It's hard to understand the minds of journalists

journalism seems like a good profession. reading, traveling, interviewing, researching, writing, editing, etc.

but the so-called thinking by many journalists can be bizarre.

last decade, many in the media biz disliked pseudonyms used by message board users, bloggers, and commenters.

but this decade, journalists love twitter, which supports pseudonyms. even if the journalists use their real names, they still adore twitter with its many anonymous posters. even though twitter can be a cesspool for discussions, journalists remain one of twitter's core user-base.

http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/media/2016/04/8597724/esquire-removes-satirical-article-after-criticism

http://mediagazer.com/160427/p2#a160427p2

i read the esquire story before it was removed. the byline said Prof Jeff Jarvis. i thought that it was written by the real jeff jarvis who is a j-school prof.

even though i follow news about media, i was unaware of the twitter account that parodies the real jeff jarvis.

i'm not monitoring humor about the media. i'm not a media insider.

regarding the esquire story, at first, i wondered if the real jeff jarvis was serious, but then i realized that real jeff jarvis was joking.

but the story was written by fake jeff jarvis. real jeff jarvis convinced esquire to remove the story or at least remove his name. i don't see the problem with that.

media people live in a bubble. they insulate themselves from the real world.

it appears that media people are attacking real jeff jarvis for wanting the fake esquire story removed. i don't understand the media's thinking.

if some of us can be fooled, then how can media dorks defend stories that have phony bylines? is this what passes as journalism today? is esquire an onion-like site?

i wouldn't want a story published that used my name. why not use a fake name, instead of a name of a real person? i see nothing funny about this.

how come the media doesn't view a fake story that appears to be written by a real person as "the ugly side of the internet" or "bullying?"

in my opinion, the media hacks that are attacking the real jeff jarvis are bullying, and they represent the ugly side of the internet.

once again, maybe this is another reason why people have a microscopic favorable rating or trust rating of the media, which is an industry that is struggling to survive in many areas. maybe this is why people choose not to pay for anything produced by media people.

and i still believe that the best journalists would be mathematicians. less emotion. more logic.

real jeff jarvis wrote yesterday at medium.com:
https://medium.com/redefining-rude/enough-569bae96773e

most of the responses were intelligent and agreed with real jarvis. a couple responses were incoherent.

excerpts from one incoherent comment:

Many of us have watched for more than a decade as Professor Jarvis (the real, humorless one) made a name for himself in digital media. He was very happy to be quoted on CNN and be a star of the blogosphere as he became a prominent prophet of the new digital age.

okay. what's the problem? if this nutter had a problem with real jeff jarvis gaining popularity last decade, then why didn't the person stop monitoring jarvis? why didn't this wacko try to make a name for "itself" by writing rationally about the future of media and offering ideas that may or may not work? the commenter may have envy issues with real jeff jarvis.

the commenter continued:

The satire is a logical extension of his ridiculous technological evangelism going back quite a few years now ...

i have read numerous things written by real jeff jarvis over the past decade. i have agreed with some of his ideas and disagreed with others. that's normal. who agrees with everything written by someone?

it's also a bit narrow-minded to restrict one's reading to authors who are agreeable. it's good to read thinkers who challenge our thinking.

and what's wrong with people who are always thinking and sharing their thoughts? maybe the people who are attacking real jeff jarvis are jealous that they don't have original thoughts.

and since when did real jarvis become the only person evangelizing about technology in media?

this commenter failed to post a link to a ridiculous jarvis post. one link. couldn't do it.

another misguided medium commenter wrote about jarvis demanding that the esquire story be removed or edited:

I would like to hear the argument on the ethical and legal issues on this. You write here as if it’s obvious, but it clearly isn’t obvious to many editors, including those at Esquire.

but the original story was not clear as to who actually wrote it. it may have been clear to the media insiders who knew about fake jarvis. but it wasn't clear to me.

the far greater error is publishing fake stories with false bylines. holy crap. i cannot believe that media people defend this behavior.

if the story was published on April 1st, then, okay, whatever.

https://twitter.com/jeffjarvis

a couple tweets retweeted by real jarvis.

https://twitter.com/baekdal/status/725291307162279936

I completely agree with @jeffjarvis here: If people don't know something is satire, it's a deception:

https://twitter.com/dankennedy_nu/status/725288444252004352

All writers know that many readers don’t get parody. So yes, I’m with @jeffjarvis on this.

whoa. wrong. it's not that "we" cannot recognize satire or parody. i got that part after continuing to read the original story. it was funny.

but i though that real jeff jarvis wrote it. expecting readers to know about all the fake user accounts is absurd. that's the problem.

the massive flaw was using someone else's name as the author.

http://withoutbullshit.com/blog/esquire-promoting-jeff-jarvis-impersonator/

i enjoy reading his blog about writing even though i don't always agree with his ideas. it's okay to disagree with someone and still enjoy the person.

but i agree with this post. excerpts:

In this saga, my sympathies lie with Jeff Jarvis. But satirists have a right to publish satire, and publishers have a right to publish it.

agree.

Where did things go wrong?

... when you read an article on a traditional media site like Esquire, satire or not, it needs an actual byline. Made up individuals don’t get to write there. They’ve got the whole rest of the Web to play with.

Once a news outlet loses its credibility, it’s got nothing left. Given the current state of media, that’s a dangerous choice.

agree.

... the worst idea is a writer who is pretending to steal the identify of another person — I don’t see any justification for that in a byline on a media site.

doubly agree. it seems obvious to me, especially when the fake jarvis person was unknown to me.

if the media only wants to publish to itself, in order to guarantee that inside jokes are understood, then it should create its own private social network where users must possess an email address from a media org.

i wouldn't be able to join. i wouldn't see stories with fake real names. i wouldn't be bamboozled by a reckless and untrustworthy media.

but media people would be entertained. everybody wins.

#media #moronism