FFE - Media Watch

[grizzlym]

Good article on crikey today about the 'Terry Wallace sacking, non-sacking'.

http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/05/19...ay-how-the-media-botched-a-tiger-non-sacking/

 

[DivideandMultiply]

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

and it suggests a misunderstanding of what actually constitutes bad journalism.

He is accusing the press of fibbing - of publishing a deliberate fabrication.

In this instance, that is a ridiculous charge to make.

As far as I was aware Gunnar the OP was supposed to be over the top as it was tongue in cheek.

Actually knowing PBN's intentions in this case you were way out of line with your criticism of him, as his intentions actually were to create a partially humorous or over the top thread, with both funny mistakes and serious examples.

The OP is the former. Get off your high horse buddy. As far as I know the caption is fabricated, whether deliberately or not (the score is not the only thing wrong with the caption) and once again the OP was not entirely serious, so sorry if it does not fit your criteria of "bad journalism" because I don't think that matters.

BTW fact checking is a very important part of journalism and the editorial process Gunnar, especially since these people are supposed to be relative "experts" and the news is primarily facts based. Whether all the errors in the piece were from data entry errors or otherwise, it is disappointing that the author did not have enough knowledge to pick some of them up.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

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

Actually knowing PBN's intentions in this case you were way out of line with your criticism of him, as his intentions actually were to create a partially humorous or over the top thread, with both funny mistakes and serious examples.

He is accusing the press of fibbing/making stuff up.

That is a ridiculous charge to make in this instance.

The example posted is one of a trifling production oversight. To cast that as "bad journalism" or as a journo "making stuff up" would be woefully overblown.

Get off your high horse buddy.

I'm disagreeing with another poster.

Deal with it.

As far as I know the caption is fabricated, whether deliberately or not (the score is not the only thing wrong with the caption).

What do you mean by "fabricated"?

Don't you just mean inaccurate?

Why use a loaded term that implies the press are deliberately misleading their readers here?

They're not. They made a mistake in entering the teams' scores, and that error was reproduced further down.

sorry if it does not fit your criteria of "bad journalism" because I don't think that matters.

Feel free to attack my criteria of bad journalism.

You're out of your depth on this issue.

BTW fact checking is a very important part of journalism and the editorial process Gunnar, especially since these people are supposed to be relative "experts" and the news is primarily facts based. Whether all the errors in the piece were from data entry errors or otherwise, it is disappointing that the author did not have enough knowledge to pick some of them up.

Thanks for the crash course, champ.

Do you expect the author to know off the top of his head that St Kilda actually lost that match?

Once again, it's a data entry error. Big deal.

You guys are just so desperate to bash the press that you'll seize on bullshit like this.

It's a joke, and it suggests you understand neither the production process nor the difference between inconsequential human error and real examples of bad journalism.

 

[DivideandMultiply]

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

He is accusing the press of fibbing/making stuff up.

Don't you just mean inaccurate?

Why use a loaded term that implies the press are deliberately misleading their readers here?

They're not. They made a mistake in entering the teams scores, and that error was reproduced further down.

Feel free to attack my criteria of bad journalism.

You're out of your depth on this issue.

Bwahahahahaha dude nobody cares about your pissing contests.

I will repeat one last time, the OP was not completely serious!

ZOMG he said outrageous things because, guess what, that was the intention.

Even if the claim of fabrication was 100% serious, it is correct. The negative connotations you assign to the word, or the mysterious thought process of the OP in his use are irrelevant. They made it up. Not just the 17 point win. The context for the caption was also wrong.

Even now knowing that the OP was tongue in cheek you can not back down on your criticisms and continue to treat it like something it wasn't. All for your own gratification.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

Good article on crikey today about the 'Terry Wallace sacking, non-sacking'.

http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/05/19...ay-how-the-media-botched-a-tiger-non-sacking/

Yeah - I'd be interested to hear how the Hun screwed that up.

Sounds like they got a hot tip that turned out to be bogus.

They went early, and it ended badly for them.

 

[the ranger]

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

Getting the basic facts wrong counts as bad journalism. And what is the point of a caption if the writer just looks at the picture, then looks at the score and then makes a guess at what was happening when the picture was taken?

 

[the ranger]

Yeah - I'd be interested to hear how the Hun screwed that up.

Sounds like they got a hot tip that turned out to be bogus.

They went early, and it ended badly for them.

Except it didn't end badly because almost every other media outlet just assumed it was another stuff up by that basket case Richmond and hasn't questioned how the matter came to be falsely reported in the first place.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

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

Even if the claim of fabrication was 100% serious, it is correct.

Well, every caption is fabricated. Every caption is made up, in that someone writes it from scratch.

If that's all you're saying, it's a meaningless statement.

