3 ms·
> like most journalists I know, are eager to do work that makes money; we are even willing to compromise for it. Is this journalism in 2019? Pump out content t
by vuln 7y ago
> like most journalists I know, are eager to do work that makes money; we are even willing to compromise for it.
Is this journalism in 2019? Pump out content to make a buck and fuck journalistic integrity because they have kids to feed? Real journalism takes too long and doesn't generate enough revenue?
One could say the same about Russian troll farms, they too have kids at home to feed.
What a sad world we live in.
- manicdee 7y agoI think you are completely misreading this, given that the context is people quitting their jobs over perceived threats to journalistic integrity. There are other compromises that can be made such as pay, working conditions, working on dross stories to make up for the expense of the really good ones, etc.
- mc32 7y agoI looks like the new bosses were pushing sports on the journalists. I don’t see how that implies losing integrity. Not caring about integrity would be things like fabrication, omission, taking one side of the issue, etc. Focusing on one section of news doesn’t compromise integrity.
- manicdee 7y agoYou’ve missed the subtext. “Stick to sports” doesn’t mean “report only about sports.” It means, “do not follow that story any further because it makes me uncomfortable.” This could be for various reasons but ultimately means sticking to one side of an issue, omitting details that would anger the Powers That Be, or even fabricating details to put a positive spin on an otherwise damning report. “Stick to sports” means, “screw journalistic integrity”
- thrower123 7y agoThat's emphatically not what "stick to sports" means. For a lot of people, sports are an oasis of tranquility carved out of the incessant rage and cultural bickering that blares 24/7 everywhere else. There's a lot of old duffers that would rather hear about David Price's fastball rather than his political positions, or Kyrie Irving's crossover dribble rather than his speculations on the geometry of the Earth. It's still a weird pivot for Deadspin to take, because that was never what they were about or where their audience was. My suspicion is that it was a reaction to the ratings baths that ESPN has taken as they embraced the culture war, rather than Top 10, box scores and replays - and alienated a big chunk of their audience. In both cases it's a warning about knowing your brand and your audience...
- slg 7y ago>It's still a weird pivot for Deadspin to take, because that was never what they were about or where their audience was. I have been a Deadspin reader since at least 2006. It might have gotten more political over recent years (hasn't everything?), but I think you fundamentally didn't understand Deadspin's purpose if you think it was the place to go to read about David Price's fastball. There are countless places on the internet that cover stories like that better. The thing the separated Deadspin from the crowd was that they didn't stick to what happened on the field in sports and that was a key factor in them building their audience.
- danso 7y agoDeadspin’s non-sports coverage had more page views than its sports posts by a 2-to-1 ratio: https://theconcourse.deadspin.com/the-adults-in-the-room-1837487584 https://theconcourse.deadspin.com/the-adults-in-the-room-183...
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- shaki-dora 7y agoIs this reading comprehension in 2019? The clear intent of the sentence is to state that journalists do understand the need for their publisher to function as a business, i. e. to rebut the other stereotype of journalists that they often get to hear, namely that they are unrealistic idealists. Sad world, indeed.
- mcphage 7y agoThe quality of reading comprehension on this site is depressingly low.