Home General
Hey folks - as a member of the DawgNation community, please remember to abide by simple rules of civil engagement with other members:

- Please no inappropriate usernames (remember that there may be youngsters in the room)

- Personal attacks on other community members are unacceptable, practice the good manners your mama taught you when engaging with fellow Dawg fans

- Use common sense and respect personal differences in the community: sexual and other inappropriate language or imagery, political rants and belittling the opinions of others will get your posts deleted and result in warnings and/ or banning from the forum

- 3/17/19 UPDATE -- We've updated the permissions for our "Football" and "Commit to the G" recruiting message boards. We aim to be the best free board out there and that has not changed. We do now ask that all of you good people register as a member of our forum in order to see the sugar that is falling from our skies, so to speak.

JP calls out AJC for bad journalism it is

Razor2027Razor2027 Posts: 962 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate
edited July 2023 in General

One the best takes on the AJC and their click driven brand of "journalism" I have seen so far.

https://youtu.be/vfqdvQ_tB3Q

«134567

Comments

  • BrettGarrBrettGarr Posts: 152 ✭✭✭ Junior
    edited July 2023

    Link (if allowed)? Never mind, I see the link now - thanks.

  • KaseyKasey Posts: 28,859 mod

    We get what we pay for. Don’t pay for journalism wind up with bad journalism.

  • philipsmith99philipsmith99 Posts: 2,080 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate
    edited July 2023

    You were living the high life, I only had 2 channels and 1 was ga public tv back when they actually had some kind of classes being broadcast.

  • KaseyKasey Posts: 28,859 mod

    Because newspapers tried to be more like tv instead of being newspapers.

  • CigarDawgCigarDawg Posts: 2,465 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    Yeah, I am sure there is culpability all around. I can't say whether it was the media reeacting to the market or the market reacting to the shifts in media, but we are firmly in the realm now of sound bites and quick takes over in depth reporting and consumers reading entire articles with comprehension.

  • BigDawg888BigDawg888 Posts: 1,429 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    That is partially true for sure. Not an expert in the Journalism area but I have read in years recently that a lot of journalism is outsourced. I think this may be why you see so many spelling errors and so forth in so many articles put out by MSN, and the other web outlets.

    This particular writer, Alan Judd, seems hell bent on combining some facts with speculative opinion and creative headlining. Then his articles get kicked to 5-10 other outlets and it starts a chain of negative 'reporting.' Especially in the case of Jamal Jarrett. I don't think anyone is defending the actions of JJ but since the charges were dropped could the AJC find itself in a defamation lawsuit for throwing this kid under the bus with innuendo? Also, how do lump in speeding tickets with assaults on women?

    I guess that one person might conclude that if Mr. Judd and the AJC were to sensationalize their negative reporting by including opinions and speculation what else are they exaggerating in their other articles?

    To me at this point it feels like the AJC 'jumped the shark' on this and they are doing more damage to their own credibility then to Georgia. I would also say sites like Clutchpoints and others are also just turning Georgia readers off with regurgitating this largely opinion piece stuff. Thoughts?

  • swilkerson7317swilkerson7317 Posts: 2,426 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    The internet has changed the way we read. Our brains now don't read things like it used to. We skim the way you do on web pages.

    Educators will tell you the biggest problem they have giving kids test is they just skim the questions.

    We still have good media here. It just requires reading. So people aren't going to do it. They want Facebook meme's Twitter posts, youtube videos, or headlines they can skim.

    I get my news from Apple News which aggregates things for me to read. Sources would include.

    WSJ, The New Yorker, CNBC, Barron's. and several others.

    News today isn't unreliable junk. It's just requires effort or yes payment to get it.

    American's are not going to put in the effort when a **** Facebook meme already confirms what they want to believe anyway.

  • swilkerson7317swilkerson7317 Posts: 2,426 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate
    edited July 2023

    I think it all goes back to the advent of 24/7 news. You have to fill the space with something. The world really isn't all that exciting to need round the clock coverage.

    The real problem there is 24/7 news became 24/7 opinion.

    I used to love Headline News. They would just play the top stories of the day with little or no commentary. An earthquake in Turkey.....A major bill passed Congress......A new leader was elected in Japan.....etc. It repeated every 10 minutes or so. It was great. No opinion. Just factual reports of what happened.

    That isn't what we get from 24/7 news. It's more like a British tabloid these days. Total garbage.

  • pgjacksonpgjackson Posts: 17,571 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    I agree with everything you said, but I'll disagree that the news is mostly unreliable junk. I can cite countless major news outlets that knowingly reported outright lies and falsehoods or slanted the details so much that consumers are lead astray. If I have to go and cross-reference multiple sources, each reporting the same story with completely different angles....that is a problem. In theory, honest news articles should be the same no matter what network or paper publishes it.

  • swilkerson7317swilkerson7317 Posts: 2,426 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate
    edited July 2023

    In theory, honest news articles should be the same no matter what network or paper publishes it.

    Well I hate to break it to you. But its never been that way.

    William Randolph Hearst was the Rupert Murdoch of his day.

    You give me the pictures ill give you your war.

    But yeah there is good news out there. You just have to be selective about your sources.

    The WSJ for example is still an excellent source. As is the NYT. One conservative. The other liberal. So yeah you get that on their editorial pages.

    But the reporting they both do is top notch typically.

  • BEACHDAWGBEACHDAWG Posts: 3,204 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    "One Conservative, one Liberal." Now that wouldn't lead to any editoralizing at all.

  • Joe31Joe31 Posts: 1,328 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    Seriously though, is there a decent news source that doesn’t lean left or right?

  • swilkerson7317swilkerson7317 Posts: 2,426 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    Of course it does. But they do strive to keep it out of the straight reporting.

    Seriously though, is there a decent news source that doesn’t lean left or right?

    No. Never has been either. We all act on biases even sometimes unconsciously. Journalists are no different. But again some like the WSJ do try and keep it straight with their reporting. Opinions are reserved for the editorial pages.

Sign In or Register to comment.