was certainly not so I could become a regurgitator of information.
"GET THE STORY ON THE WEB, IMMEDIATELY." Twitter! Facebook! (Tumblr!)
Accuracy has been nudged to the back burner in favor of timeliness. Hanging out behind timeliness, next to accuracy? Perspective.
I love this headline because, while the issue at the heart of this article is media transparency, in fact it calls attention to a much longer tension in journalism. For decades, media executives have held sway on critical media policy debates in Washington, DC, through campaign contributions and lobbying efforts. Often the positions the media execs take run counter to the benefit of the journalists who work for them and the communities they serve. However, as this article notes, this maybe one of the most absurd and hypocritical examples in recent memory.
“The battle playing out over a new government transparency proposal has taken a turn that should concern journalists. Many of the nation’s major news organizations are now aggressively opposing a proposal to disclose more information about political advertising—acting directly against the interests of their own reporters and calling into question the companies’ commitment to journalistic values.”
Steve Walderman discusses the irony of media organizations opposing the proposed FCC rule that would force TV stations to make campaign ad data available online. Read the full article on CJR.
FJP: Apropos of our previous post on who makes money off of campaign spending. Election year political advertising is a gold mine for media organizations.
In one way, at least, the NYT doesn’t seem to differ from other newsrooms.
Listen, people. The reporter-source relationship is pretty simple: I’m not looking to screw you over. I don’t get my jollies from making you look like damn fools.
I just want to screw you over when you deserve to be screwed over.
When should you escape the mad, mad world of journalism as a career?