Journalism Warning Labels: This Article Is Just A Press Release Copied & Pasted
from the who-reads-newspapers-any-more? dept
Romenesko points us to an amusing offering from a guy, Tom Scott, who noted that newspapers put warning labels on content that involves “sex, violence or strong language,” but have no such warning labels for “sloppy journalism and other questionable content.” So he made them. He’s put together a printable document of journalism warning labels (and someone else has created a US formatted version (pdf)). Some of them are pretty damn funny. Here are just a few, though you should check out the whole list:
Warning: This article is basically just a press release, copied and pasted:
Warning: This article is based on an unverified anonymous tipoff.
Warning: To meet a deadline, this article was plagiarised from another news source.
Warning: Journalist does not understand the subject they are writing about.
Warning: To ensure future interview with subject, important questions were not asked.
Filed Under: journalism, stickers, warnings
Comments on “Journalism Warning Labels: This Article Is Just A Press Release Copied & Pasted”
I was just looking at this off of a tweet by @THErealDVORAK and was debating on pushing to you. Funny and sad but true all at once.
yup
that just about sums up all of the problems with why people don’t read newspapers anymore, in a nutshell.
in short, it’s called integrity and ethics. Neither of which they are known for anymore.
Re: yup
Are you referring to “newspapers” or do you really mean the so-called “MSM”?
Re: Re: yup
newspapers, magazines, MSM, not so MSN and all news media mainstream or tributary, right or left wing etc.
“Of course, this assumes anyone actually still reads paper newspapers…”
And this article assumes that techdirt is itself excluded from said criticism.
Re: Re:
At least techdirt has mostly unmoderated comments (except for spammers of course) that allows criticisms. If you have any criticisms speak up. The MSM tends to censor criticisms and avoid debate. For instance, they are more than happy to put a pro patent position on television but they will never put MM (who would be more than glad to discuss the debate the issues) on MSM. See
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100727/10432810380.shtml
They gladly hold pro copy protection positions but they are reluctant to debate anything with critics.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100811/13244810588.shtml
You’re here commenting, no one is stopping you. If you have a problem speak up. Why is it that anti IP people are more than willing to engage in debate while pro IP people are only willing to censor any dissenting views? Who should I believe, those who want to openly discuss the issues (techdirt) or those who only want to brainwash everyone to believe a specific position (MSM) without allowing critics to discuss or debate these issues.
Re: Re: Techdirt Debates
Is it any wonder that representatives of legitimate Intellectual Property organizations are reluctant to engage in the so-called “free debate” on Techdirt? They know full well this is not a welcoming, nurturing environment where all points of view are equally accepted and valued. Maybe if you people looked aside from your narrow focus on so-called “facts”, you might discover other, more profound points of view that transcend those “facts”.
Re: Re: Re: Techdirt Debates
“Is it any wonder that representatives of legitimate Intellectual Property organizations are reluctant to engage in the so-called “free debate” on Techdirt?”
I wasn’t referring to debates on Techdirt.
“They know full well this is not a welcoming, nurturing environment where all points of view are equally accepted and valued.”
First of all no one is stopping you from commenting here and no one is stopping others from coming here and agreeing. It is the mainstream media, that censors opposing views, that is not welcoming of all points of view.
Secondly
Why should we, or anyone, equally accept and value the point of view that 2 + 2 = 5 over the viewpoint that 2 + 2 = 4
What’s wrong with people not accepting certain points of view, especially fallacious ones. You think that people should simply accept a point of view because you said so?
Viewpoints must gain acceptance through their merits, not through your mere proclamations.
Perhaps if you can defend your viewpoint with logic and reasoning, instead of merely asking for acceptance, you might actually get acceptance.
Re: Re: Re:2 Techdirt Debates
Hint: The person you are replying to is a parody (check his username).
Re: Re: Re:2 Techdirt Debates
The correct statement is, “2 + 2 = 5 for very large values of 2”. 😉
Re: Re:
There must be something broken with my computer, because this article I am reading has noting about any news source being immune to the need for these labels.
Are you perhaps just angry that you can’t hire the HOPA girl? Or her brother mayhaps?
Anyhoo, Techdirt is certainly not immune, Please feel free to put as may stickers on your monitor as you like.
Re: Re:
“And this article assumes that techdirt is itself excluded from said criticism.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman
Re: Re:
Hi, TAM. Want a crying towel?
Re: Re:
Congrats, you just criticized techdirt. And on techdirt’s own page! That proves that it is not excluded, and in fact, encouraged.
Re: Re:
It’s not an assumption, it’s a fact. Techdirt isn’t even published on paper, so clearly that criticism doesn’t apply.
This should be required for every piece of journalism. But everyone should verify information from news sources. It annoys the hell out of me when my mother-in-law starts talking about the crap she read in the local paper without verifying it. And she repeats it as if its coming from her instead of “what I read in the paper….”.
If someone says…”I heard it on the news” or “I read it in the paper”…I feel its completely unreliable and I definitely dont repeat it until I’ve verified it.
Re: Re:
…I definitely don’t repeat it until I’ve verified it.
Silly question: how do you go about the process of verifying a story?
Re: Re: Re:
“Silly question: how do you go about the process of verifying a story?”
You use your alethiometer, of course. Jesus, it’s not that tough….
Re: Re:
If someone says…”I heard it on the news” or “I read it in the paper”…I just walk away. Who has time to talk with a person so stupid or naive as to not realize the inherent unreliability of a newspaper?
Re: Re: Re:
Wow so you go to Gaza for every flare-up, eh? That is hardcore. How did you hear about Chernobyl?
only bother reading a newspaper for the more localized stuff, all the rest is exactly what ive read before… yesterday
Re: Re:
I also subscribe to the paper-paper for the local stuff (and skimming the paper every day is a decades old habit I don’t care to drop), but increasingly I’m getting into seeing what they’re writing about things I’ve seen on the web already, if it’s verbatim, or in any more in depth, or anything like objective, etc.
It’s almost akin to the Jumble.
This would be an awesome Plugin!
Now let’s take this to it’s next logical, social+media+web2.0 level.
A service where users can issue warning labels on sites they visit which fall into one of these categories. Other users see the warning labels, comment accordingly, and the most commonly given label stays at the top. Doesn’t have to be just negative, too.
Great thing? You do it all through a browser plugin – like Web Of Trust for content quality rather than just malware. Sites who WANT to boast having original, well-researched content can voluntarily display their badges.
Hmm, I might have to work on this…
I'd buy that for a dollar.
Brilliant!
I love the little icons, hilarious.
Warning...
this comment may be my opinion.
It may also be rude, sarcastic and inane.
What we need is for this type of warning label to be legally required. The lawyers sure hope so because they will get more work and it will certainly prevent any lies or deceptions getting through.
They should replace the “crawls” on the 24h news stations with all of these phrases just running repeatedly across the bottom of the screen.
a few more I'd like to see
[suggested icons in brackets]
Article may contain classic logical fallacies. [ancient Greek philosopher, exasperated]
Extensive quotes from uninformed officials and/or celebrities. [person surrounded by microphones, emitting many speech bubbles]
Information in last paragraph may debunk entire article. [reader examining bottom of page with magnifying glass, thought bubble with exclamation mark]
Extreme abuse of statistics. Mathematically literate readers may experience headaches, dizziness. [graph with curve drawn through some points, others crossed out]
Vague language throughout. [clouds]
Re: a few more I'd like to see
What?
Wow this really applies to TechDirt.