5 ms·

Former journalist here. There are very few details about the methodology used in this survey, so I don't think I have much to say about the validity of the pol

by jawns 6y ago

Former journalist here. There are very few details about the methodology used in this survey, so I don't think I have much to say about the validity of the poll results. But regarding whether journalism is more dangerous now than it was 10 years ago (around the time I left journalism) ... There are some journalists who cover breaking news and put themselves in harm's way, and for them, the danger to their health and safety will always be a part of the job. But for the vast majority of journalists, the biggest danger of their job is the business environment, which has been on a downward trajectory for decades, and the distrust of the media, which has picked up over the past five years. In other words, if you look at journalists as a whole, the vast majority of whom are toiling away for low salaries at media outlets that are struggling to turn a profit, the biggest threat is not that they're going to get physically hurt but that they won't be able to make ends meet, or won't have a job next month. I have spent nearly 20 years keeping tabs on proposed new business models that might be able to allow journalism to flourish again -- worker cooperatives, benefactor-supported models, independent bloggers, etc. -- but unfortunately so much of the existing journalism infrastructure is tied up in mega-corps, and it's going to take a LOT of work to act against that momentum.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
Valgrim 6y ago
I think that the old journalism infrastructure created a public sentiment that journalists had to follow some kind of deontological code (that it was real or not is debatable). Now, between the paid-for articles (they call it "native advertising"), algorithmic dissemination of information and opinion pieces presented as facts, I think people are getting confused about what source they can trust or not.
- jawns 6y ago
  You're right. We've come a long way from, "Papa says, 'If you see it in THE SUN it's so." Most (but admittedly not all) reporters and editors I've known have held themselves to the code you mention. The problem is that it's very rare for a reporter or editor to have the final say. It's the publisher who has that prerogative. And most (but not all) publishers I've met have little sense of that code. Their job is to make money for their shareholders. And in a desperate environment where ever dollar is hard-won, it doesn't surprise me that the publishers have resorted to tactics that water down the credulity of their properties.
op03 6y ago
What "journalism infrastructure" is tied to mega corps?
- jawns 6y ago
  By that I mean not just the means of production but the means of consumption. It used to be that the means of production was the hard problem (capital costs to create a new print publication were high). But now perhaps the more difficult problem is disrupting the way that people are used to consuming news and persuading them that quality journalism is worth paying for (or at least persuading them that if nobody pays for journalism, quality is going to suffer).
- bcrl 6y ago
  All the small independent papers got bought out, merged and had their staff cut. Just look at what Rupert Murdoch and his Canadian equivalent Conrad Black (although his empire fell) managed to accomplish over the past few decades.
bcrl 6y ago
Having watched how our local TV station has steadily cut back on staffing at all levels, I would say that front line staff covering the news are in more danger today than 10-20 years ago. Covering a story used to mean having 3+ people on site to cover the story: the reporter, a camera person and an microphone or uplink tech as well. These days reporters are sent out on their own with a camera stand and do almost all of the work by themselves. Our local newspapers have seen similar cutbacks. The left and right wing papers were bought out, merged and now the same staff produce 2 different papers with slightly different spins on the same matters. With all these cutbacks, it's no wonder journalists have a harder time doing in depth and thorough jobs reporting the stories of the day. The advertising dollars have walked away from the local news outlets, and as a result there is far less local oversight. If we as a society don't figure out how to address how journalism is funded, things will continue to the point where only some well funded niches remain covered in any depth. Democracy can't function without oversight, and citizens can't exercise their oversight of governments without knowledge of what is going on. This is dangerous for the public, but it's not the journalists' fault. And bad journalism happens when journalists aren't funded to do the kind of in depth stories that cost real dollars to investigate and produce.

by jawns 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

Valgrim 6y ago

I think that the old journalism infrastructure created a public sentiment that journalists had to follow some kind of deontological code (that it was real or not is debatable). Now, between the paid-for articles (they call it "native advertising"), algorithmic dissemination of information and opinion pieces presented as facts, I think people are getting confused about what source they can trust or not.

jawns 6y ago
You're right. We've come a long way from, "Papa says, 'If you see it in THE SUN it's so." Most (but admittedly not all) reporters and editors I've known have held themselves to the code you mention. The problem is that it's very rare for a reporter or editor to have the final say. It's the publisher who has that prerogative. And most (but not all) publishers I've met have little sense of that code. Their job is to make money for their shareholders. And in a desperate environment where ever dollar is hard-won, it doesn't surprise me that the publishers have resorted to tactics that water down the credulity of their properties.

op03 6y ago

What "journalism infrastructure" is tied to mega corps?

jawns 6y ago
By that I mean not just the means of production but the means of consumption. It used to be that the means of production was the hard problem (capital costs to create a new print publication were high). But now perhaps the more difficult problem is disrupting the way that people are used to consuming news and persuading them that quality journalism is worth paying for (or at least persuading them that if nobody pays for journalism, quality is going to suffer).
bcrl 6y ago
All the small independent papers got bought out, merged and had their staff cut. Just look at what Rupert Murdoch and his Canadian equivalent Conrad Black (although his empire fell) managed to accomplish over the past few decades.

bcrl 6y ago

Having watched how our local TV station has steadily cut back on staffing at all levels, I would say that front line staff covering the news are in more danger today than 10-20 years ago. Covering a story used to mean having 3+ people on site to cover the story: the reporter, a camera person and an microphone or uplink tech as well. These days reporters are sent out on their own with a camera stand and do almost all of the work by themselves. Our local newspapers have seen similar cutbacks. The left and right wing papers were bought out, merged and now the same staff produce 2 different papers with slightly different spins on the same matters. With all these cutbacks, it's no wonder journalists have a harder time doing in depth and thorough jobs reporting the stories of the day. The advertising dollars have walked away from the local news outlets, and as a result there is far less local oversight. If we as a society don't figure out how to address how journalism is funded, things will continue to the point where only some well funded niches remain covered in any depth. Democracy can't function without oversight, and citizens can't exercise their oversight of governments without knowledge of what is going on. This is dangerous for the public, but it's not the journalists' fault. And bad journalism happens when journalists aren't funded to do the kind of in depth stories that cost real dollars to investigate and produce.