I'd feel bad for them if they didn't do it to other people first.
I don't think your take is accurate. I'd be happy to talk it out.
You could probably go back and forth on whether the idea condescends to blue-collar workers. But the fact is, there wouldn't be these stories if the trend didn't exist and there wasn't a legitimate effort to make it happen before a reporter gave someone a call.
In what universe is journalism a blue-collar job?
Expensive, Pulitzer prize finalist journalists, a part of BuzzFeed News (BFN) are cut.
BuzzFeed (BF) contributors rightfully lament the loss of their co-workers.
The internet, including me apparently, reads about this from a variety of sources and most of us reach the wrong conclusion about who is who.
Since people jumped to the wrong conclusion about who is who and what actually happened people now spamming the more reputable side of BuzzFeed, who were laid off, with "learn to code"
I'm of two minds on this one. On the one hand I'm pretty confident there were at least a few legitimate journalists let go in the recent wave but boy oh boy is is hard to have sympathy for the content farmers that got the cut.
> Last week, more than 1,000 jobs were eliminated at publishers including BuzzFeed and Verizon-owned Yahoo/AOL.
I'm trying to think of the last time I intentionally sought out and consumed content from either of those two outlets. It's unfortunate that they were let go but I'm consistently surprised that BuzzFeed hasn't imploded already. But this isn't an article lamenting fellow journalists and their struggles. It's about:
> The Meme Attacking Media
And that's where I call bullshit. Is this an attack? No idea, debate away. If it's 4Chan screwing around...eh maybe, I guess? I'm more inclined to believe this is people on this internet punching down at people who are now in bad circumstances. Someone found a more effective way to punch and it took off.
The thing that I call issue with is that this is "the media". Following some of the link chains we can see that:
> In 2018, Vox, Vanity Fair, Vice, GQ, Vogue, Teen Vogue, the New York Daily News, Good Media Group, Glamour, The Outline, Refinery29, and CNN experienced layoffs
Depending on politics and specific interests some will see outlets they care about in that list, some won't. But it seems like people aren't talking about the reporters laid off from Vanity Fair, The New York Daily News, or CNN. No we're getting BuzzFeed spam that have managed to turn their own demise into more bloody BuzzFeed spam. I'm not sure if I should be impressed or really mad.
I think you'd be hard pressed to find many people who could separate BuzzFeed from BuzzFeed News. Hell I'm actively looking for those distinctions now and it's more confusing than I would have expected.
I emphatically sympathize with the journalist who have been recently let go. However, I wish there were a better way to define the difference between a meme and a targeted attack. Maybe Twitter should think about banning political speech or be upfront and adapt club-penguin levels of moderation.
Consider the "Vax-Happened" meme. This is a funny meme that is a "targeted attack" on a specific group. Really, most political speech is an attempt at a targeted attack / meme. "Republicans only care about rich people", "Liberals want to take all of your money in taxes". "Bernie bros are aren't living in the real world".
In terms of internet culture, this is hardly the first meme in poor taste designed to cause trouble. I think the point is setting the bar so low in terms of offense that to be offended seems more ridiculous. It's like when my 6 year old hones his annoyance to be so quiet that I can't hear in the front of the car, but the whispery weird noises cause his sister to squeal.
This new appropriation of "learn to code" is more personally insidious to me than other radicalized phrases and gestures. I like coding and hope everyone learns to code to some proficiency.
I don't, hopefully they all get fired.
The same media that just days before were busy firing up an online mob to harass a 16 year old child who had the audacity to wear a MAGA hat.
Why would anybody be 'anti-media' one wonders?
Obviously, in the era of internet journalism it's important to get stories out as fast as possible, but (it seems to me) the incentive for getting out stories quickly that are likely to trigger outrage is pretty high.
This particular example is rather salient because it is recent,the evidence of false reporting is fairly clear, and because the cost to the victims of this journalistic malfeasance is fairly high.
That's why I drew that comparison. But yes there's possibly better examples.
> a MAGA hat [used to] implicitly express, a vicious hatred of liberals
Come on. It's a campaign item that represents support for a President that 45% of the country voted for. If you see it as a hate symbol you're projecting your own meaning on to it.
Hyper-sensitivity to criticism of the media strikes me as misplaced. In an age where their content sits in every curated above-the-fold screen, who watches the watchmen?
I suspect that this happened leading up to the layoffs only heightened people's interests in seeing the journalists get a taste of their own medicine.
2. The reporters wrote the stories based on actual events. None of these pieces are "takes" recommending this. They are reported-out stories.
3. They didn't start the initiatives that led to the stories. If you've got a problem with it, go criticize the people that started these initiatives to assist these communities.
4. There are also initiatives to bring journalists into these areas to better report on them. https://thegroundtruthproject.org/call-applications-appalach...
It’s like reading about teens that built apps.