Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts


Go Back   Vanguard News Network Forum > Loxist Culture > Media Criticism
Donate Register Multimedia Blogs Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Login

 
Thread Display Modes Share
Old December 2nd, 2013 #41
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,342
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

New York magazine cutting back on print

http://gawker.com/new-york-magazine-...int-1474820408
 
Old December 5th, 2013 #42
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,342
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Gawker discovers that syndicated columnists are OLD (no mention of their being unnaturally jewy)
http://gawker.com/whats-wrong-with-a...ist-1468179772
 
Old December 24th, 2013 #43
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,342
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

 
Old January 14th, 2014 #44
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,342
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Sporting News goes online only

http://deadspin.com/5967474/the-spor...ng-online+only
 
Old January 15th, 2014 #45
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,342
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

How Netflix Reverse Engineered Hollywood

http://www.theatlantic.com/technolog...lywood/282679/
 
Old January 15th, 2014 #46
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,342
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

2014 Banned Super Bowl Ads
http://deadspin.com/bring-on-this-ye...ads-1486203370
 
Old January 15th, 2014 #47
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,342
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

chick makes up to 30k/month writing Bigfoot porn
http://jezebel.com/forget-dinosaur-e...ica-1501243455
 
Old March 26th, 2014 #48
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,342
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

vice.com is worth a bunch, whodathunkit? but they do write good articles, altho the usual leftist shitspective
http://gawker.com/vice-is-the-tech-bubble-1551112113
 
Old April 10th, 2014 #49
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,342
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

 
Old May 8th, 2014 #50
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,342
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

SURVEY SAYS: JOURNALISTS ARE OLD WHITE COWARDS
By Charles Davis May 8 2014

Today's typical journalist is an unhappily middle-aged white male who complains he's losing his freedom while declining to use that freedom to threaten those taking it away. That, at least, is the takeaway from a survey of reporters that found they are older, whiter, and better-educated than they were a decade ago—and more timid than ever before.

The survey, “The American Journalist in the Digital Age,” was carried out by researchers at Indiana University and is based on interviews with over 1,000 US journalists working for radio and TV stations, newspapers, magazines, wire services, and websites. According to the survey, fewer reporters than ever say they have “almost complete freedom” in selecting stories—a third said that in 2013, compared with 60 percent in 1982—and fewer members of the fourth estate are willing to get their hands dirty in the service of speaking truth to power.



All graphs courtesy of Indiana University

Two decades ago, more than 81 percent of journalists said it “may be justified” to report on “confidential business or government documents without authorization”; in 2013, that number had fallen to below 60 percent, meaning that more than four out of ten respondents believe that their stories should be approved by the government or corporation they’re reporting on. In every way, journalists are more docile than before, with the survey finding that three quarters of journalists think it is wrong to obtain a job “to gain inside information,” while just 4.5 percent said it's sometimes OK to pay “for confidential information”—bizarrely, more journalists think “badgering unwilling informants” is justified (37.7 percent), though even that number is down.



The media’s meekness is evident in how it treats those who provide it with vital information—actual news, as opposed to never-ending electoral speculation and op-ed outrage. Chelsea Manning, the US soldier who leaked thousands of classified documents to WikiLeaks—thereby helping reporters file thousands upon thousands of stories about government and corporate malfeasance, from US complicity in torture in Iraq to the widespread slaughter of civilians in Afghanistan—was largely condemned for doing so. As a staff writer for the Christian Science Monitor put it, “In the case of Manning, it's not clear that anything was revealed in [her] leaks beyond the horrors of war and reams of fairly routine diplomatic collection and reporting.”

Apparently, nothing bores the US press corps more than a routine diplomatic cable proving US cluster bombs killed 41 innocent men, women, and children in Yemen. But as the survey suggests, journalists weren’t always so willing to shrug at crimes committed by those in power. Now, though, they are remarkably incurious creatures, with more reporters saying they would like to increase their knowledge of “podcast production” rather than their “knowledge of world affairs.”



“I think a lot of the change has to do with social class and expectations,” said Jim Lobe, the Washington bureau chief for Inter Press Service, an international news agency. Lobe—who is sometimes my editor, through no fault of his own—has been covering politics out of the National Press Club for more than three decades. And while he's seen a lot of bad reporting, he said there is no doubt things have shifted for the worse.

“Journalists are now indisputably part of the Washington elite compared with 30 years ago,” Lobe told me. “They now mix very comfortably with the people they cover, not just on the job but socially as well.”

Instead of having an adversarial stance toward those with power, journalists are friends (sometimes with benefits) of those who wield it. That's always been the case to some extent, but now there isn't even the pretense of trying to be an outsider. “Objectivity” has come to mean uncritically regurgitating quotes from a couple of “sources” or “unnamed officials” the reporter has relationships with and leaving it to the reader to figure out who’s up to no good.



