So who is more culpable, the reporter doing half the job or the editors allowing it? Where reporting is 'content' and volume matters more than quality, this weakening of reporting standards seems unsurprising. Those standards that may have previously been enforced by practitioners of the craft are no longer fit for purpose to the enterprise where the last consideration is that of the needs of the reader who simply wants an accurate portrayal of what happened and who said what.
We are eyeballs and news organizations are the amplifier of desired narratives to those eyeballs. The tenuous link between the size of the news organization and it's authority, is stressed now more than ever in such a fractured media landscape. I know, I have committed pixels to a screen, so you can quote me as an expert and make your deadline. Your welcome!
Excellent points. Everyone, everywhere is now an "expert". Experts are often those who know more and more about less and less. I cringe when I hear the "expert" word. Many decades ago expert meant something as you had to earn it.
It galls me how especially on cable news (which I watch sometimes for a laugh) how much time is spent with political "correspondents", chief political reporters the list go on interviewing each other. Then there are the political correspondents who leave cable news and quickly jump to a political strategy company or even worse form their own strategy company. In no time they are back as an "expert" at the very news organization they used to work for. You scratch my back I'll scratch now and so the merry go round continues. Even worse are those who run for a political seat and lose and then become a political expert. DUH you failed at winning your seat and now you are an expert.
I believe there are 'experts'. The problem is when reporting and media use the term as an unearned imprimatur to lend weight to the story itself. To your point, simply because somebody has worked in a specific context does not mean they are an expert. Working the drive-thru window at McDonald's does not make me an expert in the operations of franchise structured businesses. However, if you've been told by your editor to write a story about that topic and it's lunch time, you might spend five minutes asking questions to the person working the window. You get back to your laptop in your livingroom and bam! you have an expert source. Your story has the smell of legitimacy.
It's no better than the ubiquitous use of 'some people say', to imply there is an established consensus on complex matters. Also, real experts are leary of sanding off complicating factors to an issue in the interests of serving a coherent, comprehensible story for the reader which editors prefer. A stream of stories consisting of 'Yes, but it's complicated', don't hold an audience over time because it's too uncertain and unresolved which people don't like.
A source tells me that reporters who want to include "unnamed sources" in a report that will be published need to reveal who those sources are to their editor, who is then Keeper of the Secret.
Consequently, you have an editor AND a reporter AND the publication on the hook if there is a lie - or worse, a lawsuit (e.g., Arthur Kent).
But, I wonder if that still happens, or if that was just Lou Grant's newsroom. :)
A clear sign of a Canadian is, when about to disagree, they begin with "I'm sorry but...". I do wish we could reasonably disagree without feeling we need to apologize first.
What ever happened to W5(WHO,what when,where,why). notice the Who always first.
So who is more culpable, the reporter doing half the job or the editors allowing it? Where reporting is 'content' and volume matters more than quality, this weakening of reporting standards seems unsurprising. Those standards that may have previously been enforced by practitioners of the craft are no longer fit for purpose to the enterprise where the last consideration is that of the needs of the reader who simply wants an accurate portrayal of what happened and who said what.
We are eyeballs and news organizations are the amplifier of desired narratives to those eyeballs. The tenuous link between the size of the news organization and it's authority, is stressed now more than ever in such a fractured media landscape. I know, I have committed pixels to a screen, so you can quote me as an expert and make your deadline. Your welcome!
Excellent points. Everyone, everywhere is now an "expert". Experts are often those who know more and more about less and less. I cringe when I hear the "expert" word. Many decades ago expert meant something as you had to earn it.
It galls me how especially on cable news (which I watch sometimes for a laugh) how much time is spent with political "correspondents", chief political reporters the list go on interviewing each other. Then there are the political correspondents who leave cable news and quickly jump to a political strategy company or even worse form their own strategy company. In no time they are back as an "expert" at the very news organization they used to work for. You scratch my back I'll scratch now and so the merry go round continues. Even worse are those who run for a political seat and lose and then become a political expert. DUH you failed at winning your seat and now you are an expert.
I believe there are 'experts'. The problem is when reporting and media use the term as an unearned imprimatur to lend weight to the story itself. To your point, simply because somebody has worked in a specific context does not mean they are an expert. Working the drive-thru window at McDonald's does not make me an expert in the operations of franchise structured businesses. However, if you've been told by your editor to write a story about that topic and it's lunch time, you might spend five minutes asking questions to the person working the window. You get back to your laptop in your livingroom and bam! you have an expert source. Your story has the smell of legitimacy.
It's no better than the ubiquitous use of 'some people say', to imply there is an established consensus on complex matters. Also, real experts are leary of sanding off complicating factors to an issue in the interests of serving a coherent, comprehensible story for the reader which editors prefer. A stream of stories consisting of 'Yes, but it's complicated', don't hold an audience over time because it's too uncertain and unresolved which people don't like.
A source tells me that reporters who want to include "unnamed sources" in a report that will be published need to reveal who those sources are to their editor, who is then Keeper of the Secret.
Consequently, you have an editor AND a reporter AND the publication on the hook if there is a lie - or worse, a lawsuit (e.g., Arthur Kent).
But, I wonder if that still happens, or if that was just Lou Grant's newsroom. :)
A clear sign of a Canadian is, when about to disagree, they begin with "I'm sorry but...". I do wish we could reasonably disagree without feeling we need to apologize first.
Canadians being "nice" is so tiresome.
Poilievre tends to be remember slights so it's understandable people want anonymity when making on the record comments that don't reflect his edicts.
I infer the Liberal staffers and ex-staffers who are the anonymous sources also want to avoid a retributive elbow Carney.