Talk:Churnalism

Needs major work

First up, to even survive at this nme you'll need some pretty substantial sources demonstrating that "churnalism" is the actual term used by a significant portion and majority (if there's a more common term then article needs to be there) of reliable sources in the field to describe this practice. A single reference from an Australian writer in no way proves world-wide usage or majority usage.

Second, quoting a poet in an article about a real topic? That's not encyclopedic style. At all.

Third, you can't present someone's opinions as if they are fact just because you provide a link to them. Claims of lesser quality etc. have to be courced to a specific speaker in the text, as others may disagree.

Fourth, it's a bad idea to try to claim stats that you only know about because a newspaper quoted a book that said there were studies... that's two degrees of separation from the original, if there even is one, so we don't knwo how accurate it is. We don;t know what other studies there are.

All in all this seems like a bit of WP:SOAPboxing with a couple of minor sources cited to give it an appearance of being a real article. Without proving the word is more than a minor neologism there'd be no way to even improve this. Without some major cleanup I'll put this up for deletion soon. DreamGuy (talk) 15:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• I have made some additions to address the points above. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I was a bit surprised to see the claim that local newspapers rely on stories which are increasingly bought to them by professional PR representatives justified by linking to an essay whose author, when he wrote it, was National President of the Public Relations Institute of Australia. It's possible that he is not impartial on the topic of the role and importance of public relations. I have edited the article to make it clear that this claim is the topic of a senior figure in the PR industry. However, if anyone can find a different source, that would be even better.Hobson (talk) 00:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I have added a source on the developing relationship between PR and journalism Colonel Warden (talk) 06:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Effect on reporting

An editor added this section

“ The uncritical repoduction of press releases as news stories is recognised as a particular problem in the area of science and medicine, where commercial interests of the pharmaceutical, food and alternative therapy product industries are promoted and validated by apparently independent media accounts, characterised by Ben Goldacre as Bad Science. Goldacre argues that the dominance of this type of story undermines public understanding of science and public health initiatives. ”

However, the reference does not support the text above because it indicates that the problem in such cases is that reporters insert their own pre-conceived views into a story rather than parrotting what's in the press-release. That is not churnalism - it is an older problem of reporters twisting the facts and selectively reporting to suit their story. Also, it is not clear that this is a particular problem for science/medicine, as opposed to other fields. The section therefore seems itself to be an example of distortion and so I have removed it.

Colonel Warden (talk) 07:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

"only 12% of stories were generated by reporters"

Should that say "only 12% of stories were orginatedby reporters"? Maurreen (talk) 02:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Generate and originate have the same meaning in this context. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Reversion

It is courteous to explain reversions. Wire stories are not used to create articles. Wire stories are articles. Maurreen (talk) 01:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• Please see Editing Today Workbook, for example. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

It's also courteous not to wait two months. Maurreen (talk) 19:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Economic Causes section is simply wrong

Newspapers were slashing reporting budgets (and boasting hugely increased profits) as early as the late 80s. By the mid 90s this process was in full swing. By the time the web started destroying advertising income newspapers were already churning wire and PR stories. The web didn't kill journalism; it merely savaged the corpse. Of course, there is no shortage of "reputable" sources claiming the opposite. In this respect, Wikipedia suffers from the same problem as contemporary journalism: the unwitting reproduction of propaganda is acceptable as long as it's from a good source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.56.227 (talk) 17:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The article does not focus upon particular media but covers journalism in general, including online journalism. We are limited by our sources so please bring forward more, if you feel the need. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Eh? The Economic Causes section is specifically talking about "traditional newspapers", not "journalism in general". It would be even more nonsensical if it claimed that the web was responsible for a decline in online journalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.125.236 (talk) 12:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Other parts of the article talk about similar effects in other media such as the BBC's news website. The economic section could use more content. For example, the recent purchase of the Huffington Post by AOL generated some comment about their business model which involves much reuse of other sources rather than the generation of original content. This commentary in Forbes - The soul of media: Curation and editing, all one in the same - seems relevant. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Looking at "Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement" on your user page I realise that you haven't actually disagreed with me. Instead, you've made several tangential observations which have nothing to do with the central point: the existing content in "Economic Causes" is wrong. Do you agree that the content is wrong? If you do, there's nothing further to be said. If not, why not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.4.236 (talk) 17:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Please be more specific. For example, the first sentence says "Traditional newspapers have cut staff as their advertising revenue has declined because of competition from other media such as television and the internet.". This doesn't seem wrong but perhaps needs elaboration. The book The vanishing newspaper seems to have some good stats and we might study it for relevant content. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

"[...] This doesn't seem wrong but perhaps needs elaboration." It isn't in itself wrong but it is irrelevant. It explains the serious financial difficulties faced by most newspapers now. But this section isn't "Economic Causes of Newspapers' Current Financial Difficulties", it is "Economic Causes of Churnalism". As I said in my first paragraph, churnalism predates the web. The economic cause was simple: proprietors wanted bigger profits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.4.236 (talk) 19:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Why does The Register feature so strongly in this? It's only the register. 87.83.31.234 (talk) 22:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)