They made it up. Not just the 17 point win. The context for the caption was also wrong.

Again, of course they made it up. They wrote it from scratch. What do you expect them to do?

Apart from the result, how was the context wrong?

Because he had given away a free and that wasn't specifically mentioned?

Instead, they just said he was "excited".

I have no problem with that. It could have been phrased less tritely, but I wouldn't expect the caption to explain the specific circumstances of that photo.

Even now knowing that the OP was tongue in cheek you can not back down on your criticisms and continue to treat it like something it wasn't. All for your own gratification.

I'm treating it like a poorly conceived potshot at the press.

 

[grizzlym]

Yeah - I'd be interested to hear how the Hun screwed that up.

Sounds like they got a hot tip that turned out to be bogus.

They went early, and it ended badly for them.

Who knows?
Amusing seeing the stories from various media outlets on google news this morning, each with a different take on the situation. The only thing i will say is 'only at Richmond'.

 

[the ranger]

Who knows?
Amusing seeing the stories from various media outlets on google news this morning, each with a different take on the situation. The only thing i will say is 'only at Richmond'.

More like 'only about Richmond'.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

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

Getting the basic facts wrong counts as bad journalism.

It depends on the facts in question, doesn't it?

If you wrote an article naming Kevin Rudd as the Treasurer, then yes - bad journalism. It would destroy your credibility, because it suggests you don't know who Kevin Rudd is.

But in this instance, we are talking about an error in data entry. We are talking about a production oversight. We are talking about mistakenly getting West Coast's score mixed up with St. Kilda's and vice versa. It's trifling.

If you want to talk about bad journalism, this is a non-starter.

And what is the point of a caption if the writer just looks at the picture, then looks at the score and then makes a guess at what was happening when the picture was taken?

The point of the caption, primarily, is to identify the people featured in the picture. Goddard is correctly identified, so it's served its main purpose.

Do you actually expect the writer to go back and find out exactly what was happening in the game leading up to that picture?

How would he find out that Goddard was reacting to giving away a free kick?

Do you want him to go back and watch the entire game just to include that extra information in the caption?

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

Who knows?
Amusing seeing the stories from various media outlets on google news this morning, each with a different take on the situation. The only thing i will say is 'only at Richmond'.

I think it's more a reflection on the Hun than on Richmond.

 

[DivideandMultiply]

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

Well, every caption is fabricated. Every caption is made up, in that someone writes it from scratch.

If that's all you're saying, it's a meaningless statement.

Again, of course they made it up. They wrote it from scratch. What do you expect them to do?

Apart from the result, how was the context wrong?

Because he had given away a free and that wasn't specifically mentioned?

Instead, they just said he was "excited".

I have no problem with that. It could have been phrased less tritely, but I wouldn't expect the caption to explain the specific circumstances of that photo.

I'm treating it like a poorly conceived potshot at the press.

Nonsense.

The caption said Goddard was excited during a 17 point win.

He clearly wasn't. He was frustrated about a free.

With all your inferences I will add one of my own, that the implication is he is celebrating in an exciting 17 point win. That is one interpretation and one I think that is fairly fitting. They have picked a photo and just randomly assigned a caption and a context based on incorrect information without actually knowing what was happening in the picture. I don't think you will find many people that will agree with you that that is not poor journalism.

And sorry I have to clarify again to his egomaniacal majesty, but I actually in this case know for a fact it wasn't an "ill conceived potshot", but a tongue in cheek and slightly silly OP.

 

[the ranger]

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

Do you want him to go back and watch the entire game just to include that extra information in the caption?

People here recognised when the picture had been taken. They are getting paid to report about the football and often have less idea than the people they are supposed to be reporting to.

It's not a major crime or anything, just an example of how these people are getting paid to do a job thousands of football fans could do equally well or better.

 

[DivideandMultiply]

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

It depends on the facts in question, doesn't it?

If you wrote an article naming Kevin Rudd as the Treasurer, then yes - bad journalism. It would destroy your credibility, because it suggests you don't know who Kevin Rudd is.

But in this instance, we are talking about an error in data entry. We are talking about a production oversight. We are talking about mistakenly getting West Coast's score mixed up with St. Kilda's and vice versa. It's trifling.

If you want to talk about bad journalism, this is a non-starter.

Actually within the context of a sports preview, namely between the two teams it is not trifling at all.

It shows not only a lack of knowledge on the part of the writer/editor, but sets the entirely wrong context for the preview and makes it seem silly.

The original errors may be "simple oversight", but they then tarnish the quality and relevance of the whole preview.

And how do you know it was just an issue with data entry?

 

[grizzlym]

I think it's more a reflection on the Hun than on Richmond.

Undoubtedly. Extremely embarrassing for the little paper.
I just can't imagine it happening at another club - so badly handled.
Total disarray.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

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

Nonsense.

