So trivial, yet it really ticks you off.

[LizzieMaine]

There is very little journalism being practiced today. There's mostly just marketing. Selling clicks, selling impressions, selling "stickiness." Or, in the case of basic cable, selling advertising vehicles to peddle Medicare Part C plans to the credulous and the stupid.

American journalism since the era of Hearst and Pulitzer has overwhelmingly been dominated and driven by the most basest sort of marketing. George Seldes documented the abuses of his day eighty years ago, and he lived long enough to see the dawn of the internet. It's a good thing he didn't make it into the 21st Century.

I can't speak for British journalism, but if what I see coming out of the sphincter of the Daily Mail and the Murdoch-dominated Times is any indication, it's even worse than what we have here.

 

[tonyb]

There are many “good” journalists working today — honest, hardworking people who attempt, to varying degrees of success, to put aside their own biases and deliver the straight dope.

In my considerable experience, the most difficult part of writing a news story isn’t the writing itself but the figuring out what the story actually is. There are, alas, too many credulous souls who blindly accept what they’re told by their sources. Even worse, there are too many who, in the interest of maintaining “access,” let their sources‘ positions and statements go unchallenged to any significant degree.

What I absolutely distrust are those news outlets who trumpet their own neutrality. You know, the “we report, you decide” types. A few such outlets are doing business here locally (the internet makes for a very low barrier to entry). Every one of them rarely gets out of the slow lane. Protest too much indeed.

 

[ChiTownScion]

I can't speak for British journalism, but if what I see coming out of the sphincter of the Daily Mail and the Murdoch-dominated Times is any indication, it's even worse than what we have here.

Andy Rooney made that same observation about the British press of 80 years ago in his World War II autobio, My War.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Too many people today judge journalism on the basis of "Agree with my point of view = Serious honest journalist"/"Oppose my point of view -- Corrupt greasy hack." But rarely do they question the basic model under which said journalism is provided: can honest journalism survive at all under a large-scale for-profit model? Has it in the past? The more actual media from the 20th Century you examine, the harder it's going to be for you to argue that it has.

 

[FOXTROT LAMONT]

But rarely do they question the basic model under which said journalism is provided: can honest journalism survive at all under a large-scale for-profit model? Has it in the past? The more actual media from the 20th Century you examine, the harder it's going to be for you to argue that it has.

I will differ in that this subject can be cleaved further ad infinitum unless profit is agreed as objective good
and quite aligned with journalism integrity. These are not incompatible qualities, nor so elusive. Hard fact driven reporting has its place and today's dearth of real journalism amidst all going on keens point.

 

[LizzieMaine]

There are many “good” journalists working today — honest, hardworking people who attempt, to varying degrees of success, to put aside their own biases and deliver the straight dope.

In my considerable experience, the most difficult part of writing a news story isn’t the writing itself but the figuring out what the story actually is. There are, alas, too many credulous souls who blindly accept what they’re told by their sources. Even worse, there are too many who, in the interest of maintaining “access,” let their sources‘ positions and statements go unchallenged to any significant degree.

What I absolutely distrust are those news outlets who trumpet their own neutrality. You know, the “we report, you decide” types. A few such outlets are doing business here locally (the internet makes for a very low barrier to entry). Every one of them rarely gets out of the slow lane. Protest too much indeed.

There has never been and there can never be a "neutral" news outlet. All journalism is perspective-based. What separates good journalism from bad is how thoroughly vetted it is -- Westbrook Pegler, perhaps the most biased journalist that ever lived, won a Pulitzer Prize, not because of his opinions but because he thoroughly vetted and documented the statements he presented in the work that was so cited. And no one who considers the actual work done by Edward R. Murrow could ever possibly consider him in any way "unbiased." He operated from a very clear point of view, but he presented facts that he could document as facts.

Contrast these examples with the likes of Fulton Lewis Jr., who presented himself as an "unbiased commentator" when he was in fact actually on the payroll of the National Association of Manufacturers when he was supposedly presenting only "neutral facts." He didn't just give his opinion on the air, he gave opinions that he was specifically paid to give. The amount of this sort of thing that goes on today beggars belief -- scratch the typical Yoo Toob "citizen journalist" influencer/blogger/podcaster and you'll find what Upton Sinclair so vividly denounced as "a brasscheck reporter," perfectly willing to bend, distort or wholesale manufacture any and all facts in exchange for consideration paid. And it's only going to get worse as a generation rises up taking for granted that this is the way things are done.

(A "brasscheck", incidentally, was a token used by a patron of a whorehouse to pay the prostitute of their choice for services rendered. Mr. Sinclair was not mincing words in his choice of that term.)

 

[tonyb]

I’ve personally experienced the backlash when advertisers perceive news coverage as running contrary to their commercial interests.

It isn’t that the publishers and the ad side say “Don’t report on this“ (although I have seen it suggested by the money side that a certain new business in the district, say, might be worthy of a story). But there are “guard rails” of sorts, a tacit understanding that this publication or broadcast outlet or whatever traffics only in a certain type of story.

“Don’t risk offending,” I was once told, by a person who purported to be quoting Joseph Pulitzer, although I have yet to find verification of that, which leaves me suspecting that person of making some appeal to authority, imagined or otherwise. I counter with an Orwell observation: “Journalism is printing something that someone does not want printed. Everything else is public relations.”

