4 ms·

Anyone who believes that there is still a clear delineation between press releases and journalism doesn't know how the sausage is made. Declining revenues and c

Anyone who believes that there is still a clear delineation between press releases and journalism doesn't know how the sausage is made. Declining revenues and cost-cutting mean that an increasing amount of "reporting" is just an intern paraphrasing press releases. Many news outlets - including Reuters - will happily publish your press release verbatim on their domain, with only a subtle disclaimer to distinguish that paid content from news. I don't fully endorse the sibling comment arguing that news publishers have "brought this on themselves", but the unfortunate reality is that news is a dying business and many publishers are making increasingly desperate decisions at the cost of their reputation. I'm not particularly concerned about bias, because that's usually fairly easy to recognise; what I am concerned about is a very broad decline in quality. The constant pressure to produce more content at lower cost means that most journalists are grimly resigned to churning out articles which they know are poorly researched and thinly sourced. The product is crap, but nobody can admit that it's crap because there's no obvious alternative. https://www.prweek.com/article/1888708/reuters-inks-exclusive-partnership-ez-newswire https://www.prweek.com/article/1888708/reuters-inks-exclusiv... https://www.reuters.com/press-releases/ https://www.reuters.com/press-releases/

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> Many news outlets - including Reuters - will happily publish your press release verbatim on their domain, with only a subtle disclaimer to distinguish that paid content from news This is entirely bullshit about Reuters. There is plenty of free media, e.g. Forbes, who do this. But you're echoing the sort of conspiracy mindedness the study warns about.
- mewpmewp2 2y ago
  Yes, all or most media does this. What's the conspiracy mindedness here? You believe Forbes does it as well, so how are you not conspiracy minded?
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > Yes, all or most media does this. What's the conspiracy mindedness here? Because it doesn't. There is zero evidence of it and a lot of evidence against. > You believe Forbes does it as well, so how are you not conspiracy minded? Because you can literally see the disclaimer on the Forbes article. You can't similarly buy a spot in the Journal, Times or Post.
    - mewpmewp2 2y ago
      But Reuters also has sponsored content and press releases, e.g. https://www.reuters.com/press-releases/sugarmd-to-reintroduce-popular-advanced-glucose-support-with-new-formula-launching-in-january-2024-11-01/ https://www.reuters.com/press-releases/sugarmd-to-reintroduc... There's the gray alert, but I doubt many people will read it, they will assume it to just be some random global bulletin.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        Fair enough. Reuters is a news wire. They're publishing it as a press release, but I could see how someone might be misled by that. Still incredibly different from Forbes-style sponsored content, or insinuating there is no difference between press releases and journalism. That's the post-truth nonsense that makes the American public incredibly easy to sell stuff to. But it comes with obvious disadvantages, too.
        mewpmewp2 2y ago
        For me the point is to not just consider something more reliable or credible, because there's a certain logo on that screenshot or image. You should take a look at the content as well, which given those images, would've led you to believe that the content is just a statement of intention, but not anything really factual and therefore there's no credibility issue in the first place with the Coca Cola one. If Coca Cola was making claims that we "we reduced plastic waste by 75%", then that would be a whole other ordeal, where maybe they are hiding some info, and I would be more inclined to consider Reuters credible, if they have a title "Coca Cola claims to have reduced plastic waste by 75%, but only according to this flawed metric".

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> Many news outlets - including Reuters - will happily publish your press release verbatim on their domain, with only a subtle disclaimer to distinguish that paid content from news This is entirely bullshit about Reuters. There is plenty of free media, e.g. Forbes, who do this. But you're echoing the sort of conspiracy mindedness the study warns about.

mewpmewp2 2y ago
Yes, all or most media does this. What's the conspiracy mindedness here? You believe Forbes does it as well, so how are you not conspiracy minded?
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > Yes, all or most media does this. What's the conspiracy mindedness here? Because it doesn't. There is zero evidence of it and a lot of evidence against. > You believe Forbes does it as well, so how are you not conspiracy minded? Because you can literally see the disclaimer on the Forbes article. You can't similarly buy a spot in the Journal, Times or Post.
  - mewpmewp2 2y ago
    But Reuters also has sponsored content and press releases, e.g. https://www.reuters.com/press-releases/sugarmd-to-reintroduce-popular-advanced-glucose-support-with-new-formula-launching-in-january-2024-11-01/ https://www.reuters.com/press-releases/sugarmd-to-reintroduc... There's the gray alert, but I doubt many people will read it, they will assume it to just be some random global bulletin.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      Fair enough. Reuters is a news wire. They're publishing it as a press release, but I could see how someone might be misled by that. Still incredibly different from Forbes-style sponsored content, or insinuating there is no difference between press releases and journalism. That's the post-truth nonsense that makes the American public incredibly easy to sell stuff to. But it comes with obvious disadvantages, too.
      - mewpmewp2 2y ago
        For me the point is to not just consider something more reliable or credible, because there's a certain logo on that screenshot or image. You should take a look at the content as well, which given those images, would've led you to believe that the content is just a statement of intention, but not anything really factual and therefore there's no credibility issue in the first place with the Coca Cola one. If Coca Cola was making claims that we "we reduced plastic waste by 75%", then that would be a whole other ordeal, where maybe they are hiding some info, and I would be more inclined to consider Reuters credible, if they have a title "Coca Cola claims to have reduced plastic waste by 75%, but only according to this flawed metric".