Gothic.net News Horror Gothic Lifestyle Fiction Movies Books and Literature Dark TV VIP Horror Professionals Professional Writing Tips Links Gothic Forum




Go Back   Gothic.net Community > Boards > Spooky News
Register Blogs FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Spooky News Spooky news from around the web goes in this forum. Please always credit and link your source and only use sources which are okay with being posted. No profanity in subject headings please.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 08-07-2010, 09:05 AM   #1
Ben Lahnger
 
Ben Lahnger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Um, lower, oh yeah, uh, uh ... YES THERE!
Posts: 6,738
Professional journalism and the art of shark hunting

Professional journalism and the art of shark hunting

April 30, 2010 4:51 AM

By Andrew McGill

SOURCE


Ever hunt a shark? I haven't either. But I've seen movies.

Sharks aren't just the deadliest hunters in the sea -- they're also stealthy, voraciously hungry and relentless in their pursuit of prey.

Indeed, a single shark can shut down a sleepy seaside community for an entire summer, leaving devastation and mangled bodies in its wake.

OK, maybe that's just "Jaws." But you get the point.

Journalism is changing. More accurately, journalism is declining.

The money isn't the same. Newspaper staffs nationwide have fallen to what they were in the 1970s, when people thought it was a good idea to write headlines in Helvetica.

Circulation has dipped too, as has overall profitability.

By the time you read this, my bankrupt hometown newspaper, The Philadelphia Inquirer, might have a new owner.

It's a tough time to be optimistic about the traditional model.

That's why people are talking about "social media," one of those harmless phrases spin-tested to appear innocuous, like "climate change" or "collateral damage." It's raised a number of children-- "crowdsourcing," "community engagement," "citizen reporting."

Proponents say the decline of traditional media is long overdue. Journalists held themselves above their audience, they say, making themselves out to be experts in fields they knew nothing about.

Editors were jealous gatekeepers, selecting the news that was to be published on their own whims.

The Internet has leveled the playing field, rightfully raising ordinary people to the level of professional reporters, giving them the tools to force their voices above that of the staid mainstream media.

That philosophy has given birth to plenty of news sites based on social reporting, hosting limited staffs that rely on social networking technology to curate a report from what people are talking about online. The Drudge Report -- wait, THE DRUDGE REPORT -- was one of the first, but it's been joined by The Huffington Post, The Daily Kos, PerezHilton.com, and so on. The latest is the recently named TBD.com, a Washington, D.C.-based local website that is hiring "community hosts" to work with readers and bloggers to get the news out.

Let's jump back to the ocean for a minute. These operations are small, but they cast huge, huge nets. Something goes up on Twitter? Boom -- posted. Someone records a presidential candidate making a gaffe? They've got their Google alerts primed and ready. I imagine them as tuna trawlers, a dot on the ocean, throwing their nets wide to catch whatever passes through. And believe me, they catch plenty.

But they'll never catch a shark.

Walter Reed Army Medical Center was a shark. For years, the overworked facility provided shoddy care to returning veterans, housing them in quarters plagued with rats and cockroaches, forcing some to pull "guard duty" to clear out the drug dealers hanging around outside.

Pedophile priests and the church administrators who hid them are sharks. The story broke in Boston, but it quickly spread throughout the world, uprooting our ideas of the sanctity of the church.

To this day, more and more is still being discovered about exactly how much the Catholic Church knew.

There are more sharks than you can count.

Dirty politicians. Pirates in the boardroom. Corrupt cops. Crooked judges. Even tax assessors. Sharks are dangerous, fast -- and nearly impossible to kill with a net.

To catch a shark, you need a shark hunter. You need a bigger boat. You need a guy who spent his or her whole life pursuing sharks, dogging them, wearing them out and moving in for the kill.

In short, you need a reporter.

You'll never catch a shark by following them on Twitter.

Your part-time community blogger doesn't have the time to sniff out their blood trail.

Crowdsourcing? The crowd doesn't even know what these things look like.

I'll never believe journalism should become an amateur sport. There's value in having a person whose full-time job is to make his or her own phone calls, to follow leads, to run down the story. Some news won't come to you. Sometimes, you have to hunt it.

I'm not willing to trust the tuna trawlers to keep Amity Island safe.

And new media -- well, let's just say I'm steering clear of the beaches.

