| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| danjersey |
Posted - 10/19/2009 : 20:05:32
I'll begin this thread by quoting the single definition of "journalism" given by my very own Mac desktop dictionary.
I entered the word "journalism" and this is what came up.
"jour-nal-ism"
noun-
the activity or profession of writing for news papers or magazines, or of broadcasting news on radio or television.
-the product of such activity : an art critic who's essays and journalism are never dull
Did you get that?
Mac's "Dictionary" considers the product of journalism an act of criticism!
So, I went on to merriam-webster.com and found that it had the same six definitions that my 2003 copy of Webster's Collegiate Dictionary had. Six is better than one, I suppose.
jour·nal·ism
Function: noun(1828)
1 a : the collection and editing of news for presentation through the media b : the public press c : an academic study concerned with the collection and editing of news or the management of a news medium
2 a : writing designed for publication in a newspaper or magazine b : writing characterized by a direct presentation of facts or description of events without an attempt at interpretation c : writing designed to appeal to current popular taste or public interest.
what I expected to find in my initial search was something along the lines of...
"2b : writing characterized by a direct presentation of facts or description of events without an attempt at interpretation"
Instead it seems to be more of...
"1c : an academic study concerned with the collection and editing of news or the management of a news medium"
and...
"2c : writing designed to appeal to current popular taste or public interest.
|
| 35 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| hammerhands |
Posted - 11/13/2009 : 21:40:14
All good modern conspiracy theories involve
a/the shadow government. |
| coastline |
Posted - 11/13/2009 : 18:13:35
conspiracy (noun), from www.m-w.com
1 : the act of conspiring together
conspire (verb), from www.m-w.com
1 a : to join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or an act which becomes unlawful as a result of the secret agreement <accused of conspiring to overthrow the government> b : scheme
2 : to act in harmony toward a common end <circumstances conspired to defeat his efforts>
The example in 1a seems ironic, considering most suspected conspiracies these days are supposedly perpetrated by government, not against it.
 Please pardon me, for these my wrongs. |
| trobrianders |
Posted - 11/11/2009 : 05:29:49
quote:
Originally posted by floop
whatever happened to this forum?
It grew a beard and started rubbing its chin a lot.
_______________
Ed is the hoo hoo |
| danjersey |
Posted - 11/03/2009 : 14:45:47
quote:
Originally posted by floop
whatever happened to this forum?
mac's definition of quesadilla
que-sa-dil-la
noun
a tortilla filled with cheese and heated
|
| floop |
Posted - 11/03/2009 : 11:42:03
whatever happened to this forum? |
| trobrianders |
Posted - 11/02/2009 : 10:40:47
quote:
Originally posted by danjersey
quote:
Originally posted by trobrianders
dan I reckon the unsatisfying dictionary entries are a result of firms hiring staff too young to do the job. More cock-up than conspiracy. That's true of publishing generally.
Dictionaries aren't too sexy for your mac.
I consider the dumbing down of the masses a conspiracy.
The masses are the most sophisticated players in the whole damn show. I consider the dumbing down of the media a conspiracy by the masses; just another means by which the masses regulate societal change.
_______________
Ed is the hoo hoo |
| danjersey |
Posted - 10/26/2009 : 17:47:27
non sequitur
Merriam-Webster
Main Entry: non se·qui·tur
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin, it does not follow
Date: 1540
1 : an inference that does not follow from the premises; specifically : a fallacy resulting from a simple conversion of a universal affirmative proposition or from the transposition of a condition and its consequent
2 : a statement (as a response) that does not follow logically from or is not clearly related to anything previously said |
| vilainde |
Posted - 10/23/2009 : 11:18:37
I clicked on this thread hoping to see tits.
:(
Denis
"Can you hear me? I aint got shit to say." |
| trobrianders |
Posted - 10/23/2009 : 02:09:13
quote:
Originally posted by darwin
I like Talking Points Memo, which is a mixture of blog like posting but also a strong commitment to investigative journalism. They have real paid journalists out asking questions and digging through documents. They don't dispute that they have a left-wing bias, but I think they still have a commitment to facts.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/
http://www.gq.com/news-politics/newsmakers/200711/men-of-the-year-josh-marshall-alberto-gonzalez
I don't get the fears about the blogosphere. Facts are way overrated. The blogosphere's finally gonna bring that home.
A desperate time to be a mediocre investigative journalist as most of them are. Fun watching them trying to catch a snowflake in a snowstorm.
