The internet age.......

Do you think opinions voiced in internet forums should be used as serious evidence in journalism?

  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
#1
I seem to notice more and more that both newspapers and flagship news broadcasts; such as 6 o'clock news on the BBC and the ITV news at ten seem to consider internet forums as a valid source of public opinion and indeed often as a source of news itself. I have only really noticed this happening regularly over the last 6 months to a year.

Do you think that it is right that what people have written on an internet forum (often ill-considered, not something you might say normaly but given the relative anonymity of the internet have said because you aren't worried that anyone will know who said it) ought to be used in news stories?

To an extent it allows people to more than ever before to have their voices heard, but on the other hand it means that some utter bollocks has been used in various news programs.......


PS. I realise that much of what the journo's use as 'evidence' is bollocks anyway, but that's beside the point :D.
 
#2
Posted this because I have been thinking about it for a while but was reminded when reading the thread about ARRSER's being quoted in a New Scotsman article.
 
#3
Can you supply links to web based stories on the regular media.
Mostly they try and ignore it seeing it as a threat.

either way your question is odd. Opinion is just that its not evidence.
Every-one's entitled to their own opinion but they are not entitled to their own facts.
Applies on the web as it does everywhere else.
 
#4
quoting from a website is like quoting from a drunk...

you always have a bit of balls about you when you are safe in the knowledge that its usually anonymous, and behind the keyboard people usually are a bit gobbier, (exactly the same as when you have had a few)

:)
 
#5
Tony, I cant see how you make the connection between "peoples opinions" and "serious evidence", the two aren't even as unrelated as "apples & oranges".

Can you trust the internet to reflect public opinion? Yes.
Can you use peoples opinions on an internet forum as serious evidence? (of what?) No. :confused:
 
#6
SLRboy said:
Can you supply links to web based stories on the regular media.
Mostly they try and ignore it seeing it as a threat.
Why don't you just have a look at some of the threads on this site with various Arrsers becoming veritable celebs due to being quoted by the media?



HH. It's called lazy journalism.

One thing that perturbs me of late is the online media (BBC, ITN, Sky etc) having the following at the bottom of most of their stories (as in Jackanory)

"Were you in the area? Did you witness what happened? You can send images to yourpics@xxx.co.uk."

All this encourages is rubber necking and amateur paparazzi knobbers. It doesn't actually increase the quality of the news report.

Journo's. Continue to 'quote from a military source' all you like but you will one day find you have a bit of egg on your face (ask Piers) if you rely on it for your scoop. Especially when you find the person you are quoting is a retarded mong from South Wales called Chubb. :winkrazz:
 
#7
Its not just the media in this country who uses this website for quotes I just came across this article from New Zealand

http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/488120/961519

On the subject at hand I think forums can be used to get an idea of peoples views but should be taken with a pinch of salt, as posters may post something they later regret
 
#9
The Lord Flasheart said:
SLRboy said:
Can you supply links to web based stories on the regular media.
Mostly they try and ignore it seeing it as a threat.
Why don't you just have a look at some of the threads on this site with various Arrsers becoming veritable celebs due to being quoted by the media?



HH. It's called lazy journalism.

One thing that perturbs me of late is the online media (BBC, ITN, Sky etc) having the following at the bottom of most of their stories (as in Jackanory)

"Were you in the area? Did you witness what happened? You can send images to yourpics@xxx.co.uk."

All this encourages is rubber necking and amateur paparazzi knobbers. It doesn't actually increase the quality of the news report.

Journo's. Continue to 'quote from a military source' all you like but you will one day find you have a bit of egg on your face (ask Piers) if you rely on it for your scoop. Especially when you find the person you are quoting is a retarded mong from South Wales called Chubb. :winkrazz:
Some interesting points there - in the papers I read if a journo said 'quote from a military source' he the journo would know the name and rank of the person and most certainly wont have trawled an arrse thread for a random quote.

However it is certainly a subject that is devolping and will probably need an on going discussion.
For instance, in a New Zealand report about RFUK's angry vignette they quoted paveway_3 mentioning that he had seen mass graves in Iraq and that he seemed to imply made the war worth it. (I'm beginning to think he is really Ann Clywdd)

So the point is print journos would pick from ARRSE what they want in the same way that they might from any other sources in order to justify the story that they intended writing anyway.
 
