"CEO said a thing!" journalism involves parroting the claims of a business leader or executive with absolutely no context, correction, or challenge whatsoever, no matter how elaborate the delusion
archive link
"CEO Said A Thing!" Journalism
"CEO said a thing!" journalism involves parroting the claims of a business leader or executive with absolutely no context, correction, or challenge whatsoever, no matter how elaborate the delusion.Karl Bode (The Fine Print*)
like this
inari
in reply to spit_evil_olive_tips • • •Data centers IN SPACE!
Acritically repeated by every news source.
Modern journalism is PR for the rich.
like this
potatoguy, DaGeek247, Get_Off_My_WLAN, Hexanimo and HarkMahlberg like this.
Lvxferre [he/him]
in reply to spit_evil_olive_tips • • •I see some angry person. The good type of angry — directing his anger at the right things.
To be clear: Bode is not criticising the fact that journalists quote what CEOs say. He's criticising the fact they do it and call it a day, as if saying "trust the CEO".
It goes without saying that CEOs are really loud when saying what they want the sucker (you) to believe. So if that's all you want, you need no journalist. A journalist is only useful if you want to know the factual reality; but for that they need to contextualise and challenge the claims, not just parrot them.
If it's any consolation it isn't just the United-Statian media.
like this
DaGeek247, Get_Off_My_WLAN, Hexanimo and HarkMahlberg like this.
justOnePersistentKbinPlease
in reply to spit_evil_olive_tips • • •The world needs more action like the people of Quebec did to the suddenly former ceo of Air Canada.
The pilots were French, the jet flying from Montreal. The least that fucker could have done is have someone who knows French give the apology.
Powderhorn
in reply to spit_evil_olive_tips • • •like this
HarkMahlberg likes this.
MalReynolds
in reply to Powderhorn • • •Journalism as a profession has been mercilessly crushed this entire century (at least) and we are all (save the 1%, perhaps) the poorer for it. There's a reason it was considered one of the fundamentals of a functioning democracy.
What the article describes isn't even reporting, let alone journalism, it's a form of marketing.
Jiggle_Physics
in reply to MalReynolds • • •MalReynolds
in reply to Jiggle_Physics • • •Sure, stipulated, but in fact I'd say the more relevant analogy to today's situation is 1930s Germany and Goebbels (along with radio). To my mind journalism mostly evolved into profession post WW2 as a reaction to the prior corruption of reporting.
For a period there it had a strong code of ethics (professional ethics even) and served society well before concentration of media in the hands of corrupt oligarchs (e.g. Murdoch) destroyed any competition on truth (when's the last time you heard of a scoop?) and then the internet and especially social media drove home the nails.
This is not to say that there is not true journalism still alive, but that it is far removed from the majority of society, hard to find. It needs to be sought out, ironically in an age where information flows so freely, quality is lost in the slop (even before AI). It would behoove us as a society to raise it once more from the muck, wish I knew how.
Jiggle_Physics
in reply to MalReynolds • • •There has always been true journalists, and it seems there are periods where groups become more prominent in waves, like you describe with that period, but, at least from the many news papers I have read from that time, from the US, Canada, and the UK it was all corporate voice, and extremely ham fisted government propaganda, and that portion of journalism seems to be outlier. Newspapers needs sales, Ads need viewer, etc., and sensationalist bullshit, outrage, and gossip, have always been the solution to that.
I can't tell you how many ads I have seen for over consumption, especially of questionable shit, with the US government calling for being a real American, or whatever, that buys this American product. Write-ups about military actions, especially ones with natives, that are basically just fabricated stories about brave christian soldiers protecting innocent homesteaders from the savages. When I first started looking these up I was kinda surprised at how bad it was actually, and I was expecting pretty much the same. The biggest thing I noticed was that there was a LOT mo
... Show more...There has always been true journalists, and it seems there are periods where groups become more prominent in waves, like you describe with that period, but, at least from the many news papers I have read from that time, from the US, Canada, and the UK it was all corporate voice, and extremely ham fisted government propaganda, and that portion of journalism seems to be outlier. Newspapers needs sales, Ads need viewer, etc., and sensationalist bullshit, outrage, and gossip, have always been the solution to that.
I can't tell you how many ads I have seen for over consumption, especially of questionable shit, with the US government calling for being a real American, or whatever, that buys this American product. Write-ups about military actions, especially ones with natives, that are basically just fabricated stories about brave christian soldiers protecting innocent homesteaders from the savages. When I first started looking these up I was kinda surprised at how bad it was actually, and I was expecting pretty much the same. The biggest thing I noticed was that there was a LOT more long form article 200 years ago. However they, like today, were largely industry/political puff pieces, socialite blather, etc.
Also, the amount of casual libel in century plus old news papers is insane. Absolutely would not fly today.
MalReynolds
in reply to Jiggle_Physics • • •btsax
in reply to Jiggle_Physics • • •tangentism
in reply to spit_evil_olive_tips • • •Working class representation in UK journalism hits record low, report says
Andrew Kersley (Press Gazette)melsaskca
in reply to spit_evil_olive_tips • • •BarneyPiccolo
in reply to spit_evil_olive_tips • • •Some genius got the idea to change the words at the top of an official statement from Public Relations Announcement to Press Release, and every news media fell for it.
His boss probably took credit for the idea, got a promotion and an enormous raise, and fired the guy who really thought if it.
whotookkarl
in reply to spit_evil_olive_tips • • •ArseAssassin
in reply to spit_evil_olive_tips • • •luciferofastora
in reply to spit_evil_olive_tips • • •CEOs are lauded as visionary and it's just not as engaging to read about crushed visions.
Even if we disregard the whole "corporate talking pieces" and "journalists often stem from the social elite" parts, just the drive for engagement and clicks would explain a slant towards writing about great ideas rather than disappointing realism. How many people enjoy SciFi? How many love pedantic analyses why they're absolutely unrealistic?
I mean, I love pedantry (as well as the genre itself), but I'm a minority and fine with it – stories can be fun without being realistic and disbelief can be suspended in favour of entertainment.
CEOs spouting bullshit shouldn't be taken as stories for entertainment though, and much less printed in a serious manner. For them, critical disassembly should be the norm, mandatory even.