Ben - I've been sadly pondering the ragged deterioration of Journalism as a profession and the resultant effect on society. I saw this column and felt it examined the problem succinctly. I mourn the slow passing of traditional reporting.
__________________
Lead me not into temptation ... follow me, I know a shortcut!

As the poets have mournfully sung,
death takes the innocent young,
the rolling in money,
the screamingly funny,
and those who are very well hung.


Your days are numbered - 26,280 per person on average - 2,000,000,000 heartbeats ... tick, tick, tick
Ben Lahnger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2010, 09:15 AM   #2
HumanePain
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: the concrete and steel beehive of Southern California
Posts: 7,449
Blog Entries: 4
I agree. Take Daljit Dhaliwal for example: She did outstanding work for ITN and BBC World News running down international events driving the world to war, candidates with skeletons in the closet, environmental disasters...then she was picked up by CNN and disappeared.

Although I believe the reason was that the competition bought her out to protect their ratings (CNN was losing cable viewers to ITN), the net effect is the same as the article you posted: one less real reporter who drills down into the issues that matter.

Besides, she was such a babe. BRING Daljit Dhaliwal BACK!
http://zapatopi.net/daljit/gallery.misc.html
__________________
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKm_wA-WdI4
Charlie Chaplin The Greatest Speech in History


HumanePain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2010, 09:36 AM   #3
Sinjob
 
Sinjob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Fiddler's Green
Posts: 1,406
Times are a-changin'. And the fact is that the important areas of journalism have been over emphasized and over expanded with the preference of gossip and other things that appeal. Fools like celebs become icons for no solid reason other than their lives are interesting. It's taken a new form: a distraction from what may actually affect us. That's not journalism. Because a reporter should be one who ultimately achieves the truth and displays it in any way s/he pleases.

As long as it's legit.

There is no quest for truth in this bullshit you turn on E! News, most of that we already know. But, like soap operas, what happens next is whats on everyone's mind. I blame this on the rise of stupid people but applaud the tabloids for their money-making formula. I think the people that don't realize that kind of media is a distraction as they feed into it are the people who keep this media alive with their consistent purchase and attention. Like I said, rise of the idiots.
Sinjob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2010, 02:44 PM   #4
Fruitbat
 
Fruitbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: In your trash can
Posts: 2,594
Blog Entries: 12
^ - except I don't think Celebs lead interesting lives - they are just there to 'market' products - films, designer clothes etc.

I hate those 'investigative' television shows - we have them here Today tonight is one - which are 95% 'telemarketing' for great new products to loose fat or build wealth and the other 5% are sticking their cameras into peoples faces and being aggressive towards the person being interviewed.
__________________

"Always be kind, for everyone is fighting a hard battle." - Plato


Help me, I'm holding on for dear life

Fruitbat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2010, 03:19 PM   #5
Heretic
 
Heretic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Minnesota, USA
Posts: 130
I think the writer of that article, as well as a few of you, have confused "media" with "journalism". The "media" in question is the modern media conglomerate as it stood at the end of the 20th century. Like any other corporation, it was a business designed to sell a product with the express purpose of making a profit.

The profession known as journalism, while tied closely with mass media, is something else entirely. The reporting of news and events using any and all available media predated the rise of mass media; hell, it predates media. 1000 years ago, traveling minstrels were the journalists of their day, providing news and gossip, even creating stories in which to relate major events affecting their audience.

I am not supprised to see what we know as the mass media undergoing yet another change; this is the way of technology. This change is not the "decline of journalism"; far from it. I see the current paradigm shift brought on by new forms of communications simply as a continuation of the evolution in how the profession of journalism relates news and events to whoever their audience happens to be.

The shock many people are experiencing as a result of these changes is down to having little to no understanding of history. A casual glance at the impact the printing press, movable type, radio, or television had in their respective times will show you the same pulling out of hair, gnashing of teeth, and proclamations of the impending doom of society and civilization.

People never seem to learn that with each new method of communication, the way information is disseminated changes. In the case of the internet, the fall of media conglomerates put quite a few journalists (myself among them) out of work. This did not suddenly kill journalism, stripping us of our desire to report or write about the world. The only thing that changed was the control over what was said; the conglomerates lost their power to censor what journalists had to say.

I feel bad for the college student who wrote that article. He's too young to remember media for what it really was: a business. All he has left is the legend of the intrepid reporter fighting for what was right, with the support of a tough and scruffy editor-in-chief.