_______________
Ed is the hoo hoo |
| trobrianders |
Posted - 10/23/2009 : 01:35:07
quote:
Originally posted by tisasawath
is that a fact?
Affact? Or effact?
_______________
Ed is the hoo hoo |
| tisasawath |
Posted - 10/23/2009 : 00:24:19
is that a fact? |
| shineoftheever |
Posted - 10/22/2009 : 23:36:40
your drinking has affected me in the following ways:
it has had a negative effect on the way we communicate. i used to feel affection, i no longer feel it. your effectiveness at work has lost its affect. you have sold all your personal effects just to get more booze.
There are five distinct words here. When “affect” is accented on the final syllable (a-FECT), it is usually a verb meaning “have an influence on”: “The million-dollar donation from the industrialist did not affect my vote against the Clean Air Act.”
Occasionally a pretentious person is said to affect an artificial air of sophistication. Speaking with a borrowed French accent or ostentatiously wearing a large diamond ear stud might be an affectation. In this sort of context, “affect” means “to make a display of or deliberately cultivate.”
Another unusual meaning is indicated when the word is accented on the first syllable (AFF-ect), meaning “emotion.” In this case the word is used mostly by psychiatrists and social scientists—people who normally know how to spell it.
The real problem arises when people confuse the first spelling with the second: “effect.” This too can be two different words. The more common one is a noun: “When I left the stove on, the effect was that the house filled with smoke.” When you affect a situation, you have an effect on it.
The less common is a verb meaning “to create”: “I’m trying to effect a change in the way we purchase widgets.” No wonder people are confused. Note especially that the proper expression is not “take affect” but “take effect”—become effective. Hey, nobody ever said English was logical: just memorize it and get on with your life.
The stuff in your purse? Your personal effects.
The stuff in movies? Sound effects and special effects
The waxworks were an immensely eloquent dissertation on the wonderful ordinariness of mankind. |
| darwin |
Posted - 10/22/2009 : 17:11:23
effect noun
affect verb |
| danjersey |
Posted - 10/22/2009 : 17:08:51
effect
(noun)
1 a change that is a result or consequence of an action or other cause : the lethal effects of hard drugs / politicians really do have some effect on the lives of ordinary people. |
| darwin |
Posted - 10/22/2009 : 16:40:07
"affecting" |
| danjersey |
Posted - 10/22/2009 : 16:21:29
quote:
Originally posted by trobrianders
dan I reckon the unsatisfying dictionary entries are a result of firms hiring staff too young to do the job. More cock-up than conspiracy. That's true of publishing generally.
Dictionaries aren't too sexy for your mac.
I consider the dumbing down of the masses a conspiracy.
I entered the word, Fact
Fact
(noun)
a thing that is an indisputably the case : she lacks political experience - a fact that becomes clear when she appears in public
and then...
Subliminal
adjective Psychology
(of a stimulus or mental process) below the threshold of sensation
or consciousness; perceived by or affecting someone's mind
without their being aware of it.
this is fun!
|
| darwin |
Posted - 10/22/2009 : 07:53:52
quote:
Originally posted by trobrianders
quote:
Originally posted by darwin
200 years ago in the US there were many daily newspapers and many of them were very much associated with political parties (Hamiliton and Jefferson continuously used them bash each other). The newspapers didn't have desire to appear unbiased. So, I think it's wrong to think that journalism has moved from being an unbiased pursuit to becoming partisan. It has long been partisan. Perhaps in the "golden days" of the 60s and 70s investigative journalism was rooting out unbiased facts (doubtful). But, that was only a blip in history.
Well put. Maybe we're in a new but more subtle 'golden age' of investigative journalism? Some clever journalists who won't rent themselves out to left or right have, through cult of their own personality, carved out a niche where they have some freedom to root out relatively unbiased facts. They've made themselves into mini news empires so to speak. There's the rub. You've got to bring something to the marketplace regardless of what you have to say, be it star power or a willingness to pander. The old star reporters were still studio players. The newer freelance breed are better at maintaining some independance. I don't know though, that may just be a naive view. In the end everyone has to fight to be heard. That's how it should be.
_______________
Ed is the hoo hoo
I like Talking Points Memo, which is a mixture of blog like posting but also a strong commitment to investigative journalism. They have real paid journalists out asking questions and digging through documents. They don't dispute that they have a left-wing bias, but I think they still have a commitment to facts.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/
http://www.gq.com/news-politics/newsmakers/200711/men-of-the-year-josh-marshall-alberto-gonzalez
|
| trobrianders |
Posted - 10/22/2009 : 07:47:56
dan I reckon the unsatisfying dictionary entries are a result of firms hiring staff too young to do the job. More cock-up than conspiracy. That's true of publishing generally.
