4 ms·

>The journalist’s job is to describe what actually is happening, and to provide enough context for readers to understand it. The former is a journalist's job,

>The journalist’s job is to describe what actually is happening, and to provide enough context for readers to understand it. The former is a journalist's job, the latter is the reader's concern and not the journalist. One of the reasons I consider journalism a cancer upon humanity is because journalists can't just write down "it is 35 degrees celsius today at 2pm", but rather "you won't believe how hot it is". Just journal down what the hell happens literally and plainly, we as readers can and should figure out the rest. NTFS doesn't interject opinions and clickbait into its journal, and neither should proper journalists.

tiznow 2y ago
I think you might need a chill pill, I've never met a single journalist or editor who would let "you won't believe how hot it is" pass in more than a tweet.
- Dalewyn 2y ago
  As a counterexample, I have deep respect for weather forecasters because they are professionally and legally bound to state nothing but the scientific journal at hand. "Typhoon 14 located 500km south of Tokyo, Japan with a pressure of 960hPa and moving north-northeast at a speed of 30km/h is expected to traverse so-and-so estimated course of travel at 6pm tomorrow." "Let's go over to Arizona. It's currently 105F in Tuscon, 102F in Yuma, ..." Brutally to the point, the readers are left to process that information as appropriate. Journalists do not do this, and they should if they claim to be journalists.
  - tiznow 2y ago
    >they are professionally and legally bound to state nothing but the scientific journal at hand In America, just about every meteorologist editorializes the weather to a degree. There's nothing scientific about telling me "it's a great night for baseball" (great for the fans? Pitchers? Hitters?) or "don't wash your car just yet" but I will never stop hearing those. I don't, and the public doesn't seem to think that infringes on journalistic standards, because the information is still presented. Maybe this is different than what you mean -- if you're talking about a situation where journalists intentionally created the full context and pushed the information to the side, obviously that is undesirable. I will add that weather as a "news product" actually gains quite a fair bit from presenter opinion, and news is a product above all.
bee_rider 2y ago
The journalist is making a product for the reader in the best case, their job is to help the reader. The second example you mention is a typical example of clickbait journalism, where the journalist has betrayed the reader and is trying to steal their attention, because they actually serve advertisers. But the first example is not very useful either. That journalist could be replaced by a fully automated thermometer. Or weather stations with an API. Context is useful: “It is 35 degrees Celsius, and we’re predicting that it will stay sunny all day” will help you plan your day. “It is 35 degrees Celsius today, finishing off an unseasonably warm September” could provide a little info about the overall trend in the weather this year. I don’t see any particular reason that journalists should follow your definition, which you seem to have just… made up?
- Dalewyn 2y ago
  >your definition, which you seem to have just… made up? See: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/journal https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/journal Specifically noun, senses 2B through 2F. I expect journalists to record journals and nothing more nor nothing less, not editorials or opinion pieces which are written by authors or columnists or whatever.
  - bee_rider 2y ago
    Dictionary similarity is not how people get their job descriptions. If you want to just pick a similar word from the dictionary, why are journalists sharing this stuff? Journals are typically private, after all. If someone read your journal, you might be annoyed, right? Or, from your definition, apparently: > the part of a rotating shaft, axle, roll, or spindle that turns in a bearing I don’t think these journalists rotate much at all! A better definition is one of… journalism. https://www.britannica.com/topic/journalism https://www.britannica.com/topic/journalism journalism, the collection, preparation, and distribution of news and related commentary and feature materials through such print and electronic media as […] That said, I don’t think an argument from definition is all that good anyway. These definitions are descriptive, not prescriptive. Journalism is a profession, they do what they do for the public good. If you think that it would be better for the field of journalism to produce a contextless log of events, defend that idea in and of itself, rather than leaning on some definition.
ks2048 2y ago
You're describing a microphone / voice recorder, not a journalist. There are of course places you can go to get raw weather data, but a journalist might put it in context of what else is going on, interview farmers or climatologists about the situation, etc. There are lots of kinds of journalism, but maybe most important is investigative journalism. They are literally doing an investigation - reading source material, actively seeking out the right people to interview and asking them right questions, following the leads to more information.

tiznow 2y ago

I think you might need a chill pill, I've never met a single journalist or editor who would let "you won't believe how hot it is" pass in more than a tweet.

Dalewyn 2y ago
As a counterexample, I have deep respect for weather forecasters because they are professionally and legally bound to state nothing but the scientific journal at hand. "Typhoon 14 located 500km south of Tokyo, Japan with a pressure of 960hPa and moving north-northeast at a speed of 30km/h is expected to traverse so-and-so estimated course of travel at 6pm tomorrow." "Let's go over to Arizona. It's currently 105F in Tuscon, 102F in Yuma, ..." Brutally to the point, the readers are left to process that information as appropriate. Journalists do not do this, and they should if they claim to be journalists.
- tiznow 2y ago
  >they are professionally and legally bound to state nothing but the scientific journal at hand In America, just about every meteorologist editorializes the weather to a degree. There's nothing scientific about telling me "it's a great night for baseball" (great for the fans? Pitchers? Hitters?) or "don't wash your car just yet" but I will never stop hearing those. I don't, and the public doesn't seem to think that infringes on journalistic standards, because the information is still presented. Maybe this is different than what you mean -- if you're talking about a situation where journalists intentionally created the full context and pushed the information to the side, obviously that is undesirable. I will add that weather as a "news product" actually gains quite a fair bit from presenter opinion, and news is a product above all.

bee_rider 2y ago

The journalist is making a product for the reader in the best case, their job is to help the reader. The second example you mention is a typical example of clickbait journalism, where the journalist has betrayed the reader and is trying to steal their attention, because they actually serve advertisers. But the first example is not very useful either. That journalist could be replaced by a fully automated thermometer. Or weather stations with an API. Context is useful: “It is 35 degrees Celsius, and we’re predicting that it will stay sunny all day” will help you plan your day. “It is 35 degrees Celsius today, finishing off an unseasonably warm September” could provide a little info about the overall trend in the weather this year. I don’t see any particular reason that journalists should follow your definition, which you seem to have just… made up?

Dalewyn 2y ago
>your definition, which you seem to have just… made up? See: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/journal https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/journal Specifically noun, senses 2B through 2F. I expect journalists to record journals and nothing more nor nothing less, not editorials or opinion pieces which are written by authors or columnists or whatever.
- bee_rider 2y ago
  Dictionary similarity is not how people get their job descriptions. If you want to just pick a similar word from the dictionary, why are journalists sharing this stuff? Journals are typically private, after all. If someone read your journal, you might be annoyed, right? Or, from your definition, apparently: > the part of a rotating shaft, axle, roll, or spindle that turns in a bearing I don’t think these journalists rotate much at all! A better definition is one of… journalism. https://www.britannica.com/topic/journalism https://www.britannica.com/topic/journalism journalism, the collection, preparation, and distribution of news and related commentary and feature materials through such print and electronic media as […] That said, I don’t think an argument from definition is all that good anyway. These definitions are descriptive, not prescriptive. Journalism is a profession, they do what they do for the public good. If you think that it would be better for the field of journalism to produce a contextless log of events, defend that idea in and of itself, rather than leaning on some definition.

ks2048 2y ago

You're describing a microphone / voice recorder, not a journalist. There are of course places you can go to get raw weather data, but a journalist might put it in context of what else is going on, interview farmers or climatologists about the situation, etc. There are lots of kinds of journalism, but maybe most important is investigative journalism. They are literally doing an investigation - reading source material, actively seeking out the right people to interview and asking them right questions, following the leads to more information.