> Also this year the art non-profit I work for submitted a story to a free paper and it was published
Isn't that just a press release? When I was taught about press releases the idea was to make them as simple as possible for the person at the newspaper to cut and paste.
> Being an anonymous coward in some countries is better than the alternative.
I agree. Good luck with your project. Remember to post it here when it's working or when you have an interesting blog post about an update in the advance of the implementation.
Anyway, as my father used to say, write everithing as if it will be published tomorrow in the front page of a major newspaper of your country.
> I think it is broadly good to be on the lookout for hard-hitting exposes and write them where you see them, and broadly bad for your ability to do journalism if you have decided the tenor of your story before reporting it out.
> Surely the author, editor, and publisher of this article, and anyone likely to read it, are aware. We are aware.
That's a really weird statement. Articles are published so that readers can be informed of things that the author and editors have become aware of. Often many articles are published on the same subject because 1) many people missed previous articles, 2) there a new update that people aren't aware of, 3) people forgot and it's a good time to remind them, 4) it's not news-facts article but a persuasive piece, 5) etc.
>> 2. Much of the awareness that does exist was not the result of those companies being transparent about their practices. It's the result of inferences based on scraps of information and speculation.
This means that "we" aren't as aware as you make us out to be.
>Whatever information we have, whatever insight we have, whatever knowledge we have, our impulse is to share it as quickly as possible, and sometimes with as little thought as possible
Sounds like the complete 100% opposite of journalism.
> it is my responsibility to make the article as enticing as possible to read
It's your responsibility as a writer to be honest. Why is it your job to make a post enticing? If being honest with the title of your post isn't enticing then I'm afraid your article isn't interesting and lying about its contents are not the right solution. And your title is not honest. Change everything? Are you kidding me?
> headlines have evolved over the years because writers have figured out what is more effective
You make it sound like you've no responsibility for your actions. Hey it's out of your hands, other writers have figured this out and you must follow. And all you have to show for it is a flagged post and at least in my case a big minus in my opinion for ride joy. You come across as a bit too much self-promoting. Reviews for your book also mention humble-brags, so it's not a stretch. Personally I put integrity above fleeting success, but your milage may vary.
> Journalism is supposed to be critical, no? Otherwise it is just rehashed press releases.
But the people who put out those press releases, like tech executives and investors, want it just be rehashed press releases. They actually got their wish for a looong time, and came to feel they were entitled to it.
>> I mean, how many of you actually read through the entire article, WITHOUT checking your email, or flipping to twitter/fb to tell the world about this good article you just found?
Like you it really took me some effort, I had to force myself to stay engaged, not skip over whole paragraphs and not flip to something else.
> Should have been the first thing they mention, though, to avoid looking sensationalist.
There isn't a whole lot they can do if you don't actually read the article. I always try to read the article before I pass judgement on whether it's sensationalized or not.
This should be the first thing to read in this article. The author seems to not have any preferred publisher anyway. He can consider and write why not, I'd also like to know.
Then don't be surprised with the statement in a paragraph before:
> And that’s why so many articles kinda sound the same these days.
> Could the writer not have asked about this before hitting the Publish button?
The news cycle is fast as it is and especially this situation is developing rapidly, so you lose a lot the longer you wait. There's a good chance they even asked before publishing and only got a response later.
If only you would have read the article before commenting
reply