The caption said Goddard was excited during a 17 point win.

He clearly wasn't. He was frustrated about a free.

How do you expect the person to know he's frustrated about a free kick?

And certainly, if you didn't know that that was definitely what had happened, it would be bad practice to make the assumption he had given away a free and write a caption reflecting that.

That would be a sin of admission, rather than a lesser sin of omission.

Hence, merely describing him as "excited" is a perfectly reasonable, if trite, way to cover your bases.

They have picked a photo and just randomly assigned a caption and a context based on incorrect information without actually knowing what was happening in the picture.

How do you expect them to know what's going on in the picture? How do you expect them to know he's frustrated at giving away a free kick?

Do you want them to assume? Or guess?

Or should they go back and watch the entire game to find out?

They assigned a caption to identify a player - that's the most important thing. And then, for colour, they described him as "excited". That's fair enough, given they couldn't be sure of the circumstances.

And then, unfortunately, they've reproduced the incorrect result mentioned earlier in the text. It's the same data entry error, reproduced elsewhere on the page.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

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

People here recognised when the picture had been taken. They are getting paid to report about the football and often have less idea than the people they are supposed to be reporting to.

So you think that whoever was captioning the photo should have known off the top of his head that Goddard was reacting to a free kick.

Not just assumed, but known.

I think that's unrealistic.

It's not a major crime or anything, just an example of how these people are getting paid to do a job thousands of football fans could do equally well or better.

Well, I think that's a stretch.

Certainly, the example in question does not prove that.

And I think your comment is part of a pattern on these boards.

People like to think they know everything about what a journalist's job entails. That's reflected by your claim that thousands of people could do it as well or better.

Why do you assume you know so much about what that job requires?

Do you know as much about what other jobs require?

Why does journalism stand out as the profession that non-journalists think they know everything about?

 

[DivideandMultiply]

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

How do you expect the person to know he's frustrated about a free kick?

And certainly, if you didn't know that that was definitely what had happened, it would be bad practice to make the assumption he had given away a free and write a caption reflecting that.

That would be a sin of admission, rather than a lesser sin of omission.

Hence, merely describing him as "excited" is a perfectly reasonable, if trite, way to cover your bases.

How do you expect them to know what's going on in the picture? How do you expect them to know he's frustrated at giving away a free kick?

Do you want them to assume? Or guess?

Or should they go back and watch the entire game to find out?

They assigned a caption to identify a player - that's the most important thing. And then, for colour, they described him as "excited". That's fair enough, given they couldn't be sure of the circumstances.

And then, unfortunately, they've reproduced the incorrect result mentioned earlier in the text. It's the same data entry error, reproduced elsewhere on the page.

Mostly irrelevant.

And it would help if they had watched the game. Several posters recognised the moment and if they did not then pic a picture they can correctly caption.

Laziness or lack of care about accuracy of content is still poor journalism Gunnar.

More importantly it is a match preview. The main point of which is to supply background facts then opinion based on those facts as a preview of the match. With completely inaccurate information (especially the win loss ratio), they have failed to do this which potentially nullifies the credibility of the opinion, therefore the article has become a farce.

Whether it is cutting edge/important journalism or not, the article failed dismally at fulfilling it's rather simple purpose. How can that not be considered bad or poor journalism?

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

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

Actually within the context of a sports preview, namely between the two teams it is not trifling at all.

It shows not only a lack of knowledge on the part of the writer/editor, but sets the entirely wrong context for the preview and makes it seem silly.

The original errors may be "simple oversight", but they then tarnish the quality and relevance of the whole preview.

This is a bit rich.

A lack of knowledge?

Surely you don't expect these guys to know, off the top of their heads, who beat who in every game last year.

And setting "the entirely wrong context"? Tarnishing "the quality and relevance of the whole preview"?

Please - that's bullshit. The preview of the upcoming game is still viable. The fact that they've screwed up the result of the last meeting hardly spoils the rest of the copy. That's an absurd suggestion. Overblown.

And how do you know it was just an issue with data entry?

Because that's how they'd put it together.

They'd have a list of previous results sitting next to them, either on paper or online, and they'd be entering them into the relevant section of the preview.

And they've got the scores around the wrong way.

What else would it be, other than an error in data entry?

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

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

Mostly irrelevant.

And it would help if they had watched the game. Several posters recognised the moment and if they did not then pic a picture they can correctly caption.

Do you mean watched the game live in 2008?

Or gone back and watched the game in 2009 just to check what was happening in that picture?

You're either suggesting that they should watch every game and then recall all the details the following season, or that they should spend a couple of hours researching a caption.

Both suggestions are unrealistic.

