OnPoint: H4x0rs and You
213 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 9 Newer→ Last
-
James George, in reply to
Here we go again. How can I ever explain to those who would rather disagree than consider it possible to simultaneously retain multiple points of view, that hyperbole is a communication style, not a crime.
Incidentally while we're using sports metaphors; how about 'third person in' or whatever the term is for the others who join in a dust up on the paddock? It's rather unsporting this mob targeting eh. Just as well we're all thick skinned.Still if the wowsers get their way and some sort of 'anti-cyber-bullying' legislation is rammed through parliament (quick nod to NZ's MSM whose determination for regulation of cyber-space is reflected in today's beat up about a cancer survivor being 'cyber-bullied' by a reality TV personage) group mauls of itinerant commenters will be outlawed.
I know I am I not the only human disgusted at the ease with which MSM reduces the character of any person in their sights to a handful of black or white cliches.
Yet here we are arguing the toss over the polite name to call a veteran reporter who behaved appallingly towards another human to further an uninformative and
worthless angle on a story.
How can I bitch about something you'll prolly claim I do myself?
What I posted was an opinion, a remark whose significance is a function of however much weight an individual reader places upon my opinions. The weight of an
institutional media outlet doesn't convert a blog poster's opinion into a universal truth, or 'fact' - unlike the way the story was presented of a security consultant 'outed' as a hacker.
It sounds (to me) rather hollow to claim of having never heard journalists
indulge in their macho-bullshit banter about 'deathknocks', door-stepping & who scooped who, how.
Many of these reporters just don't understand how cynical and ultimately
destructive for their industry their actions are.
Another time the same self serving & exploitative dirtbags will claim their work is buttressing the 'last bastion of democracy'.
Yeah right - pull the other one, we're talking about a mob who knowingly publish
alleged 'leaks' fed to them by politicians.
Often the sources' exposure would be a
bigger story than the self interested smear which the journalist so earnestly rewords.
What I posted was far less vitriolic than the line I considered mid-week comparing Claire Trevett's leak of Keith Ng's source in detail (a 'source' previously unknown to most readers) while protecting her own source (whose identity may be a public figure, if not that, at least a public servant .: public interest) with the Karl Rove managed 'leak' that was the last straw which destroyed the career/credibility of New York Times journalist Judith Miller.Maybe someone else has run that comparison. Regardless, this namby-pamby critiquing of serious flaws in NZ's MSM is only serving to promulgate the
sickness stemming outta too few journos crowded into too small a space, tip-toeing around each other's failings while they deceitfully lambast outsiders.Yes, I will cast aspersions on a human who pulls the type of stroke that this
lowlife pulled on Keith Ng.
I know neither personally - just their work & from judging them in the light of
their work, IMO considering that particular journalist to be a duplicitous scumbag is pretty mild.It seems to me, in extreme cases journalism is like law enforcementism, a type of definable personality disorder. Perhaps another time when the sun isn't shining so brightly or spring in the air, I'll try to explain this.
(apologies 4 awful spacing a result of incorrect text editing) -
Marc C, in reply to
Russell - Of course I expressed an opinion, but it is also based on personal experiences with a number of "main stream" journalists I corresponded with and in some cases met personally. Then I may add my observation of how certain journalists have conducted interviews and gathered information at certain public events, including some protest actions.
The stories were often presented in a poor manner, interviews were cut so to present comments out of context, often raising eyebrows, facts are reported on selectively, and the list goes on.
Naturally there is a degree of internal evaluation of stories to broadcast or write about, which also results in self censorship, or in being forced follow the particular media employer's "standards" and "priorities", which editors enforce.
Looking at most the "news" presented, I miss real news about real issues facing real people, apart form road deaths, crime cases, weather stories, the inevitably high volume of sports, celeb gossip and what you have. Yes, there are of course reports on politics, but too little goes into matters of detail and substance, and sadly some is misrepresented, as was the report by Heather on One News the other day (re the supposed "hacker"), what this blog is about.