Lars Willnat, a journalism professor at Indiana University who coauthored the survey, told me he’s “not really sure why journalists are more timid today,” but he suspects “that it has something to do with the tighter job market.” Journalists might fear losing their jobs if they are too aggressive in their reporting, and there are fewer and fewer opportunities for a fired journalist to get hired elsewhere. “Looking at our data, it seems that journalism during the past decade has become somewhat tamer,” Willnat wrote in an email, “with a focus on analyzing complex issues rather than serving as watchdog.”

Instead of exposing corruption, “data-driven” sites like Vox produce journalism that analyze complex topics by answering important questions like “What is marijuana?” Wonkery that accepts the general framing provided by the powerful is a profitable enterprise; “expertise” is a valuable commodity.

“One recent remarkable change has been what happens at think tanks these days,” said Lobe. “Every time there's a big session on something with big names, having a famous journalist moderate the discussion has become an absolute 'must have'… Journalists have become celebrities with whom 'experts' are eager to be associated with. And while a lot a lot of these journalists are very smart and well-informed, if you have them as moderators, asking questions and acting deferentially toward the experts and officials in settings like these, that helps define the conventional wisdom for other journalists who aspire to be as prominent and successful as moderators.”



There is no downside to being perceived as friendly to those in power—if you're friendly enough, you may even become their spokesperson—but if you are perceived as a troublemaker, no one will pay you to moderate their discussions, and you may lose the lifeblood of a lazy journalist: access. “In so many ways, it's a weird scene,” Lobe told me.

Careerism may explain part of it, but journalists are also older, whiter, and more educated than they were a decade ago—these are people, in other words, for whom the system is working, at least compared with the young, brown, and less educated. Of those surveyed by the researchers at Indiana University, 92 percent were college graduates (fewer than six out of ten journalists had degrees 40 years ago), and 91.5 percent were white. And while more reporters are women these days, journalism is still by and large an old boys' club, with men representing 62.5 percent of all journalists. The median age of 47 is also the oldest on record; in 1982, the typical journalist was 15 years younger.



So not only is every hack in the business trying to land a better job, but those hacks have the same class- and race-based prejudices of the policy makers they cover. Their shared upbringings and college educations condition them to believe that those in the political and business establishments—people just like them—are basically good people of good faith just trying to do their best. Sometimes this bias is implicit; other times it’s more obvious.

“Let me put my cards on the table,” explained Josh Marshall, editor of Talking Points Memo, in a 2013 post on why he was troubled by Manning's revelation of state secrets. “At the end of the day, for all its faults, the US military is the armed force of a political community I identify with and a government I support… If you basically identify with the country and the state, then indiscriminate leaks like this are purely destructive. They're attacks on something you fundamentally believe in, identify with, think is working on your behalf.”

If you think that journalism is supposed to expose information that the powerful wish to keep hidden from public view, you are terribly naive, the responsible old men of DC say—an ideologue, that is, someone who does not accept that the system is basically fine. Publishing or even reporting on leaked documents is unethical, and those who leak evidence of war crimes should be treated as if they had leaked the nuclear launch codes.



The good news is that most of these journalists hate their lives. Less than a quarter of those surveyed said they were “very satisfied” with their jobs, compared with 49 percent in 1971. Newspapers are dying, newsrooms are downsizing, and the news outlets left standing are in the hands of a few rich people, which means if you lose your job for committing journalism at one outlet there aren't many competitors to which you can turn. What's left is a gaggle of stodgy old white men, their ranks replenished by those who can afford to be unpaid interns for months or even years, at the end of which time they will have learned to accept the narrow parameters within which their profession operates, aware that their freedom to choose a story is inversely related to their desire to have a long career.

Ultimately, a free press committed to exposing the truth cannot be owned by those who profit from its suppression. But in the absence of major structural changes, there are ways to make things better: Mainstream news outlets should diversify, both in terms of race and class, in order to benefit from reporters with different perspectives and life experiences—at the very least, that would decrease the odds of more good stories slipping through the filter.

All of this is not to pine for a “golden age” of journalism—in the 70s, newsrooms were even whiter and more bro-y than they are today, and 100 years before the media helped sell a war in Iraq, the most famous names in journalism helped sell a war with Spain. But unquestionably, the reporters and outlets willing to take big risks in the name of important stories are fewer and farther between than they were just a couple decades ago. It used to take a call from a senator or corporate executive to kill a story; these days, responsible journalists know to kill it themselves.

