Poisoned Journalism

We have a problem. We have reactionary journalists working among us. These are writers and news organizations (I use the term loosely) who are seeking followers and readership. Proven readership numbers are the data ad buyers look for. They want to know their message is getting exposed to large numbers.  So they follow those statistics carefully, then buy ad space accordingly.

This translates as operating revenue for the ‘news organizations’. Of course the authors who pen well-read pieces are sought after to write still more. And the secret of those wordsmith pieces is the central topic and a catchy headline.

How many scans of your internet web pages yield articles of interest based solely on their headline power? Curiosity pricked is an article opened and read; and the Google metric analysis machine goes into full operation. That’s how it works, folks.

So, in recent months I’ve noted the places that focus more on headline craft than article content. Here are a few:  Wall Street Journal; MarketWatch; CNN.com; MSN.com; ESPN.com; and many more.

I have finally come to the point that if I’m attracted by a headline I look for the news organization distributing it. If it is on my list of unreliables, I ignore the item. If not on the list, then I look for the writer. In time I will classify writers as reliable or not and that will guide my future readership.

People have asked how I get my news. I tell them I scan the internet. A couple of years ago I would not have answered that way. I was still rooted in print news and read three newspapers daily. But then those went the way of headline seekers and volumetrics. I avoided them enough to realize I was not getting enough out of my paper. So the subscription was cancelled. I began scanning proven authors on the Web, and then publications on the web I knew had a news gathering or sharing network sound enough to rely on their outputs.

In time I learned how to ‘read’ the internet better and better. Some items could be cross-referenced with other authors and organizations for proofing of content facts. That skill set has continued to build. Now I have confidence I’m getting good material. It is all about resonance of the ‘whole story’.

Still it is a gamble. Some headlines are just too attractive to ignore. But soon I see the fault lines, the glib retorts, and personalized fabrications of personalities being reported on.

Manipulation of material for read-worthiness is rampant today. All the more reason to dump entire news organizations from the reading list. They either earn your trust or they don’t. The same with authors. That is why reputation earned through process, diligence and honesty is so important to build and maintain. The slippery slope of failure is easily gained and quickly dispenses the writer and the organization to nothingness.

So, onward to my daily reading and disciplined discernment. Not easily accomplished but slogging through this mountain of stuff does hone the mind keener each day by little bits.

Try this method for yourself. Flood your eyes with news item headlines; note which are more attractive and why. Read the article associated with the headline; did it satisfy your interest and was the content cogently tied to the headline? Or was it a sop to get you to read the item? Enough failures and you will begin to note the distribution organization and cross it off your list of acceptable resources. Same with authors but that takes a lot more time to perfect!  So many of them!

If enough of us do this the news organizations that are not good will disappear. The ones that are professional and reliable will grow in stature. And we may finally get back to a reliable 4 or 5 we can base our knowledge and decision base on. Like the good old days of Walter Cronkite and NBS News. Today’s news and personalities are nothing like that at all.  Time will hopefully witness a repair.

August 19, 2016