I'm just curious.
I keep finding articles in newspapers (mostly News Ltd, it must be said) in which the journalist in question clearly doesn't know how to use Google, as they failed to mention some really basic information (which would take any two-bit researcher two minutes to unearth).
Or, alternatively, they'll write an article about something "amusing" (like, say, TV or sport) and get some of the facts flat-out wrong. It's as though the fact that it isn't a hard-hitting news story means little things like research and fact-checking become irrelevant.
Call me crazy and old-fashioned (go on, I'll wait), but I thought journalists were supposed to find out stuff and report on what they have learnt.
So, why do they a) not bother finding out stuff, and b) report on things they clearly know nothing about?
Because I think very little is demanded from most "journalists" these days apart from opinion pieces that are devoid of any documented facts. They don't get called out by their editors like they used to and the public is incapable of doing so. You see a gradually slip to the lowest-common denominator to satisfy ad-revenue generation. Furthermore, what with technology the way it is these days there is a lot more demand for "writers", such that much of what gets published online is of a poor quality because there simply is not enough high-quality writers to fill the gaps.
ReplyDeleteI could half maybe forgive the online work for being so shoddy, but it's rife in the print papers as well. Yesterday I read an article about a sporting event that was happening on Friday, and the reporter didn't see fit to give such details as where and when the event was going to take place. This happens all the time in the local and state news paper (put out by News Ltd). What's so hard about giving basic information?
ReplyDelete