Hey everyone. If you want to post links or discuss the Reddit blackout, please localize it to this thread in order to keep things tidy!

  •  Thorned Rose   ( @Thorned_Rose@beehaw.org ) 
    28•1 year ago

    I’ve noticed this a lot about mainstream reporting - seems to give more voice to corporates than anyone else.

    I’ve read a number of articles on the protest over the past few days and not a single of them really explained all the issues well.

    •  The Cuuuuube   ( @Cube6392@beehaw.org ) 
      26•1 year ago
      1. Journalists are often outsiders to these disputes and a full nuanced description of the situation requires more time than it takes to be the first reporter with the scoop in a world where news outlets pay more for news to be newest than news to be most accurate
      2. News outlets are big corporations and will often be favorable to corporations
      3. Corporations usually give very simple canned statements that are very east to parse and publish while dispersed groups such as unions, protestors, and online forum members have much less centralized narrative and can have a litany of different reasons for sharing a similar stance
      •  CanadaPlus   ( @CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org ) 
        15•1 year ago

        I’ve experienced 1 first-hand. They call you and leave a voicemail. If you don’t respond within 24 hours they’re going to publish anyway and probably get a lot of things wrong.

        I hear PR companies will basically write for the journalists on request, and sometimes journalists will take it just to get ahead.

      •  Pete Hahnloser   ( @Powderhorn@beehaw.org ) 
        9•1 year ago

        Corporate journalism has its own special place in hell for me. After all the creativity was removed from rather central editing functions, I set about automating what was left at a hub and got shown the door when the efficiencies started to threaten justifying salaried positions.

    •  Pete Hahnloser   ( @Powderhorn@beehaw.org ) 
      2•1 year ago

      I can chalk a lot of that up to the presumed reader knowledge in the Times style guide simplifying things tremendously. I mean, who knows if anyone uses those anymore …

      It’s just really glaring to have a quote with a claim that’s not easy to immediately verify as a reporter (1/xth the efficiency, per [source 1] / [source 2]) with the creator of the app quoted earlier but not used here. I would be livid if that made it to the desk.