Yet, of course, some journalists are good, principled, take their jobs very serious and offer some good journalistic work.
So, with all respect, there is much left to be desired. I worry also about (former Media7) Media3 now perhaps facing some "pressure" from TV3, when it comes to content and critical issues. Maybe I am wrong, but you will know more about that.
-
Sacha, in reply to
judging them in the light of their work
Do point out for us the other stories that lead you to conclude this particular journo is a 'scumbag'. I'm comfortable forming opinions about people's character from a consistent pattern of behaviour. Just seeing more of yours than hers in this instance.
-
I find it interesting the comments about journalists, from those that don't appear to be journalists. Namely criticism of journos for doing their job when those commenting really don't have a clue about how journalists actually go about their job. Perhaps some of you could try going to work at 8:30am, coming up with a story idea, writing the story and having 500 words done by 10am by which time you are working on the next story,.
-
Does the Maggie Barry rule of parliamentary commentary now apply to media criticism?
-
andin, in reply to
Nah, their just talking past each other. Funny tho' your comment.
-
Caleb D'Anvers, in reply to
Perhaps some of you could try going to work at 8:30am, coming up with a story idea, writing the story and having 500 words done by 10am by which time you are working on the next story
There's an old adage about a military commander at an isolated base. Headquarters contact him, saying they're sending a new junior officer up the line to join his detachment. The commander writes back: "Send me someone intelligent and energetic. Failing that, send me someone intelligent and lazy. Hell, send me someone who's stupid and lazy. But whatever you do, DON'T send me someone who's stupid and energetic."
I'm not saying journalists are stupid. At all. What I am saying is that the writing and information gathering practices you describe are both "stupid" and "energetic," if the purpose of journalism is the transmission of accurate information. Because this sounds like a series of working norms that will produce, almost by design, superficial, inaccurate, and poorly analysed "stories" that just happen to perpetuate the interests of the already powerful.
I'm to some extent a professional writer myself (though in a different context). There is no way in hell I would think that something 500 words long written in 90 minutes was in any way ready for publication. You can't provide any form of analysis or contextualizing in 500 words. And you can't expect to say anything accurate or informed with those time constraints, either. Why do journalists think they're exempt from the basic rules that govern the lives of other writers and information professionals?
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
I’m to some extent a professional writer myself (though in a different context). There is no way in hell I would think that something 500 words long written in 90 minutes was in any way ready for publication. You can’t provide any form of analysis or contextualizing in 500 words. And you can’t expect to say anything accurate or informed with those time constraints, either. Why do journalists think they’re exempt from the basic rules that govern the lives of other writers and information professionals?
Probably because we don’t work in a fantasy world where news stories are 2000 words long and there are no deadlines.
A good part of the skill of broadcast journalism in particular lies in economy.
-
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
Clocking out...
...this sounds like a series of working norms that will produce, almost by design, superficial, inaccurate, and poorly analysed “stories” that just happen to perpetuate the interests of the already powerful.
<reminiscences, early 21st century>
I remember it was raining
that Labour Day they cracked
the Great Game's DNA...
Bucketing down,
sluicing away the webs,
veils and screens...
We were a torrent of bits
acting as one -
pooling our resources,
eddies not snarls,
going with the flow,
putting the luv
in diluvial...</reminiscences, early 21st century>
YMMV
} ; - ) -
Different skills; different expectations. But it's worth asking what flaws and limitations the "economy" of broadcasting imposes on journalistic writing.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Different skills; different expectations. But it’s worth asking what flaws and limitations the “economy” of broadcasting imposes on journalistic writing.
That's a different issue, but yes. There are all kinds of structural factors that compromise journalism. But economy and timeliness are usually key skills of the job.
-
Megan Wegan, in reply to
Different skills; different expectations. But it’s worth asking what flaws and limitations the “economy” of broadcasting imposes on journalistic writing.
Ideally, none. If it’s being done right. A 50 second story (for radio broadcast) is about 150 words long. A three minute piece is about 1000. (Including the audio for both.) So, of course there are things that are going to be left out, but that’s editorial judgement, on the part of both a reporter and an editor. (And one of the key reasons there’s both.)