#10
SLRboy said:
Some interesting points there - in the papers I read if a journo said 'quote from a military source' he the journo would know the name and rank of the person and most certainly wont have trawled an arrse thread for a random quote.
Rubbish. A whole article in the Sun a little while back was published after I made a throw away line about tomato sauce and a certain location in Yorkshire on a certain website, anonymously. It was 'quote from a military source (or sauce)........'.

Don't even get me started on pizza deliveries........
 
#11
I'll tell you what is lazy journalism and it's not quoting the views on Arrse!

If you note all the stories about RFUK's post about that cnut Bliar, you will note that they all say the SAME thing.

They ALL got their information, not from researching ARRSE, but from Reuters. One lazy journo has a squiz on ARRSE, he bangs it through to Reuters (who are lazy journos) and every other lazy fcuking journo in the land then copies the article VERBATIM as hot news off the press. The lazy cnuts don't even retype it! They simply copy and paste, and that is their money earned.

Now, what I want to know is, if all the papers and alll the newsdesks in the land are simply quoting what is on Reuters (I read all the papers from time to time and watch various news channels), then this strikes me as similar to a one-party state, but for news and information.

Who decides what goes into, and more importantly, what is published on Reuters.

Is there a Murdoch hanging around behind the curtains of this company?
 
#12
Remember the true story (true according to Michael Buerke) of the Brit reporter who arrived with press pack at the scene of a major clusterfcuk and went around saying "Anyone been raped and who speaks English" Thts is the way many of them operate.
 

Nehustan

On ROPS
On ROPs
#13
I was saying to a colleague in work today that the only real news is as it happens. Take 911 for instance, I recall watching as the second plane hit stood in my local cornershop/videoshop (hence why it had a TV). Now that was news, people were so shocked there wasn't an opinion in sight, just reporting of the events as they happened. An hour after the towers came down, the journos probably had their 'comment' heads back on. Happened with the Tsunami the same way, the relay of the events preceded comment on which bit of kit they needed where.

I recall when I was working at the BBC, and I was discussing degrees with a colleague. I remember saying if it was residential with it treated like a job and regimented most people would get degrees. 'ThatÂ’s a terrible idea' she retorted 'What would the point be to degrees then???' I swallowed as I thought 'education perhaps?' I double swallowed when she added 'Any way if you want life regimented in such a way, you should join the army'.

Journalists think they're smart, and I think the reason that ARRSE has become a point of interest is the high level of intelligence (and I don't just mean the corps :jocolor: ) that is displayed by serving and ex soldiers herein, admittedly punctuated with dark humour.

Mediums may change but I think ARRSE is a good change. When it comes to Journalists and Soldiers an axiom springs to mind...

[align=center]"opinions are like arrseholes, everybody has one, some smell worse than others..."[/align]
 
#14
SLRboy said:
Some interesting points there - in the papers I read if a journo said 'quote from a military source' he the journo would know the name and rank of the person and most certainly wont have trawled an arrse thread for a random quote.
Whats that SLRboy, Fortean Times?
 
#15
drain_sniffer said:
SLRboy said:
Some interesting points there - in the papers I read if a journo said 'quote from a military source' he the journo would know the name and rank of the person and most certainly wont have trawled an arrse thread for a random quote.
Whats that SLRboy, Fortean Times?

The Fortean times & the Sun I'll leave to you.
 
#17
There are two major reasons why, in my view, this site is used and is quoted. Firstly, we have two major armed conflicts which are deeply unpopular among the civil population of our country and the issue is contemporary. The second reason is that the military has been almost inaccessible at any realistic level by journalists who have been almost hermetically sealed off from soldiers through MOD and Higher Formation PR branches and those who have been hand-picked as 'spokesmen', every word measured against the adverse career consequences of expressing an opinion and wandering 'off message'.

The internet provides a degree of anonymity and much of what is said here runs directly counter to 'spin'.

It has nothing whatever to do with the 'intelligence' of the members who subscribe to this site. It has everything to do with the outside world having access to something they have never before had - honest opinions expressed by a serving and ex-serving military community!

I would agree with the observation that there exists articles which have simply been copied and pasted from external sources such as Reuters'. There is an even more endemic culture in the media of simply repeating verbatim 'Press Releases' published by Government web sites. Go to almost any one of them and you will see a see a 'Press Release section'. That, I would agree is lazy journalism.

