Why “Jornalism” Is Dying
- Thread starter DACats86
- Start date
"Jornalism" is dying because in the digital age people can't read and write past a bumper sticker anymore.
I liked Kyle Tucker when he worked for the Louisville Cardinal Journal and I hated to see him leave. He wasn’t a UK cheerleader but he played it straight. Don’t really care for any of the sports journalists they have on staff right now. Jon Hale is ok for the BB-only crowd I guess.
Hate to see Derrick “like” such a snarky comment.
There is no journalism at all any where in any new's paper or sport's page. All of them went to the same idiot's school of thought. They have no passion or truth to anything..Most of them, not entirely all are blooming idiot's. They want to show off their knowledge of literature but never come to the real truth of the matter. There are very few who know how to write a good story any more..
GBB
GBB
Says the "UK fan" who used to actively cheer against UK football. You have zero credibility.
Last edited:
I saw Derek tweeting about how good S Carolina was yesterday and now I know why he works for 247.. Hate to be that way but people gotta quit giving them credit for winning 9 games with that horrendous schedule
They deserve credit. Beat a good NCSt team and had a good bowl victory over UM. USC played good football last year. While I am not sure that sets them up as a contender this year, they won 9 games.
We had a horrible schedule too (for SEC standards anyway) and we barely squeaked out 7 wins. And yet our fans can't understand why we get no preseason love. You have to win more than 7 regular season games once every thirty years or so before people will take you seriously. Prove it on the field and not with your mouth (I hope Jordan Jones is reading this).
I'm assuming it was more money, but it just seems like a bad move for Derek Terry to leave Rivals and go to 247.
The 247 UK site is a ghost town.
The 247 UK site is a ghost town.
Unfortunately, that's what a major part of journalism is now. Now days it's so easy to tweet or send out news as it happens. Not much incentive to sit on any information until you have enough for a fully fledged article for print.
5 points was the difference in 7 and 10 wins. I wish we could’ve played Missouri last year when they were giving up 68 points to D2 schools and scoring 13 against SC. Florida hadn’t quit last year before we played them, but we know how that goes, we should’ve won we’re just cursed. Hell we got UT’s best game too after they scored 9 against SC in a game which SC scored 15. Ole Miss I’ll blame the coaches, the 2 straight 3 andbout wildcat drives while leading comfortably was abysmal. Northwestern, Benny gets ejected. Literally 3 plays between 7-6 and 10-3
I guess if you all think that a journalist employed by the Courier Journal is in the right tweeting that about a team he is paid to cover, I’m not sure I follow your thinking.
For me if you equate journalism with tweeting then I think you have no idea what the word journalism actually is suppose to connote. Although twitter could be used by journalists it's use does not automatically make everyone a journalist nor does it make every thought of a journalist journalism.
Yes journalism is dying, no question about that. The attention span of most Americans is about as long as an average tweet.
For a writer, the temptation to tweet lots of short comments must be strong, since tweeting is very popular. I get that part. What is missing is news. Journalism used to be about news. Now it is about rumors and hits. That means writers don’t need to do any original research. They can just echo each other.
Newspapers have tried to adapt by going online. To succeed online, they need hits. Without hits, they can’t sell enough advertising. In the online market, they have to compete for hits with bloggers and agenda websites. That means news plays second fiddle to competing for hits.
Many popular rumors on the internet don’t have any basis in fact. Tweeting has spilled over into our mainstream politics. You see unfounded rumors all the time.
Very true. The thing that may be even worse is the general public has no appetite for the truth.
IDKAT. Everything I see says that the public wants more information, not less. There is a market for objective reporting, but it isn’t being met in our country at this time. Tweeting rumors is too easy.
Editorial boards and publishers no longer require multiple verifiable sourcing before posting a story. Polarization is a direct result of lack of objective journalism. In the objective information vacuum, the way in which people interpret facts and derive truth depends on their backgrounds and preconceived notions.
Or it, over time, shows certain behaviors that prove them not to be fair or open minded. Twitter has killed the credibility and even likability of many in media.
I don't think I can agree with that when the latest businesses in the field is places like Infowars, Fox News, Daily Kos, The Daily Caller, The Blaze, Breitbart, The Drudge Report, Alternet, The New York Post, The Federalist, BuzzFeed News, Daily Mail, Newsmax, Red State, The Palmer Report, The Enquirer etc etc etc. Meanwhile NBC, ABC, CBS, Bloomberg, Reuters, and NPR are attacked for their errors. I mean the term "Infotainment" really does sum up a lot of the problem, a customer base that just wants what supports their view regardless of political leaning ---right or wrong.
People can't watch tv without looking at their cell phones or computers. People wouldn't bother with Twitter if it wasn't limited characters. People have the attention span of a gnat. It's become fast food journalism.
