Journalists' brains operate at a lower level than average

Post Reply New Topic

• Who are they?
• What are they doing?
• When do they do it?
• Where are they doing it?
• Why are their journalistic talents mostly unknown?

News entertainment to 'confirm' existing bias, got it

The fact that you are seriously asking these questions means you are not qualified to be in this conversation.

The fact that what Fnord did there went completely over your head makes the irony all the more delicious.

Please elaborate.

•Journalists
•Reporting
•All the time
•Everywhere (well, not so much North Korea and other such places)
•Because of our overfixation on cable news, ononline echo chambers, on news as it is presented on social media, on pundits and talking points getting regurgitated every hour ad nauseum, and our continuous consumption of news meant to outrage rather than inform.

Don't like the journalists you've been reading? Find new ones. There are thousands of news sources out there. Do not lump all journalists together with the Yellow Journalists and Paparazzos. It undermines the public's perception of journalism as a whole.

I'm not naive enough to limit myself to a few crap sources, and I do not throw journalists under the bus just because their superiors are more concerned with ratings and outrage.

Ironically, As Usual, Click Bait Title And Poor Journalism
Per that Measure of Reaching A Target Audience For
Money; Want Better Journalism; Don't Do It For A
Profit; As That Means Hyperbole, Appealing to
Emotion For the Big Sell For Target Audiences.

Quote in the Summary Portion of the Article for those who actually clicked on the link...

It (All of This) Reflects More on the Downfalls/Pitfalls of Capitalism (The Money Pit God) Still coming again...

Selfishness, Greed, And All the Other Instant Gratification Stuff of Humans Out of Balance....

Hmm ... short on facts ... long on opinion ... not much of a reporter ... no wonder you defend journalists!

I think the majority of journalists are honest, hardworking, professional people, and the fact that you’re crapping on an entire field based on a subset is really disappointing. I do have a theory that some journalists who work for larger, more popular outlets have less integrity because they might have had to use questionable tactics to get to their current highly desired positions instead of using pure skills. I believe most of the true, honorable journalists work for smaller publications, which are unfortunately dying off.

Look over each of those questions. Asking for facts to back up Rorona's claims is the basis of good reporting.

Stating opinions and provoking reactions are the basis of poor journalism.

THAT is the irony -- demonstrating the "5 W's", and receiving only snark in return shows that few people even understand the concept of good reporting.

Is that clear enough for you?

I am sure that most journalists believe they are honest, hardworking, professional people; but I do not see it.  So far, I have asked for examples and received none.

Not a single one.

Failure to refute the message does not give you license to attack the messenger.Okay, I can agree with this, as a general concept; but why should those journalists who have compromised their integrity be the only ones who become famous?  Why do the ones who maintain their integrity remain obscure?  (See two exceptions, below.)  What is it about sticking to the facts and leaving personal opinions and agendas out of the story that makes good journalism so very, very rare?

Just so you know, as far as I am concerned, the last really great journalist of equally great integrity was Edward R. Murrow (1906-1965), for whom the highest journalism award is named.  Walter Cronkite (1916-2009) comes in as a close second.

I thought I was getting snark so I responded with snark.
What am I supposed to do, provide evidence that there exist journalists who aren't politically-motivated, unintelligent, self-important sensationalists? It seems more ridiculous to me to suggest that all journalists are a bunch of hacks.

All I'm claiming is that an entire profession should not be tossed under the bus just because of this inane study about journalists' "intelligence", or because of a small number of high-visibility pundits and editors who turn the news cycle into a three ring circus for the sake of ratings. People who lump all journalists together with those schmucks just seem to me like they only check a limited number of news outlets. The majority of journalists are hard-working, honest people who chose that career path because they wanted to help people be informed. Many of them risk imprisonment or death to help people be better informed.

Want less editorializing and more strictly fact-based reporting? There's no shortage of outlets. Reuters, Associated Press, Forbes, the Economist, BBC, etc. are heavier on facts and lighter on opinion than those clowns at CNN, Fox, and MSNBC. Cast a wider net. Direct that cynicism away from the rank-and-file reporters out in the trenches every day and redirect it towards the smug pundits, meddling executives, and firebrand editors.