Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Annnnd on the flip side are bad PR dudes pissing a journalist off by offering to ghost write and ending up on Jim Romanesko's blog: http://jimromenesko.com/2013/02/19/pr-mans-jaw-dropping-offe...

Having spent a year and a half developing software for journalists, I'm certain that there are some lazy, careless journalists, but there are a whole lot more overworked and underpaid journalists, some of whom may not have the savvy to know when they're being duped (some due to ignorance, some due to lack of experience, some due to lack of resources).

PG notes that they were paying their PR firm 16k$ a month. Take a moment to ask yourself how much you think the starting salary for a reporter is, and then follow the link below:

http://gawker.com/5829589/average-starting-journalist-pay-30...




> Having spent a year and a half developing software for journalists

That sounds interesting. What did you write?


I work on DocumentCloud at Investigative Reporters & Editors.

http://www.documentcloud.org http://github.com/documentcloud http://ire.org


Lazy and careless OR unpaid and overworked - what difference does that make to me as a critical reader of journalism?

What difference does that make to whether the Reuters puff-piece about Savile Row "bespoke" tailors is a submarine PR hit or not?


It makes a great deal of difference if you work in an industry that is built on trust.

Many reporters have been wrong, and the diligent amongst them will file retractions or corrections for their mistakes (and endeavor to make those mistakes few and far between).

That contrasts with someone like Jonah Lehrer who was both wrong and mendacious.

You can work and have your readers best interests in mind, and be wrong. You can't lie to your readers and have their best interest in mind.

Systematic bias within the media, especially when driven by the PR industry is a substantial problem that reporters and editors should contend with, but PG seats the blame almost entirely with journalists, and I think that's at least a little dishonest. There's a market here, and one side is constrained in its resources, human and financial, and the other side has oil companies, tech giants, and lobbyists funneling in billions of dollars.

All I'm saying is that as far as analyses go, "journalists are dishonest" may be a convenient narrative, but it's not a very useful or illuminating one (in fact, it sounds like it was written from the perspective of a PR shill :P ).




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: