3 ms·
Yikes. Okay, it's interesting as a business model, but it's a bit scary as a view of how the media works. Talk about an echo chamber! Sounds like most of these
by ajb 18y ago
Yikes. Okay, it's interesting as a business model, but it's a bit scary as a view of how the media works. Talk about an echo chamber! Sounds like most of these journalist a practically deciding what they want to hear and then asking for people to tell it to them.
Hmm, actually it's not quite that bad. In an unscientific sample, there are a couple of blantant shill-requests:
"Reporter seeks people leaving/ready to leave NYC b/c high taxes"
"wanted to find bosses w/ employees afraid they're going to get laid off so they're sucking up"
But there are slightly more actual requests for real info:
"Needs experienced chiropractor's tips on how patients can ease pain before a visit"
" is facebook coming up more in therapy sessions with clients?"
"needs MDs to discuss physical symptoms of stress for women's mag"
" for Christian Sci. Monitor needs ppl with credit card balances to talk about how they pay it off"
Hmmm
- patio11 18y agomore actual The Facebook one is seeking a particular conclusion, too. (There is no story in reporting the wrong answer to that question.)
- marcusbooster 18y agoIt's sad but true. Stories are decided upon during a "morning meeting" by editors/news directors and then reporters are sent off in the field to confirm what has already been decided. Only if the situation has been grossly misjudged does a report deviate from what has been decided, otherwise you are just finding a few slobs to parrot some lines that support the original assertion. Ideally the reporters in the field communicate back to the producers in the newsroom and the story evolves in a more organic fashion. But realistically, with looming deadlines and many more stories to write, it's just easier to "stay the course."