from something you haven't paid for.

Karunamon 10y ago
That goes both ways: Don't call yourself a journalist if you don't expect to be held up to those standards.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

coldtea 10y ago

>Why is it always an external failure rather than an internal one whenever a media outlet of some kind screws up? I don't believe that is the case, and the question is not pertinent to (or alluded by) what I wrote so I am not qualified to answer it. I merely pointed some historical developments behind less good news coverage. That doesn't absolve anyone of their responsibility -- neither the journalist that puts his name under a bad article, nor the people who are not willing to pay and award good content, but nevertheless complaint for its lack, as if the deserve it by birthright. In other words: you get what you paid for (and the corollary: you only have a right to complain for what you paid for).

Karunamon 10y ago
Unfortunately you did it in such a way as to excuse a failure to meet the most basic of the basic expectations as a financial problem, when it's really an ethical problem. As if we have no right to expect someone who calls himself a journalist to hew to standards.
- coldtea 10y ago
  >As if we have no right to expect someone who calls himself a journalist to hew to standards. We can call them out for not adhering to the standards of the profession, but unless those online mediums make enough to get actual talent (and editors, copy editors, proof readers, fact checkers, etc.) we should not have a realistic expectation of even basic quality from them.