 

[tonyb]

.,,

(A "brasscheck", incidentally, was a token used by a patron of a whorehouse to pay the prostitute of their choice for services rendered. Mr. Sinclair was not mincing words in his choice of that term.)

A self-respecting sex worker (there are such people, contrary to popular perception) might take offense at being so likened.

 

[FOXTROT LAMONT]

Andy Rooney made that same observation about the British press of 80 years ago in his World War II autobio, My War.

Rooney might well hold his tongue over Fleet Street today considered against Black Rock rubble pittance.

 

[Trenchfriend]

Is this WW II era cheese pudding still a thing? Sounds good to me!

 

[Edward]

"Figures don't lie, but liars figure."

In a world where what purports to be public opinion is so freely and easily manipulated according to the agenda of whoever is paying for the data, I've long since stopped reading, believing, or caring about polls. There has always been a streak of boys-from-marketing nonsense about the process of "determining public opinion" -- see the 1936 Literary Digest presidential poll for one egregious example -- but since the Internet, it's gotten epically worse, especially with the proliferation of polling templates that make it possible for every fuming neckbeard on Reddit to come up with "statistics" to support their arguments. Statistics that are bought and paid for are not statistics at all.

When Twitter/ X finally shutters its doors, that will at least force journalists to do real voxpops rather than search a hashtag and cut and paste the best comments as the core of a story. Of course much of the malaise in print journalism in the UK is to do with print sales falling off a cliff, and the ongoing difficulties of monetising online news. Much of the better journalism here now goes out via broadcast, though there is *some* good print journalism left, most of it in Private Eye.

 

[GHT]

When Twitter/ X finally shutters its doors, that will at least force journalists to do real voxpops rather than search a hashtag and cut and paste the best comments as the core of a story. Of course much of the malaise in print journalism in the UK is to do with print sales falling off a cliff, and the ongoing difficulties of monetising online news. Much of the better journalism here now goes out via broadcast, though there is *some* good print journalism left, most of it in Private Eye.

Private Eye, it's such an addictive read: As well as covering a wide range of current affairs, Private Eye is also known for highlighting the errors and hypocritical behaviour of newspapers in the "Street of Shame" column, named after Fleet Street, the former home of many papers.

It reports on parliamentary and national political issues, with regional and local politics covered in equal depth under the "Rotten Boroughs" column. Extensive investigative journalism is published under the "In the Back" section, often tackling cover-ups and unreported scandals.

A financial column called "In the City", written by Michael Gillard under the pseudonym "Slicker", has exposed several significant financial scandals and described unethical business practices.

 

[Trenchfriend]

This reminds me of a story a French teacher (that is, a teacher of the French language, not a teacher from France) from my high school told 50+ years ago. It seems there was a French man who had a servant of North African origin. This servant had limited French language skills and never learned "vous", only "tu". The employer was put out by the informality of address so he insisted on addressing the servant as "vous" in order to maintain a distinction.

I don't know if English ever had such a class distinction in pronouns, but if it did, it disappeared long before the King James Bible.

My German extends to the difference between "sie" and "du", but not much further.

Imagine, service personal would have to "drop a courtsey", today as back in 1900. The novel, I'm actually reading brought this back to my mind.

 

[Turnip]

The increasing impoliteness of many customers at any age in shops, offices, at counters, getting served…
No daytime, neither a please nor a thank you, no word of farewell…

 

[KILO NOVEMBER]

The increasing impoliteness of many customers at any age in shops, offices, at counters, getting served…
No daytime, neither a please nor a thank you, no word of farewell…

Please excuse if I have already posted this, but I found it on a Facebook page by a fellow I used to work with:

I had the rudest, slowest, and nastiest cashier today.
That does it! I'm DONE using the self-checkout lane.

 

[FOXTROT LAMONT]

Interesting San Francisco Safeway store close from self checkout failure / theft etc and ruin.

 

[Turnip]

Self checkouts are tried at some larger supermarkets or stores like IKEA at this end.
Couldn’t imagine that this might save any money (staff) or time.
It always takes some guys to herd the shopping livestock through the picket gates and to help those many lost souls blocking the line with incompetence.

 

[Trenchfriend]

In Germany as an overaging area, where the majority of people hasn't any business with tech, self-checkouts get dusted and removed sooner or later. We keep on enjoying our reliable 90s. And we loose 250 of our smalltown's population every ten years.

 

[Turnip]

The mid sized community I live and will spend my remaining 20 or so years in has a population of about 40.000 (German notation) and the only way I’ll leave this town will be feet forwards…

 

[Zombie_61]

Self-checkout. In this part of the U.S. they've offered this for several years now, but the set-up is minimal; self-checkout is still designed for that shopper who literally needs only one or two smallish items, can scan them, pay, put 'em in a bag, and leave with receipt in-hand. Trouble is, local shoppers roll a full cart or two up to the self-checkout kiosks, then spend an hour or more scanning and bagging their goods, all the while blocking the surrounding kiosks so those people who only have two or three items can't get to the equipment. Selfish? You bet, and it's only gotten worse since the pandemic started.