Russell is right. Writing for broadcast is hard, but being able to file to deadline, and write within those strictures is a pretty important part of the job.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Russell is right. Writing for broadcast is hard, but being able to file to deadline, and write within those strictures is a pretty important part of the job.
I learned soon enough that I couldn’t write myself two-minute speeches in the middle of TV (and radio) scripts. It’s quite a skill to convey the point in fewer words.
A three minute piece is about 1000.
I’m assuming that’s an error. 333wpm is quite hard to keep up for three minutes :-)
-
Megan Wegan, in reply to
I learned soon enough that I couldn’t write myself two-minute speeches in the middle of TV (and radio) scripts. It’s quite a skill to convey the point in fewer words.
And something I am pretty appalling at when I am writing here. Twitter helps.
I’m assuming that’s an error. 333wpm is quite hard to keep up for three minutes :-)
Journalists SUCK at maths. Didn't you know?
-
Ds,
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/7846531/Insecure-benefit-cards-slammed
Serious questions have now been raised because the Pin for each card is the last four digits of the card number, which is imprinted on the front.
Bizarre!!!
-
Lew Stoddart, in reply to
There is no way in hell I would think that something 500 words long written in 90 minutes was in any way ready for publication. You can’t provide any form of analysis or contextualizing in 500 words. And you can’t expect to say anything accurate or informed with those time constraints, either.
According to physicists, bumblebees can't fly. And yet every day, oblivious to the theoretical laws under which they are impossible, millions of them get about and do just that.
And thank goodness they do, because if they didn't, we wouldn't have any tomatoes. Maybe not always perfect organic vine-ripened heirloom tomatoes, but the tomatoes we have are better than no tomatoes.
L
-
Dean Papa, in reply to
old (or should that be perpetual?) news
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/music/news/article.cfm?c_id=264&objectid=10769305
-
Matthew Poole, in reply to
I'm in lust. She correctly calls then "personal identification number(s)" and "Pin(s)", never "Pin numbers". It's tempered by her never capitalising the full acronym as PIN, which gets a bit confusing, but maybe that's this new-fangled English that breaks so many of the rules with which I was raised.
-
Sacha, in reply to
A good part of the skill of broadcast journalism in particular lies in economy
Wish I had more of it
-
Sacha, in reply to
Twitter helps
+1
-
Sacha, in reply to
never capitalising the full acronym
That 'rule' annoys me. Anyone know where it came from?
-
Emma Hart, in reply to
maybe that's this new-fangled English that breaks so many of the rules with which I was raised.
Fortunately, as I was saying to my partner during a rugby commentary the other day, English has lots of hit-points, and regenerates.
-
Lilith __, in reply to
James George, Marc C: If you're going to criticise journalists, can you give examples, preferably with links? This generalised trashing seems very rude to our hosts here (who are journalists) and also completely unproven. You would establish your point better by naming names and places and circumstances.
If your argument is that because of deadlines, journos can't possibly do a proper job, what would you suggest be done about it? Without deadlines, there would be no news coverage.
-
Chris Waugh, in reply to
It’s tempered by her never capitalising the full acronym as PIN
Quick! Somebody phone 'Académie francaise and complain about the creeping frenchification of English!
-
A few random pre-caffeination thots on journalism:
Aren't the longer, more analytical pieces supposed to be for weeklies and montlies? Aren't our daily newspapers and radio and TV supposed to just keep us up to date with developments?
In Russell's interview with John Campbell I was quite impressed with Campbell's talk of how they often follow up stories later.
How are journalists trained these days? Is it an undergrad degree or diploma? Could the quality of journalism be improved if it were postgrad and would be journalists did a degree in something else first? Would journalists with a BSc do a better job of reporting science? I certainly get the impression that NZ's media would do a better job of reporting China if more NZ journos could speak and read Chinese, and I'm not at all suprised by all the talk on this thread of how the media does such a crap job of reporting their field of expertise.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.