Sign up FAST! Login

Forget Lehrer and Zakaria—Most Online Journalism Is Rotten to the Core | Observer

Stashed in: Blogs!, New Yorker, Pants on fire!

To save this post, select a stash from drop-down menu or type in a new one:


Rotten to the core?! That seems... harsh.

It's not that bad across the board, right?

I think the internet has really changed the field of journalism. To what degree, I'm not sure. And it's still changing.

Holiday's article might be hyperbole but he does have a rock solid point: Fact-checking and quality cannot keep pace with real-time, that's for certain. And more info means a scarcity of attention which reinforces the rumor/gossip/hype cycle to try and break through.

I'm not a doomsayer. There are tons and tons and tons of good things about the quick and universal spread of information. But I don't think we can deny that it's hurting accuracy, honesty and deeper thought. And we're all complicit.

"Fact-checking and quality cannot keep pace with real-time, that's for certain."

Which means that authority and being "a site of record" are differentiators, right?

One of the biggest problems is that the erosion is now extending to those "legit" sources as competition increases. Lehrer wrote for the New Yorker. Zakaria wrote for CNN.

I don't know how much more the average Joe is inclined to actively seek out site of record vs what is immediate and accessible. I think the now now now push means catchy headlines from any source rule the day.

Would love to hear other opinions on this.

I'd like to hear other opinions of this, too.

Because as long as NYT and WSJ are behind paywalls, by definition only people who can afford to pay will have access to "the papers of record".

thankfully the NYT allows links so everyone shares their articles for the rest of us.

You May Also Like: