Canadian COVID-19 News

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Thanks Dan.

Lets: The issue of bias is different than opinion passing as news. We are all biased; to be human is to be biased. We all approach the world from our own perspective, and we have no choice but to bring that to the job. But part of being a professional journalist is recognizing this fact. There are lots of techniques professional journalists employ to counter their own bias. That doesn't mean everyone gets it perfect all the time -- again, being human means being biased and flawed -- but journalists' intent is to present the facts as best they can ascertain.

Opinion makers approach questions and issues from a different direction. The better ones build their opinion and analysis from credible facts, but they are purposely presenting a personal perspective. They are not trying to be unbiased -- quite the opposite.

There has always been space for commentary. From editorial to columnists, there's always been space for opinion. Indeed, the letters pages, or call-ins, or more recently the comments sections online, have always played a key role in any news source. But these sections used to be clearly, and purposely, separate from the news sections.

The problem is that commentary and opinion has completely bled into the news sections. I just pulled up the front page of the Globe & Mail. Five stories are "above the fold." Two of these are "opinion" pieces. But at least the Globe labels them as such. Many newspapers and broadcasters no longer bother to do even this. Online, in the world of Social Media (which is another oxymoron), separation and identification doesn't exist at all. And beyond this is the explicitly biased media outlets that more dominate the USA landscape -- much more than in Canada. Of course, like most things, we feel the effects here as well.

The problem, as I phrase it, is not so much that opinion journalism exists within the media landscape. The problem is that readers, listeners and viewers have a decreasing ability to identify news from opinion. This is no accident. The owners of media have spent the last few decades blurring the line, and diminishing the resources devoted to actual news. It's far cheaper and easier to put up a couple of talking heads representing "both side," than to do hard work of actually reporting on the issue.

Sure, we all have biases.

But I think you touched on the real truth in the last paragraph. I don't think journalists get rewarded for being objective, they get rewarded for readership, and this is from pushing the reader's buttons and getting their clicks.

Further, the publications work hard on labeling the articles (or news stories) with bombastic (and sometimes misleading) headlines. If they can make the consumer mad, they may not only click on the article but comment on it. And from the comments one sees, it's pretty clear that the consumers are sometimes just reading the headlines, not the stories themselves.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

Sure, we all have biases.

But I think you touched on the real truth in the last paragraph. I don't think journalists get rewarded for being objective, they get rewarded for readership, and this is from pushing the reader's buttons and getting their clicks.

Yes, I think we agree on this point. But the deeper reality is that most media are for-profit enterprises. They've learned how to maximize profit by giving people exactly what our views and our clicks tell owners we want. If we keep reading this crap, and clicking on the bait, then owners will get the clear message.

This is why my suggestion remains: Just Say No. Don't read the commentary. Don't click on the salacious headline. Don't listen to the babbler on the screen that pedals anger and suspicion.

If we all stopped taking the bait, the media landscape would change. All media, from venerable broadsheets to the Facebooks, want to maximize views and clicks.

As usual, the real problem is us. Which is why I mostly skip anything that sniffs of opinion. I don't want someone else to tell me what to think. Tell me what is, and then I'll figure out what to think.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

Sure, we all have biases.

But I think you touched on the real truth in the last paragraph. I don't think journalists get rewarded for being objective, they get rewarded for readership, and this is from pushing the reader's buttons and getting their clicks.

There are celebrity reporters and commentators who are known by name and have a "brand" and followers, but most journalists work in the shadows. Likewise there are publications that intend to be button-pushers, and those with more integrity.

Further, the publications work hard on labeling the articles (or news stories) with bombastic (and sometimes misleading) headlines. If they can make the consumer mad, they may not only click on the article but comment on it. And from the comments one sees, it's pretty clear that the consumers are sometimes just reading the headlines, not the stories themselves.

That's too broad to be useful or accurate. (and again seems rather US-centric, where competition is key to survival). Newspapers have often had an editorial bias since Gutenberg. But publications/broadcasters also have varying levels of integrity. In fact, the "brand" of some publications is their reputation for honest and accurate reporting.

The big problem in the US these days is that "the MSM" has unfairly but successfully been tarred as liberal-biased, and this is used to justify the existence of right-wing outlets that are unapologetically and deliberately biased. (And yes this has spurred the creation of overtly left-biased outlets too). But generalizing to "All media are biased, they're all just going for the clicks, they have an agenda" is not true nor accurate. It's projection; it's partisans trying to drag all media down to their level.

The useful thing about a properly arms-length-funded state broadcaster is that they usually set the bar higher. Accuracy in their reporting is more important than generating outrage or clicks. In Canada, major outlets have to measure up to the CBC in reporting, and this produces a higher overall level of journalism. IMHO.

[Zippee]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

Sure, we all have biases.

But I think you touched on the real truth in the last paragraph. I don't think journalists get rewarded for being objective, they get rewarded for readership, and this is from pushing the reader's buttons and getting their clicks.

Further, the publications work hard on labeling the articles (or news stories) with bombastic (and sometimes misleading) headlines. If they can make the consumer mad, they may not only click on the article but comment on it. And from the comments one sees, it's pretty clear that the consumers are sometimes just reading the headlines, not the stories themselves.

Amazing post that will save your life!



Yes!! Absolutely. Most of us no longer live in the days where you might subscribe to the Sunday NYT and need the rest of the week to read it. Electronic media - plus a great loss of small newspapers, or incorporation into tightly controlled national ownership - add to that the tendency to extremely short posts...


Well... we've gotten to the point where the click-bait headlines have become a very short version of the already short article - and yup, you no longer have to actually click. I used to work in print, and this is FAR different than it was - where you actually had to - heaven forbid - actually read the longer, full article.


