Clickbait. Friggin article never mentions what"drives" means. I was hoping to find out 1 million people cancelled or something, but it just mentioned a few specific people.
inflammatory and sensationalist headlines have always existed.
Certainly, but they at least were confined to supermarket tabloids and other fringe publications. This is coming from Newsweek, which, believe it or not, was once a respected news magazine.
A journalism professor in the 1980s would have had veins bulging out of his forehead if a student’s headline asserted a claim that was not substantiated by any facts in the story.
Unlike a professor who would reject a student’s unsubstantiated claims, a for-profit entity won’t care about evidence unless its absence hurts profits. And you can say that about nearly any commercial news or journalistic organization. Establishing an equitable and high standard of education is the only true way to combat this, and that’s not happening in our lifetime
Oops. Once again I’ve started an argument about a mundane detail that is quite inconsequential to anything. I’m sorry. I can’t stop doing that. It’s OK. I don’t need you to agree with me that journalistic standards were higher 40 years ago than they are today. Nobody cares. I hope you have a good rest of your day.
Clickbait. Friggin article never mentions what"drives" means. I was hoping to find out 1 million people cancelled or something, but it just mentioned a few specific people.
Also, they didn’t mention me. :(
How exactly do you propose a reporter determine the number of cancellations?
If said reporter can’t present quantifiable data/evidence, then maybe they shouldn’t write the article?
Or at least not write it with that headline. Engagement bait has ruined journalism.
I guess, but inflammatory and sensationalist headlines have always existed.
Certainly, but they at least were confined to supermarket tabloids and other fringe publications. This is coming from Newsweek, which, believe it or not, was once a respected news magazine.
A journalism professor in the 1980s would have had veins bulging out of his forehead if a student’s headline asserted a claim that was not substantiated by any facts in the story.
Unlike a professor who would reject a student’s unsubstantiated claims, a for-profit entity won’t care about evidence unless its absence hurts profits. And you can say that about nearly any commercial news or journalistic organization. Establishing an equitable and high standard of education is the only true way to combat this, and that’s not happening in our lifetime
Oops. Once again I’ve started an argument about a mundane detail that is quite inconsequential to anything. I’m sorry. I can’t stop doing that. It’s OK. I don’t need you to agree with me that journalistic standards were higher 40 years ago than they are today. Nobody cares. I hope you have a good rest of your day.
Could start by at least listing Professorozone in the canceled subscriptions.