FFE - Media Watch

[Gunnar Longshanks]

Re: BF Media Watch: The Age, Realfooty and the standard of football journalism

No. Then he would say "a Richmond official" or "a source within the club who didn't wish to be named". "It is believed" is just another way of saying something is a rumour.

That's not necessarily true at all.

Don't guess.

 

[grizzlym]

Anyone else see the little paper's front page 'exclusive' today?

"Cloke escapes gunman's brazen attack"

The story goes onto describe how the bullet shattered a window at the Cloke residence, and how Cloke was at home at the time. I guess that constitutes escaping.

The copy that describes a note that was left in the letterbox was equally dramatic.
"... it was handed to police and is now being examined by experts"

Yep, I'm seeing a CSI-style lab conducting a battery of tests on that piece of paper.

 

[the ranger]

Re: BF Media Watch: The Age, Realfooty and the standard of football journalism

That's not necessarily true at all.

Don't guess.

So how would you translate "it is believed"? If someone has some actual evidence or a dependable source, why would they use that expression?

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

Re: BF Media Watch: The Age, Realfooty and the standard of football journalism

So how would you translate "it is believed"?

That Mike Sheahan - there could have been more than one journo putting it together - has established a version of events from talking to a variety of insiders; be it players, assistant coaches, people who know Wallace well. But none of those people want to be named, or even referred to opaquely.

If someone has some actual evidence or a dependable source, why would they use that expression?

Because Sheahan isn't attributing his information to one source in particular. That could be because it's off the record, or because the version of events Sheahan is reporting has been patched together from more than one source. Most likely, it's combination of both.

 

[the ranger]

Re: BF Media Watch: The Age, Realfooty and the standard of football journalism

Ok. Understood. We'll come back to his article once the truth is known and see whether it was just rumour or not. In any case, the opening of his article is just a plain lie that is obvious to anyone with an ounce of common sense, so I don't hold high hopes for the rest of it.

 

[evertonfc]

Re: BF Media Watch: The Age, Realfooty and the standard of football journalism

Can I just say that the posters of BigFooty should be very thankful that Gunnar Longshanks actually bothers to reply, explain and debate from the perspective of a journalist.

It's very insightful. I've just had a trawl through this thread and some of his answers are very informative as to how it all works.

Can I humbly suggest an "Ask Gunnar" thread? It may mean a hell of a lot of work for him, but it would basically help explain to the mug punter how the media works. There's just so much mis-information and poor assumptions about how it all works.

...and it is probably a lot more accessible than "Ask Mike".

 

[Feerits Elf]

Re: BF Media Watch: The Age, Realfooty and the standard of football journalism

Can I humbly suggest an "Ask Gunnar" thread?

No.

4char

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

Re: BF Media Watch: The Age, Realfooty and the standard of football journalism

Can I humbly suggest an "Ask Gunnar" thread?

I don't do sex education.

 

[grizzlym]

Gunnar, hello.
I respect your 'no sex education' policy, but I do have a question re the Richmond coach sacking f#$! up. No offence will be taken if you choose not to open the floodgates and stay silent.

What should a journalist do (professionally speaking) if the story they broke turns out not to be true?

Basically the Craig Hutchison, Terry Wallace situation.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

Gunnar, hello.
I respect your 'no sex education' policy, but I do have a question re the Richmond coach sacking f#$! up. No offence will be taken if you choose not to open the floodgates and stay silent.

What should a journalist do (professionally speaking) if the story they broke turns out not to be true?

Basically the Craig Hutchison, Terry Wallace situation.

There are no strict guidelines for what a journalist should do.

There is professional embarrassment, but it is shared by the journalist and their employer. The journalist doesn't act alone. Ultimately, the paper that gets it wrong suffers as much as, probably more than, the journo whose name is attached.

And the way that outlet acts after getting it wrong depends entirely on how they assess their readers' expectations. If they get totally busted and they know their readers will be onto them, they'll concede their mistake and offer some kind of explanation. That's the classy way to do it.

But if they think their readers are uncritical muppets, they'll just bulldoze through with a mixture of spin and deflection. That's what the Herald-Sun did.

As far as I know, it was the Hun that went first on that story. And really, they were the only ones who really dropped the ball.

They ran it on their website, and then every other journo, Hutchison included, just reacted, saying, "Wallace has reportedly been sacked" and speculating what that might mean - possible replacements etc.

So, as far as I know, the only outlet that really screwed up was the Hun. The other journos/commentators had to respond - they couldn't ignore the story - and I think they exercised sufficient caution in talking about that story second-hand. They were always careful to say that "it has been reported that...".

But while the Hun dropped the ball, I would say that getting the story wrong was not even the worst thing they did. They obviously had a tip, so they slapped the story together and put it online, hoping that events would unfold accordingly, allowing them to point to their coverage and brag about being first. They got caught out, but they thought they had the good oil, and they wanted to be first. It's still shoddy, but their motivation is understandable.

I would say their greatest sin was the way they tried to reverse away from the story when it emerged that their facts were wrong. Wallace being sacked got downgraded to Wallace being on the brink, and then the Tigers being in crisis. In the end, they were reporting that, "the Tigers are in chaos" - that was just bullshit deflection. People in glass houses...

Instead of saying, "we got it wrong", they tried to cover their arses by blaming the club for not following the script, for not confirming the scoop they'd pre-emptively reported. s**t effort. For mine, that is worse than the initial inaccuracy. It's insulting. How dumb do they think their readers are?

I would imagine that behind closed doors, there would have been some red faces. But I reckon people at the Hun would see getting it wrong occasionally as the price of being first: "we wanted to break the story, so we put it out there early, and it backfired."