Laziness or lack of care about accuracy of content is still poor journalism Gunnar.

Well, I think in this instance it's a superficial mistake down entirely to human error.

Any suggestion that there's a fabrication involved, or fibbing, or an intent to mislead - that's just bullshit.

And if you want to talk about bad journalism - which is totally worthwhile - this is a frivolous example that trivilialises the real thing, and just smacks of people wanting an easy way to bash the press.

More importantly it is a match preview. The main point of which is to supply background facts then opinion based on those facts as a preview of the match. With completely inaccurate information (especially the win loss ratio), they have failed to do this which potentially nullifies the credibility of the opinion, therefore the article has become a farce.

Gross overstatement.

Presumably, the preview then includes 200 words of analysis and comment. That's what matters. The fact that the result of the last meeting is botched is trifling.

Whether it is cutting edge/important journalism or not, the article failed dismally at fulfilling it's rather simple purpose. How can that not be considered bad or poor journalism?

Again, I would say that the analysis and comment that followed is what determines whether the piece is worth reading or not.

An inaccuracy in the result of the last meeting is a sloppy oversight, but does not invalidate the entire piece.

 

[the ranger]

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

Why does journalism stand out as the profession that non-journalists think they know everything about?

Because we can see the end result of their work and if it is factually wrong or just rehashes what most people already know then it is useless. Many people have the ability to put a few coherent paragraphs together, it's not that rare of a skill. They are getting paid because they are supposed to have insight that the average person doesn't have or they are supposed to have researched the issue they are writing about thoroughly. Many in the football media consistently fail on both these points.

Given the access that they have to people involved in the sport, statistical and historical archives etc., they should be capable of producing articles that are informative or thought-provoking for their readership. There are probably 50 people right here on Big Footy who consistently manage to do that without the advantage of being a full-time professional journalist.

A large percentage of the football media are egotistical clowns, regularly displaying bias to or against certain clubs and often getting the basic facts wrong.

 

[DivideandMultiply]

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

This is a bit rich.

A lack of knowledge?

Surely you don't expect these guys to know, off the top of their heads, who beat who in every game last year.

And setting "the entirely wrong context"? Tarnishing "the quality and relevance of the whole preview"?

Please - that's bullshit. The preview of the upcoming game is still viable. The fact that they've screwed up the result of the last meeting hardly spoils the rest of the copy. That's an absurd suggestion. Overblown.

So you didn't scrutinise the OP properly?

That is no surprise Gunnar. They didn't just get score from the previous match wrong.

Hence why my comment is relevant. And they get paid to do this stuff Gunnar so they should have some idea and if they don't well why not check.

There are plenty of easy to access sources with match reviews and video highlights just to have some idea.

There is not much in the previews. Just two simple sections. One they failed dismally with,
hence it fails at being an accurate match preview.

I just re-checked the link (I had read and laughed at the original article a few times), they have updated the article, removed the pic, changed some of the info and removed the first paragraph talking about previous matches. So I can understand why you did not know what I was referring to when I said the content of the main text was also crap.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

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

Because we can see the end result of their work and if it is factually wrong or just rehashes what most people already know then it is useless.

You're suggesting that by reading a journalist's article, you know everything about what their job entails.

That's wide of the mark, my friend.

Many people have the ability to put a few coherent paragraphs together, it's not that rare of a skill.

News-writing isn't just about putting together a few coherent paragraphs. There is a particular style and economy of language that takes a while to get used to.

I would suggest to you that a random person of moderate intelligence, parachuted into a newsroom and asked to write a story, would find it harder than you're suggesting.

They are getting paid because they are supposed to have insight that the average person doesn't have or they are supposed to have researched the issue they are writing about thoroughly.

It's not just about insight - you're veering into talking about commentators like Robert Walls. I'm not talking about guys like him. He's a columnist, paid for his "expertise".

Real journalists have skills, you know? They don't just sit down and write a little essay about what they think this week.

There are news-gathering skills and skills related to producing that copy. You reckon Joe Bloggs could stroll into a newsroom and do that job no worries. Sorry, but you're wrong, and I think that this claim suggests you perhaps don't know as much about what journos do as you think.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

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

There is not much in the previews. Just two simple sections. One they failed dismally with, hence it fails at being an accurate match preview.

I just re-checked the link (I had read and laughed at the original article a few times), they have updated the article, removed the pic, changed some of the info and removed the first paragraph talking about previous matches. So I can understand why you did not know what I was referring to when I said the content of the main text was also crap.

It's sloppy - no doubt.

And it looks amateurish. I can understand why readers look at it and get irritated that these details are botched.

But I maintain that we're still talking about a data entry error. I don't accept that there's any deliberate fabrication, or fibbing, going on.

And I think the charge of "bad journalism" is a mischaracterisation.