You're viewing old version number 6. - Current version
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://mediagazer.com/160427/p2#a160427p2
i read the esquire story before it was removed. i thought that it was written by the real jeff jarvis. 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?"
i would say the media hacks that are attacking the real jeff jarvis are bullying and represent the ugly side of the internet.
once again, maybe this is another reason why people have such a low favorable rating or trust rating of the media. 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.
From JR's : articles
391 words - 2440 chars
- 2 min read
created on
updated on
- #
source
- versions
Related articles
Advice for TV news reporters on how to sound dramatic and urgent - Jan 15, 2014
It's hard to understand the minds of journalists - Apr 27, 2016
In 2013, academic dolts blame Craigslist for the demise of the newspaper industry - Oct 08, 2013
One site owner's view on comments - Oct 23, 2014
Google versus the European media - Jul 30, 2015
more >>