They may just see it as bad luck. Certainly, they won't be reassessing their desire to get stories out there quicker than their competitors.

I guess the only disclaimer worth mentioning is that the story didn't appear in print. It only ever appeared online. Obviously, you still want online stories to be accurate, but with web journalism, there is an emphasis on being first. You can edit the story as the facts change - you can't do that in print. And you get points for having the story up an hour before your competitors - in print, if the papers have the story on the same day, you basically call it even.

In closing, this is something to bear in mind when discussing the shift from print journalism to online journalism. People say, "newspapers are dying - it's all going online now."

Well, if that's the case, you'll get a lot of more of these situations; of people firing a story up early, and then revising it as required. With the supposed shift to online journlism, there will be more of these judgement calls: "let's get it up there early, even if we're not certain, because we want to be first - and if we're wrong, we can just re-write it on the run."

You can't do that in print. You only get one crack at getting it right. That's why printed newspapers are still the genuine article. With online journalism, running the story first can sometimes appear more important than getting the story right. If you don't like that calculus, then you should think about not visiting the Herald-Sun website anymore.

 

[grizzlym]

Thanks dude.
That's very interesting. I think it's a salient point you have about the mechanics of online journalism, particularly the emphasis on 'being first to market' . I'll digest, but got to go to bed now. Thanks again.

 

[grizzlym]

The scenario with online journalism you describe is quite a shift. Almost work-in-progress journalism. Or quasi 'blogging journalism'. But maybe journalism is the wrong word to use, perhaps reporting is more appropriate.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

The scenario with online journalism you describe is quite a shift. Almost work-in-progress journalism. Or quasi 'blogging journalism'. But maybe journalism is the wrong word to use, perhaps reporting is more appropriate.

The sub-text of that shift is also financial.

It's much cheaper to produce one website than it is to produce an 80-page colour paper every day, and, crucially, it delivers an extra revenue stream.

And if newspaper proprietors can convince their employees that there's this inexorable shift from print to online, then they're one step closer to convincing them that "smaller workforces and lower wages are the way of the future and you journos have to adapt". Pricks.

 

[grizzlym]

The sub-text of that shift is also financial.

It's much cheaper to produce one website than it is to produce an 80-page colour paper every day, and, crucially, it delivers an extra revenue stream.

And if newspaper proprietors can convince their employees that there's this inexorable shift from print to online, then they're one step closer to convincing them that "smaller workforces and lower wages are the way of the future and you journos have to adapt". Pricks.

You're right about the revenue stream. Almost daily, I'm seeing advertisers shifting their bucks from press to the online arena. And that's not just about publishing a 'press ad' online; advertising content is becoming much more integrated in the media product, resulting in the lines becoming increasingly blurred between pure journalistic product and 'revenue generating' material. The scenario that you described about publishing a story, and updating it as the facts become clear (or not) is eerily similar to the notion of fluid integrated media that marketers practise.

Interestingly, in the wash-up of the Terry Wallace affair, Craig Hutchison appeared on telly and said something along the lines of 'in all probability Teryy Wallace will get the sack imminently' . which I take to mean he wasn't wrong, but merely ahead of his time!

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

The scenario that you described about publishing a story, and updating it as the facts become clear (or not) is eerily similar to the notion of fluid integrated media that marketers practise.

Well put.

 

[grizzlym]

Hey, thanks for your reply. There are some interesting thoughts to ponder in that whole area.

 

[lizrene555]

Re: BF Media Watch: The Age, Realfooty and the standard of football journalism

Don't think there is a standard in Footy jouranalism it's a free for all, anyone can join, even us. Caro is the narcotics distributor of sleep inducing vitriol, much of it concocted in her head.

 

[Davo23]

Re: BF Media Watch: The Age, Realfooty and the standard of football journalism

Don't think there is a standard in Footy jouranalism it's a free for all, anyone can join, even us. Caro is the narcotics distributor of sleep inducing vitriol, much of it concocted in her head.

Ha ha, I love that phrase !


.

 

[Johnson#26]

Re: BF Media Watch: The Age, Realfooty and the standard of football journalism

Have a look at the HS' frontpage online right now. 'Footy at 4' will bring you, and I quote, 'The latest from the Kangaroos plus the rest of today's big footy news'.

'Big footy' news? Hmm.

 

[Turkey Tom]

5th quarter, Christian and Blight going on about Geelong having to travel to Freo in the last round. errr...better have another look at the fixture boys.

 

[Registered User]

Martin Pike and Finey were speculating a while ago about the prospects of Leigh Matthews coaching again, and Pikey said something like:

"But Leigh is pretty busy with those house he does ads for. Who are they? Delvine Homes?"

 

[PHX]

The MRP press release can't even spell Mark Coughlan's name right. As shown them by spelling it wrong twice.

Contact between Collingwood’s Alan Didak and Richmond’s Mark Coughlin from the second quarter of Saturday’s match was assessed. The contact was made to Coughlin’s back.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/82908/default.aspx

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

The MRP press release can't even spell Mark Coughlan's name right. As shown them by spelling it wrong twice.

Contact between Collingwood’s Alan Didak and Richmond’s Mark Coughlin from the second quarter of Saturday’s match was assessed. The contact was made to Coughlin’s back.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/82908/default.aspx

There should be an inquiry.

 

[PHX]

Lol, we aren't politicians. It's not that serious but it's a pretty basic thing to get a player's name right, especially in an official media release.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

Lol, we aren't politicians. It's not that serious but it's a pretty basic thing to get a player's name right, especially in an official media release.

But who really cares?