RSS
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: Statistics, survey results and/or equations in this article were sponsored by a PR company:
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.
Of course, this assumes anyone actually still reads paper newspapers...
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.
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
yup
in short, it's called integrity and ethics. Neither of which they are known for anymore.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: yup
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: yup
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
And this article assumes that techdirt is itself excluded from said criticism.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Techdirt Debates
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Techdirt Debates
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.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Techdirt Debates
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Techdirt Debates
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Silly question: how do you go about the process of verifying a story?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You use your alethiometer, of course. Jesus, it's not that tough....
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's almost akin to the Jumble.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
This would be an awesome Plugin!
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...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
I'd buy that for a dollar.
I love the little icons, hilarious.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Warning...
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.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
a few more I'd like to see
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]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: a few more I'd like to see
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Add Your Comment