However, that is not the real problem. The real problem is 'lazy readership'. The blind acceptance that everything written is to be accepted as 'fact'. That is all too prevalent!

It is important, in my view, to maintain and develop a 'critical reflective attitude' to what is read and digested from any journalistic source. The originator of this thread displays it in his post. There are other very astute contributors who also display it in their posts on this and other forums on this site. It is having the ability to read a report and separate the objectively factual element which one could describe as 'the news' and the subjective element which comprises the 'views' of the editorial staff. Often, the distinction between 'news' and 'views' are conflated to the extent where both are dressed up and presented as 'fact'. Where news is of particular interest to an individual, then it is always worth attempting to corroborate it from other sources. Sometimes, it leads back to a single source, Reuters or the perennial 'Press Release'.

Some journalists are extremely good, others are just plain idle. Each has his own style and each has a credibility or lack of it. Journalist 'copy' should be treated in much the same way as any other 'source'. The background, political leanings, prejudices, track record and so on, of the reporter himself. In other words, is he or she credible, Is he or she objective and balanced, do you trust him or her?

Some have their own favourite journalists and others have journalists they hold in contempt. My own favourite, among others, is Nick Cohen who writes for the Observer. He tends to get excluded from Government press briefings since he asks too many awkward questions and writes far to many unflatteringly probative articles. If I am honest with myself, even though I have never met him, I like his writing because I think that deep down I think he has my deep loathing of arbitrary and bullying authority. I mention this only because some journalists have a deeper and more profound effect on the way we look at the world than others.

But more than anything else, news and it's reporting represents a commercial commodity. The greater the coverage, the more money it is putting into someones pocket, who has the same mortgage and bills to pay as you and I, be it the reporter, the agency or the newspaper editor. Like every other commercial product, you need to shop around for a quality product.

Regards and best wishes
Iolis
 

Nehustan

On ROPS
On ROPs
#18
Iolis, I disagree, I do think that it is because of intelligence. I've seen that Kipling poem cited oft' on this forum, and I think that ARRSE breaks people's stereotypes, and probably reinforces some others ;)

As regarding people not having access to the military, well Blair has had ample access for 10 years, and he still gave that 'gung ho' speech on HMS Albion the other day. I have no doubt he believes, as do many others, what I may at best euphemistically call the 'Boy's Own' stereotype of the Military. That with ten years access, no suprise then that people like ARRSE.
 
#19
Nehustan said:
Iolis, I disagree, I do think that it is because of intelligence. I've seen that Kipling poem cited oft' on this forum, and I think that ARRSE breaks people's stereotypes, and probably reinforces some others ;)

As regarding people not having access to the military, well Blair has had ample access for 10 years, and he still gave that 'gung ho' speech on HMS Albion the other day. I have no doubt he believes, as do many others, what I may at best euphemistically call the 'Boy's Own' stereotype of the Military. That with ten years access, no suprise then that people like ARRSE.
Hi Nehustan, thank you for your comments.

I would agree that ARRSE does break people's stereotypes because the average civilian has a view of soldiers as little more than screaming skulls devoid of any intelligence. Access by soldiers to a wider audience and a medium to express their thoughts which was previously denied to them by the strict interpretation of Queen's Regulations preventing the communication of information directly and indirectly to the Press tended to reinforce that stereotype. I do not think it is intelligence per se, that has always existed in the military and it is this forum that gives expression to it making it a valuable 'window through which the world can look at soldiers as human beings and as part of the community from which they are recruited.

Of course Blair has had access to the military as have all politicians in the past. The only difference between then and now is that previously, whenever a politician articulated idiocy to an audience, the military community had no voice and no means to challenge it. Now, people like Blair, Des Browne and Drayson's remarks may be subject to forensic analysis by those who are directly affected by what they reveal to the public and that analysis is picked up and reported. That, in my view is no bad thing

Regards and best wishes
Iolis
 
#20
Mmmmm "serious evidence in Journalism"

is there such a thing as serious journalism these days? All I ever see is on the news stands is Big fecking Brother and that skinny munter Posh..like feck she is the essex slapper..fecking spice/Beks whatever the moose is called nowadays!!

Viz is more appealing than any of the rags..and thats gone a long way down hill since the good old days of outright non-PCness
 

Latest Threads

Top