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 thoughts. that's normal. who agrees with everything written by someone?

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

#media #moronism