Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Flávia Schiochet's avatar

I completely agree with you.

As someone who worked in a newsroom for eight years and have been working home office for some big digital papers outlets the last year, all I can say is that the volume of news we have to publish is huge comparing to the amount of journalists working (in Brazil. But it's probably the same in anywhere's newsroom). It's not a defense, I hate when I have to do that. Most of the days, we get the stories we have to write about, but the source does not replies in time (24 hours or less – it's common to have a couple of hours to finish) and if that story is not the major one, the special one, we copypasta and move to the next story. If we don't do it, we don't get traffic. The lack of information such as the name of a scientific article or the issue is laziness, bad journalism or "trying to clean the text" so people can read it quickly. Or all this reasons combined.

Second thing I wanted to comment, you figured out the newsroom culture in this phrase: "they dissemble in order to appear more authoritative than they actually are". There's this idea of we-should-not-link-to-anywhere-outside-our-website to ensure the reader is not leaving your page – actually, you insert links to your own website. Why are we still thinking like this in newsrooms? I don't know, I blame the elders, the directors, the owners of newspaper, that only see an empty metrics (and always quantitative) such as pageviews. Sometimes, if you mention the "indirect competitor" such as independent media outlets or smaller newspaper, you get it removed or changed by the editor, because there is pressure to... perform authoritative.

I can talk about newsroom culture and good and bad journalism for hours, and I haven't even runned out everything I could say about your great piece, but I'll stop here because it's already huge, haha.

Expand full comment
Juliana Cunha's avatar

I was a journalist for the biggest newspaper in Brazil (Folha de S.Paulo) for eight years. There has always been formal guidance for journalists to identify the source of quotes and to make it clear how that quote was obtained. You have to say something like "'In an interview with the Guardian, neuroscientist Erik Hoel claims that 'dreams have a Lynchian quality'". In the past, we had to specify whether the interview was done by email, because that was considered worse and lazier than an interview over the phone, or in person.

It turns out that nowadays journalism is basically over. There is no way to compare the quality of newspapers today with the quality of these same newspapers a mere 15 years ago. The newsrooms are empty, everyone has been fired, so the few people left don't have time to do journalism. What they do is mostly condense internet content. Each newspaper has only a handful of journalists who continue to do their own reporting and a dozen editors who just look things up on the internet and rewrite stuff.

Expand full comment
44 more comments...

No posts