3 ms·

Data journalism and long-form deep investigative journalism is fine, or least less bad. With the caveat that data journalism that illustrates past or current e

Data journalism and long-form deep investigative journalism is fine, or least less bad. With the caveat that data journalism that illustrates past or current events is fine, but that which tries to draw correlations or make predictions should be taken with a grain of salt. Short form journalism I ignore, or seek the primary source (like a president’s speech or similar).

ergothus 8y ago
>long-form deep investigative journalism I like the distinction you put here, as I've found most "long form" journalism to be focused on superficial details and to try to emphasize innuendo and rumor into emotional plays rather than focusing on facts. As soon as I hit a physical description of one of the people involved that covers more than a sentence (when the article isn't covering a topic involving a physical description), I know the author isn't focused on the parts I care about. Which is a shame, as there is plenty of investigative journalism that benefits from deeper coverage. Just a lot fewer people doing it. (likely as a consequence of fewer people caring enough to make it financially viable, to properly place blame, but from my end I want the material, not to place blame)
- 8ytecoder 8y ago
  News == current happenings. It really never helps me with seeing the bigger picture. Unless I'm already aware of the big picture in which case News augments my understanding. Magazines == Get the big picture on a broad range of topics. Books == Get the full picture on specific topics. Looking at things this way I have come to realize that most news I used to read doesn't add any empirical value to me. Sure I can show off I know this and that and that happened and how stupid is that and laugh at it. But that's about it. News (cable news) is literally entertainment IMHO.
  - im3w1l 8y ago
    > Books == Get the full picture on specific topics. No. You'll get a well informed point of view but it's still just a single persons point of view.
    - jcranberry 8y ago
      Not necessarily "well-informed". Plenty of books out there which peddle nonsense.
rayiner 8y ago
I don't trust long-form investigative journalism one bit. It relies heavily on anecdata and emotional narrative to manipulate you into a particular view.
- SkyMarshal 8y ago
  We probably have different things in mind. The best example of what I'm talking about is Bloomberg's reporting back in 2011 on the Fed's actions during the financial crisis, including their lawsuit to force the Fed to respond to their FOIA requests: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2011-12-23/fed-s-once-secret-data-compiled-by-bloomberg-released-to-public https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2011-12-23/fed-s-onc... https://www.bloomberg.com/news/world?pid=20601087&sid=afi7TJiJFys0 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/world?pid=20601087&sid=afi7TJ... That was not only hard work, but given that most financial media tends to avoid biting the hand that feeds it, uncommonly gutsy. One of the best examples of investigative journalism I'm aware of.

ergothus 8y ago

>long-form deep investigative journalism I like the distinction you put here, as I've found most "long form" journalism to be focused on superficial details and to try to emphasize innuendo and rumor into emotional plays rather than focusing on facts. As soon as I hit a physical description of one of the people involved that covers more than a sentence (when the article isn't covering a topic involving a physical description), I know the author isn't focused on the parts I care about. Which is a shame, as there is plenty of investigative journalism that benefits from deeper coverage. Just a lot fewer people doing it. (likely as a consequence of fewer people caring enough to make it financially viable, to properly place blame, but from my end I want the material, not to place blame)

8ytecoder 8y ago
News == current happenings. It really never helps me with seeing the bigger picture. Unless I'm already aware of the big picture in which case News augments my understanding. Magazines == Get the big picture on a broad range of topics. Books == Get the full picture on specific topics. Looking at things this way I have come to realize that most news I used to read doesn't add any empirical value to me. Sure I can show off I know this and that and that happened and how stupid is that and laugh at it. But that's about it. News (cable news) is literally entertainment IMHO.
- im3w1l 8y ago
  > Books == Get the full picture on specific topics. No. You'll get a well informed point of view but it's still just a single persons point of view.
  - jcranberry 8y ago
    Not necessarily "well-informed". Plenty of books out there which peddle nonsense.

rayiner 8y ago

I don't trust long-form investigative journalism one bit. It relies heavily on anecdata and emotional narrative to manipulate you into a particular view.

SkyMarshal 8y ago
We probably have different things in mind. The best example of what I'm talking about is Bloomberg's reporting back in 2011 on the Fed's actions during the financial crisis, including their lawsuit to force the Fed to respond to their FOIA requests: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2011-12-23/fed-s-once-secret-data-compiled-by-bloomberg-released-to-public https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2011-12-23/fed-s-onc... https://www.bloomberg.com/news/world?pid=20601087&sid=afi7TJiJFys0 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/world?pid=20601087&sid=afi7TJ... That was not only hard work, but given that most financial media tends to avoid biting the hand that feeds it, uncommonly gutsy. One of the best examples of investigative journalism I'm aware of.