I was there, working for a major newspaper when the internet was introduced to news reporting. The myths he in working under in writing his nostalgia-tinged peon to the halcyon days of reporting is a false, Hollywood-ized version of how things were done. And he uses this to dismiss the work being done on the internet, much of it by those same reporters he holds in such high esteem?

I think the kid needs to read a bit more and hallucinate a bit less.


- Heretic
Heretic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-2010, 04:48 AM   #6
CptSternn
 
CptSternn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,587
He is right on one level, but is neglecting to highlight the fact that local papers, like his in Philly, are comprised mostly of what he himself calls tuna trawlers.

The 'shark hunters' exist only at large, multinational new organisations and always have.

If anything he is pointing out that he, himself is a relic no longer needed and that the average Joe Soap can do his job and IS doing his job via blogs on the web.
CptSternn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-2010, 07:14 AM   #7
Ben Lahnger
 
Ben Lahnger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Um, lower, oh yeah, uh, uh ... YES THERE!
Posts: 6,738
Heretic, could a Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein afford to pursue an investigation into the connection between the Watergate break-in and the Nixon re-election campaign committee under the circumstances of current day newspaper management? Could they do it if they weren't working for a newspaper?

It's not fair to say that the same people can accomplish the same type of reporting if they are working as independent internet bloggers. There's no evidence of that being true.
__________________
Lead me not into temptation ... follow me, I know a shortcut!

As the poets have mournfully sung,
death takes the innocent young,
the rolling in money,
the screamingly funny,
and those who are very well hung.


Your days are numbered - 26,280 per person on average - 2,000,000,000 heartbeats ... tick, tick, tick
Ben Lahnger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-2010, 05:53 PM   #8
Heretic
 
Heretic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Minnesota, USA
Posts: 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Lahnger View Post
Heretic, could a Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein afford to pursue an investigation into the connection between the Watergate break-in and the Nixon re-election campaign committee under the circumstances of current day newspaper management? Could they do it if they weren't working for a newspaper?
Of course they could; and they could do it much more quickly and without the risks associated with arranging face-to-face meetings with their source. In this day and age, the ability to anonymously transfer large mounts of damaging or embarrassing images, video, and audio (in addition to emails and other documentation) would have eliminated most of the cloak and dagger legwork those reporters were forced to do.

Quote:
It's not fair to say that the same people can accomplish the same type of reporting if they are working as independent internet bloggers. There's no evidence of that being true.
By "the same type of reporting", I take it you are referring to having the ability to break large-scale, politically damaging stories of cover-ups and dirty dealings within our very own government, correct? Well, for a recent example of this very thing being true, I believe the Wikileaks people and their exposure of internal US military documents (the so-called "Afghan War Diary"), fit the bill quite nicely.

You can go all the way back to the Monica Lewenski scandal (brought to you first by The Drudge Report); net-based journalism that can have the impact of a Woodward and Bernstein-level story has always been a part of the internet for as long as there have been internet browsers that could bring the information to a mass audience. As I said, the medium does not dictate whether or not something qualifies as journalism; "journalism" is a profession independent of the medium used to convey information.

The times, and the media, have changed. The need to know, and the drive to report, have not. It is unfair to dismiss internet-based reporting based on a standard developed for another media.


- Heretic
Heretic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2010, 05:01 AM   #9
CptSternn
 
CptSternn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,587
Actually Lewinsky and that congressman who was dating his intern who was found dead in his office, forget his name, were both originally outed by freelance reporters for the Inquirer months before anyone took the stories seriously.
CptSternn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2010, 09:21 AM   #10
Heretic
 
Heretic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Minnesota, USA
Posts: 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by CptSternn View Post
Actually Lewinsky and that congressman who was dating his intern who was found dead in his office, forget his name, were both originally outed by freelance reporters for the Inquirer months before anyone took the stories seriously.
I've never seen or heard anything to indicate that anyone managed to publish so much as idle speculation about Lewinski and Clinton before the Drudge Report posted their information on the affair in January of 1998. If what you say is true, this would be a serious shock to me, considering my contacts in the media, public relations, and advertising industries.

After some research and a few phone calls, I was unable to verify your claim that the National Inquirer printed anything about the Monica Lewinski scandal before that date. Do you happen to have a source for this claim, something you can point me to? I'd be very interested in reading what the Inquirer had to say.


- Heretic
Heretic is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:04 PM.