No more. It's news by click-bait headlines. And far, far too many people accept those headlines as real or actual news.

[Macblaze]

Originally Posted by Zippee

Well... we've gotten to the point where the click-bait headlines have become a very short version of the already short article - and yup, you no longer have to actually click. I used to work in print, and this is FAR different than it was - where you actually had to - heaven forbid - actually read the longer, full article.

Actually, as far as I know, we have gotten to the point where click-bait headlines are contracted out and often fail to reflect the content of the actual article. (I can't find a source for this but it was told to me by a journalism instructor so...) It seems a lot like a book-cover artist who doesn't read the book. I see this a lot on the CBC website where the headlines can often mislead the potential reader into thinking something is true when in fact, and stated explicitly within the article, it is not.

Makes me crazy knowing many people don't get past the headline...

[Mike OReilly]

On the observation around headlines ... it has ALWAYS been true. The vast majority of readers NEVER read the whole article. The vast majority of any readership scans the headlines. Then, if that grabs their interest, they might read the first paragraph, maybe the second. It is the rare reader that makes it past graf five. And you have to be really engaged to read the entire article.

This is why basic news is written in an inverted style, where the most important stuff gets into the lede and bridge. After that, it's usually just detail (for a basic news story).

A headline is usually written by an editor, not the reporter. And often it's a layout editor, not even a content editor. You just hope this person has bothered to read (and understand) the article, but in most cases they'll just scan it. Their main objective is to grab the reader, and to fit the space, which is why it's not uncommon for the headline to be inaccurate, or even misleading. I tend not to pay a lot of attention to headlines. Or more accurately, I don't give them a lot of credence.

These days, I bet most headlines on social media "news" feeds are written by algorithms.

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by Zippee

No more. It's news by click-bait headlines. And far, far too many people accept those headlines as real or actual news.

Well, the advantage of that is that it can mean whatever you want it to mean.

They put up the headline, you instantly know what it means to you. Then you can go ranting about whatever you want in the response (or to your spouse).

[Macblaze]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

On the observation around headlines ... it has ALWAYS been true. The vast majority of readers NEVER read the whole article. The vast majority of any readership scans the headlines. Then, if that grabs their interest, they might read the first paragraph, maybe the second. It is the rare reader that makes it past graf five. And you have to be really engaged to read the entire article.

This is why basic news is written in an inverted style, where the most important stuff gets into the lede and bridge. After that, it's usually just detail (for a basic news story).

A headline is usually written by an editor, not the reporter. And often it's a layout editor, not even a content editor. You just hope this person has bothered to read (and understand) the article, but in most cases they'll just scan it. Their main objective is to grab the reader, and to fit the space, which is why it's not uncommon for the headline to be inaccurate, or even misleading. I tend not to pay a lot of attention to headlines. Or more accurately, I don't give them a lot of credence.

These days, I bet most headlines on social media "news" feeds are written by algorithms.

I don't see a lot of "good" inverted style in web-based news these days. I don't know why. It was certainly easier to scan a whole story in print than it is on a webpage. So you would think that it was even more important. I am guessing instructors are more focussed on teaching their writers to shoot video and take pictures than the basic craft...

[N Coast Murray]

Interesting (short) read about how people read online:

https://www.nngroup.com/articles/how...ad-on-the-web/

Also have read that over 90% of people do not go to the second page of an Internet search.

Weird...

[Macblaze]

Originally Posted by N Coast Murray

I
Also have read that over 90% of people do not go to the second page of an Internet search.

Weird...

We get trained into it. I do a lot of searching for coding bits and bobs. 90% of the time the algorithm nails it in the first 5 or 6 results. Same with basic facts, translations, geography etc.

Only when we are doing serious "research" do we ver need to use a bigger data set and how often (in normal times) do we do that? So we are trained to believe the "correct" answer lies in the algorithm's accuracy—and, I presume, if we are logged into Google etc., the algorithm learns to give us what we want. Dangerous stuff in some use cases and handy in others.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Macblaze

I don't see a lot of "good" inverted style in web-based news these days. I don't know why. It was certainly easier to scan a whole story in print than it is on a webpage. So you would think that it was even more important. I am guessing instructors are more focussed on teaching their writers to shoot video and take pictures than the basic craft...

Could be. Writing a good news article is challenging. It's a skill that takes time to learn and practice.

It's certainly true that there's no such thing as a print reporter or a radio reporter or even a photographer/videographer. These days, the vast majority of reporters have to do it all.

Just like the fallacy of multitasking (humans suck at it, despite what many claim), so too with trying to do all these previously different jobs.

[sv_pelagia]

Sitting at anchor over in Howe Sound (Port Graves) for past 2 nights. Cold outside (-2) but sun coming out. Snow on the mountains. Listening to Bonnie on The Current.

Reading this thread, I see it has taken a sidetrip to consider The Media. As usual, a few posters just cannot seem to get it that Canada is different from USA.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

Weighing anchor soon and heading back to the big smoke....

[Zippee]

Originally Posted by N Coast Murray

Interesting (short) read about how people read online:

https://www.nngroup.com/articles/how...ad-on-the-web/

Also have read that over 90% of people do not go to the second page of an Internet search.

Weird...

It seems we are at the point - being well-trained consumers of bias - which we have been force-fed by the algorithms: to the point that all we need now is our daily dose of confirmation-bias feeding, endorphin producing, reassuring
headlines.

[Zippee]

Originally Posted by sv_pelagia

As usual, a few posters just cannot seem to get it that Canada is different from USA.

Hmmm. That could well be just another of those "click-bait", confirmation-bias enhancing, algorithm delivered, uh, headlines.....eh?

[Macblaze]

Originally Posted by sv_pelagia

Weighing anchor soon and heading back to the big smoke....

Don't do IT!!!!