Charles Davis is a writer in Los Angeles. His work has been published by Al Jazeera, Inter Press Service, the New Inquiry, and Salon.

http://www.vice.com/read/survey-says...-white-cowards

http://news.indiana.edu/releases/iu/...y-findings.pdf
 
Old May 17th, 2014 #51
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,342
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

http://www.documentcloud.org/documen...l#document/p46

nyt internal report gives a good picture of how media were evolving in 2014

- nyt says huff post and buzzfeed and others succeed because of their delivery and often "in spite of" their content
 
Old August 6th, 2014 #52
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,342
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

http://jezebel.com/youtube-stars-are...vie-1616513306

A new survey commissioned by Variety found that "the five most influential figures among Americans ages 13-18 are all YouTube faves, eclipsing mainstream celebs including Jennifer Lawrence and Seth Rogen." The top five!!! That is fucking bananas. That sound you hear is one million marketing executives leaving marketing-executive-shaped holes in their office walls.

Via Variety:

The survey, conducted for Variety by celebrity brand strategist Jeetendr Sehdev, asked 1,500 respondents a battery of questions assessing how 20 well-known personalities stacked up in terms of approachability, authenticity and other criteria considered aspects of their overall influence. Half the 20 were drawn from the English-language personalities with the most subscribers and video views on YouTube, the other half were represented by the celebrities with the highest Q scores among U.S. teens aged 13-17, as of March.

A score was then assigned to each YouTube and mainstream star based on how they fared in respondents' answers to the questions, and the resulting number was translated to a 100-point scale. The top five — and six of the top 10 — were YouTube stars.
The top five were Smosh, the Fine Bros., PewDiePie, KSI, and Ryan Higa.

The survey also found that the YouTube stars scored significantly higher than the boring old regular celebs on attributes "considered to have the highest correlation to influencing purchases among teens." That sound you hear is $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

Looking at survey comments and feedback, teens enjoy an intimate and authentic experience with YouTube celebrities, who aren't subject to image strategies carefully orchestrated by PR pros. Teens also say they appreciate YouTube stars' more candid sense of humor, lack of filter and risk-taking spirit, behaviors often curbed by Hollywood handlers.

When I wrote this post back in January, my fiancé's daughter told me that same thing over and over. They're more real, more relatable. Plus, "YouTube gives you the opportunity to interact with them directly."

And this, also from that post:

A friend of mine who's worked, peripherally, on trying to bring YouTube stars into the mainstream, said something I thought was perfect: "To kids, YouTube feels honest because it's so unregulated. It's also a reaction to children's media being over-processed. It's what happens when we take all the child murder out of fairy tales."
 
Old November 10th, 2014 #53
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,342
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Where News Audiences Fit on the Political Spectrum

For each of the news media sources listed below, respondents were asked whether they have heard of the outlet, gone there for news in the past week, and whether they consider it trustworthy. Not surprisingly, by virtue of their greater familiarity, the most well-known sources also tend to be the sources trusted and consumed by the greatest percentage of political news consumers. Overall, panelists trust more sources than they distrust.

http://www.journalism.org/interactiv...table/overall/
 
Old December 14th, 2014 #54
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,342
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

http://thefederalist.com/2014/12/11/...Vh-UcG.twitter

Why The Media’s Fact Problems Are Way Bigger Than Rolling Stone
Too many reporters have "Jackies" -- politicians and causes they trust uncritically no matter what.
 
Old May 4th, 2015 #55
Samuel Toothgold
Charachature incarnate
 
Samuel Toothgold's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Already in accordance with the future Repulsive Tapir Avatar Mandate
Posts: 4,068
Samuel Toothgold
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
...A biography of Ms. Brown, “Bad Girls Go Everywhere,” by Jennifer Scanlon, was published by Oxford University Press in 2009...
Oxford Eunuchversity just pulled their fact compiliation pdf which listed statistics on the small percentage of African boat entities who are genuinely politically oppressed (willfully provoked or not):

http://www.imi.ox.ac.uk/pdfs/wp/wp-105-2014.pdf

Quote:
...This page does not seem to exist…
We apologize for the inconvenience...
The source:

https://www.google.nl/#q=exploring+t...+November+2014

http://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleto...-13562679.html

http://www.pi-news.net/2015/05/studi...er-verfolgung/

Quote:
...och genau darin sehen Forscher des angesehenen Oxforder International Migration Institute (IMI) eine Teilerklärung für die verstärkte Orientierung afrikanischer Flüchtlinge nach Europa. Sie kritisieren das Wahrnehmungsdefizit ihrer Kollegen, das sie auf deren „eurozentrische Sicht“ zurückführen (Marie-Laurence Flahaux, Hein de Haas: „African Migration. Exploring the Role of Development and States“, Paper 105, Oxford, November 2014, einzusehen auf der Website des IMI)...
__________________
youtube.com/watch?v=-EDJRcwQvN4 youtube.com/watch?v=S0lxK5Ot5HA
youtube.com/watch?v=HFv92Lc8FXg
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:46 AM.
Page generated in 0.13415 seconds.