Journalism and news is still there but that doesn't exactly fit into 140 characters. Also, everything written by someone who may be a journalist, isn't journalism. Because it doesn't fit your political or fandom POV doesn't mean that it is not journalism.
Well, not exactly the "point" of this thread but Steel ranked SC's schedule #34, UK's #57. Sagarin had SC at #53, UK at #61. SC had a very nice year and the SC game proved to be a big win for the Cats.
I agree with everyone who condemns what is currently considered "journalism".
Peace
There has always been opinion within journalism, it's impossible to leave out. As long as that opinion is based upon fact then the journalistic standard is met.
The biggest issue however is that too many people don't want journalism, they want their personal opinions confirmed. If you only seek conservative or only seek liberal sources for news and information then you're not interested in truth, you're interested in hearing only what you want to hear. It's rich and telling that people make up their minds if something is true and/or opinion simply based upon if it gores their personal ox.
The problem with television media is that many news stories aren't easily relayed in a few sentences and that's all the time a news show is going to give it. If you want to actually know what happened it may require the reading of paragraphs. We see it all the time on this message board. Someone types 2,3,4 paragraphs about something and the response is..."I'm not reading all of that!"
The print media or a documentary are the only places you're going to get the full picture.
In Fletcher Page's Twitter bio, he holds himself out as an employee of the Courier-Journal; therefore, his tweets are an extension of his journalistic "efforts." That aside, my comments weren't about the journalistic integrity of his tweets (and I think most people on here realized that), but about a person that is paid to cover a sports team expressing a biased (negative) opinion about that same sports team in a very public forum (i.e., Twitter). If he feels that way, so strongly that he is willing to put such a statement on a public forum, he should not be covering that team. At a minimum, he lacks professionalism and as such, he is not what he holds himself out to be - a journalist.
The fact that you need to seek both liberal and conservative sources proves my point, in both print and television. The attempt to be objective in reporting is a lost ethic. Rather, what is characterized as news is often opinion biased. Its fine to report on others’ opinions and to add third party opinions to news, but today we see the source influence the story.
I would say that your opinion on the news and news sources being either liberal and/or conservative has been formed from politically motivated sources, not from any objectively measured basis. It is also rich that it has been sources that make no attempt to be objective that have attached and labeled the MSM as being liberal and bias. Thus is the world in which we live.
Objectivity is in the eye of the beholder. Two people can witness the same event and being totally objective, give differing accounts of what happened. That has been and forever will be the case. What people today have a problem separating is that which IS news and that which IS opinion/entertainment. We have both streamed at us 24/7/365. In 1970 you most likely received a daily newspaper, 30 minutes of local news, weather and sports and 30 minutes of national news a day. If you wanted the conservative slant on events you grabbed a copy of The National Review, if you wanted the liberal slant you picked up Harper's. Today if you turn on any "news channel" you will get perhaps 5 minutes of news, 40 minutes of opinion and 15 minutes of commercials every hour.
Conservatives have labeled the MSM as "liberal" but objective reviews finds those sources to have minimal bias.
Here is an opinion that is pertinent to this discussion of journalism's demise:
"Tronc, of course, is the successor to the old Tribune company. That was the company that when I first got to the Daily News in 1987 was running the Daily News and provoked a strike of the 2,500 employees of the newspaper back then. And back then, I would say in the late 80s, early 1990s, there were about 450 people in the newsroom. I think there were more in the 50s, but by the late 80s and beginning of the 90s, we had about 450. So to go now to 45 — one tenth of the staff — you’ve got to think that New York City back then had maybe seven, seven and a half million people. Today, New York City has eight and a half million people. So you’re talking about a much bigger city, many fewer reporters. It’s just a tragedy, what’s happening to the newspaper business. Not the fact that papers are not publishing as many papers, because obviously they have websites, but that the staffs continue to shrink of the people who are actually producing original news. It’s ludicrous to think that you can put out a major news site covering New York City with just 45 people."
Juan Gonzales
Obviously this corporation doesn't really take journalism seriously.
"Tronc, of course, is the successor to the old Tribune company. That was the company that when I first got to the Daily News in 1987 was running the Daily News and provoked a strike of the 2,500 employees of the newspaper back then. And back then, I would say in the late 80s, early 1990s, there were about 450 people in the newsroom. I think there were more in the 50s, but by the late 80s and beginning of the 90s, we had about 450. So to go now to 45 — one tenth of the staff — you’ve got to think that New York City back then had maybe seven, seven and a half million people. Today, New York City has eight and a half million people. So you’re talking about a much bigger city, many fewer reporters. It’s just a tragedy, what’s happening to the newspaper business. Not the fact that papers are not publishing as many papers, because obviously they have websites, but that the staffs continue to shrink of the people who are actually producing original news. It’s ludicrous to think that you can put out a major news site covering New York City with just 45 people."
Juan Gonzales
Obviously this corporation doesn't really take journalism seriously.
