Talk:Churnalism/Archives/2015

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)

I believe an argument could be made that financial difficulties could be a significant factor in the rise of churnalism since it would be cheaper to resort to this method rather than expend the resources to do proper reporting/journalism. AfroThundr3007730 (talk) 03:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)