I also see it in major newspapers like The Guardian. Particularly around political stories, like Jeremy Corbyn and his new shadow cabinet, they seem predisposed to describe every comment made about them as putting the politicians "under fire" or some other such melodramatic term. And then when you read the actual quotes in the article, they are fairly tame, gentle criticisms.
This happened twice just this week, once with the (constructive, rather softball) comments made by a union leader about Corbyn himself (to which the reaction was something along the lines of "oh no, he's losing the support of his base!"), to the rather mild back-and-forth about John McDonnell's sarcastic crack about Mao in Parliament (which the media basically manufactured into a fake story, all the while implying that McDonnell is a crypto-communist, while he is nothing of the sort).
Anyway, rather than it being about a specific subject, I guess my point is that I am pretty down on journalists in general these days, because chasing the story and filling the news cycle (in any medium) seems to have taken priority over actually substantive reporting of things that matter.
John McDonnell's sarcastic crack about Mao in Parliament (which the media basically manufactured into a fake story, all the while implying that McDonnell is a crypto-communist, while he is nothing of the sort).
Is anyone saying he's a crypto-communist? All I've seen is that it's yet another example of Corbyn's shadow cabinet being fantastically terrible at politics. It's not feeding the "Labour are outright marxists" narrative, it's feeding the "Corbyn is incompetent and sooner or later the house of cards will fall" narrative.
I guess I was being a bit hyperbolic. But Chuka Umunna's comment about how "I would never quote a communist" and the GHCQ noting the figures about deaths during the Great Leap Forward seemed to be a tacit implication that McDonnell was somehow endorsing Mao, rather than taking a swipe at Osborne.
This sort of thing is why I think Corbyn's strategy of opening distaining the media may ultimately pay off. I'm hoping that people will tune more and more of this noise out and then start going directly to source when they want to hear what someone has to say.
Do you feel the same way about software devs who work for food delivery/laundry service startups and the like? Writing clickbait is no better or worse than "changing the world" one delivery at a time. Everyone's just chasing easy money.
Yeah, to be honest, I do. Although I think the reasons there are different.
There is an infection of using superlative language at every turn, and it is especially bad (but not limited to) how conversation happens in the US, and countries like Britain that increasingly model their politics and culture on the US[0].
The current culture makes nuance and explanation hard, because those don't fit into sound bytes. When we live in a world where Jeff Bezos can declare, with a straight face, that 3000 words is a "long read", we're kinda screwed when it comes to politicians being able to make any point that isn't a slogan painted on the backdrop they are speaking in front of, or a startup to declare "we are just building a service that is one iteration better than the existing ones on the market, and people will pay us good money to use it".
I mean you can do that, and you can probably even make good money at it, but you won't get the fawning press or the billion-dollar hyperinflated valuations.
[0]: A strong statement, especially to make in passing, I know. But happy to lay out my reasoning on that point for anyone who wants it, and I promise it's not just the usual bellyaching about "creeping Americanisation" that gets thrown around a lot.
How is a "sharing" economy, or the vast majority of startups, helping anyone but stakeholders? Without citing a particular piece of content it's hard to say anyone's lying, just being way too dramatic for more clicks. Because that is the current incentive structure for web publishing. Bullshit outrage pieces make way more money than long form investigative peices that are significantly harder to make, and exponentially less people read. Just like working on big hard problems takes more time/talent/research. Easy money and complaining for everyone!
Does secret deliberately provoke negative behavior? How about yik yak? Until the incentive structure changes for writers, they'll keep writing that stuff. Just the way it is.
That's why I label them "dishonest" in my head, and blacklist the worst offenders. Yes, I won't use your service if you bullshit too much in your copy.
Comments
I also see it in major newspapers like The Guardian. Particularly around political stories, like Jeremy Corbyn and his new shadow cabinet, they seem predisposed to describe every comment made about them as putting the politicians "under fire" or some other such melodramatic term. And then when you read the actual quotes in the article, they are fairly tame, gentle criticisms.
This happened twice just this week, once with the (constructive, rather softball) comments made by a union leader about Corbyn himself (to which the reaction was something along the lines of "oh no, he's losing the support of his base!"), to the rather mild back-and-forth about John McDonnell's sarcastic crack about Mao in Parliament (which the media basically manufactured into a fake story, all the while implying that McDonnell is a crypto-communist, while he is nothing of the sort).
Anyway, rather than it being about a specific subject, I guess my point is that I am pretty down on journalists in general these days, because chasing the story and filling the news cycle (in any medium) seems to have taken priority over actually substantive reporting of things that matter.
Is anyone saying he's a crypto-communist? All I've seen is that it's yet another example of Corbyn's shadow cabinet being fantastically terrible at politics. It's not feeding the "Labour are outright marxists" narrative, it's feeding the "Corbyn is incompetent and sooner or later the house of cards will fall" narrative.
I guess I was being a bit hyperbolic. But Chuka Umunna's comment about how "I would never quote a communist" and the GHCQ noting the figures about deaths during the Great Leap Forward seemed to be a tacit implication that McDonnell was somehow endorsing Mao, rather than taking a swipe at Osborne.
This sort of thing is why I think Corbyn's strategy of opening distaining the media may ultimately pay off. I'm hoping that people will tune more and more of this noise out and then start going directly to source when they want to hear what someone has to say.
The Internet certainly is making it a lot easier to go directly to the source, and skip the old-fashioned media.
Do you feel the same way about software devs who work for food delivery/laundry service startups and the like? Writing clickbait is no better or worse than "changing the world" one delivery at a time. Everyone's just chasing easy money.
Yeah, to be honest, I do. Although I think the reasons there are different.
There is an infection of using superlative language at every turn, and it is especially bad (but not limited to) how conversation happens in the US, and countries like Britain that increasingly model their politics and culture on the US[0].
The current culture makes nuance and explanation hard, because those don't fit into sound bytes. When we live in a world where Jeff Bezos can declare, with a straight face, that 3000 words is a "long read", we're kinda screwed when it comes to politicians being able to make any point that isn't a slogan painted on the backdrop they are speaking in front of, or a startup to declare "we are just building a service that is one iteration better than the existing ones on the market, and people will pay us good money to use it".
I mean you can do that, and you can probably even make good money at it, but you won't get the fawning press or the billion-dollar hyperinflated valuations.
[0]: A strong statement, especially to make in passing, I know. But happy to lay out my reasoning on that point for anyone who wants it, and I promise it's not just the usual bellyaching about "creeping Americanisation" that gets thrown around a lot.
How is helping people for money equivalent to lying to people?
How is a "sharing" economy, or the vast majority of startups, helping anyone but stakeholders? Without citing a particular piece of content it's hard to say anyone's lying, just being way too dramatic for more clicks. Because that is the current incentive structure for web publishing. Bullshit outrage pieces make way more money than long form investigative peices that are significantly harder to make, and exponentially less people read. Just like working on big hard problems takes more time/talent/research. Easy money and complaining for everyone!
There's a clear ethical difference between a frothy startup and deliberately provoking negative public behavior.
Does secret deliberately provoke negative behavior? How about yik yak? Until the incentive structure changes for writers, they'll keep writing that stuff. Just the way it is.
That's why I label them "dishonest" in my head, and blacklist the worst offenders. Yes, I won't use your service if you bullshit too much in your copy.
Craig Murray has been watching the McDonnell "Mao" thing, seems it's really just the Grauniard that's doing its dinger about this:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2015/11/the-guardian...