Dictionaries aren't too sexy for your mac.
_______________
Ed is the hoo hoo |
| danjersey |
Posted - 10/22/2009 : 07:29:19
quote:
Originally posted by trobrianders
quote:
Originally posted by danjersey
News outlets have become more about branding than reportage. Like coke vs. pepsi, or chevy over ford. And even when there is investigative journalism being done, the story and reporter need a stamp of approval from either the left or right wing which ultimately creates a reward system that is painfully obvious to the consumer as nothing more than an agreement based in fraternity rather than truth.
Webster's-
"1c : an academic study concerned with the collection and editing of news or the management of a news medium"
and...
"2c : writing designed to appeal to current popular taste or public interest.
The system works as it should when consumers are calling the shots don't you think?
We get the news service we're happy to pay for.
Yes, I agree. Long live the free market! |
| trobrianders |
Posted - 10/22/2009 : 02:28:19
quote:
Originally posted by darwin
200 years ago in the US there were many daily newspapers and many of them were very much associated with political parties (Hamiliton and Jefferson continuously used them bash each other). The newspapers didn't have desire to appear unbiased. So, I think it's wrong to think that journalism has moved from being an unbiased pursuit to becoming partisan. It has long been partisan. Perhaps in the "golden days" of the 60s and 70s investigative journalism was rooting out unbiased facts (doubtful). But, that was only a blip in history.
Well put. Maybe we're in a new but more subtle 'golden age' of investigative journalism? Some clever journalists who won't rent themselves out to left or right have, through cult of their own personality, carved out a niche where they have some freedom to root out relatively unbiased facts. They've made themselves into mini news empires so to speak. There's the rub. You've got to bring something to the marketplace regardless of what you have to say, be it star power or a willingness to pander. The old star reporters were still studio players. The newer freelance breed are better at maintaining some independance. I don't know though, that may just be a naive view. In the end everyone has to fight to be heard. That's how it should be.
_______________
Ed is the hoo hoo |
| trobrianders |
Posted - 10/22/2009 : 00:08:17
quote:
Originally posted by danjersey
News outlets have become more about branding than reportage. Like coke vs. pepsi, or chevy over ford. And even when there is investigative journalism being done, the story and reporter need a stamp of approval from either the left or right wing which ultimately creates a reward system that is painfully obvious to the consumer as nothing more than an agreement based in fraternity rather than truth.
Webster's-
"1c : an academic study concerned with the collection and editing of news or the management of a news medium"
and...
"2c : writing designed to appeal to current popular taste or public interest.
The system works as it should when consumers are calling the shots don't you think?
We get the news service we're happy to pay for.
_______________
Ed is the hoo hoo |
| danjersey |
Posted - 10/21/2009 : 20:34:02
and to think that I, was living in the future |
| darwin |
Posted - 10/21/2009 : 19:52:13
200 years ago in the US there were many daily newspapers and many of them were very much associated with political parties (Hamiliton and Jefferson continuously used them bash each other). The newspapers didn't have desire to appear unbiased. So, I think it's wrong to think that journalism has moved from being an unbiased pursuit to becoming partisan. It has long been partisan. Perhaps in the "golden days" of the 60s and 70s investigative journalism was rooting out unbiased facts (doubtful). But, that was only a blip in history. |
| danjersey |
Posted - 10/21/2009 : 19:32:48
News outlets have become more about branding than reportage. Like coke vs. pepsi, or chevy over ford. And even when there is investigative journalism being done, the story and reporter need a stamp of approval from either the left or right wing which ultimately creates a reward system that is painfully obvious to the consumer as nothing more than an agreement based in fraternity rather than truth.
Webster's-
"1c : an academic study concerned with the collection and editing of news or the management of a news medium"
and...
"2c : writing designed to appeal to current popular taste or public interest. |
| Superabounder |
Posted - 10/21/2009 : 15:03:17
I agree that Fox News is less about the news and more about pushing the right wing agenda.
I'd rather be anywhere or doing anything |
| darwin |
Posted - 10/21/2009 : 11:42:42
quote:
Originally posted by tisasawath
not for me, i find myself less and less interested in opinions. too many out there. all that's required for making correct decisions are facts. anything else in there and judgements fall out of line with reality.
That's your opinion.  |
| tisasawath |
Posted - 10/21/2009 : 11:04:06
not for me, i find myself less and less interested in opinions. too many out there. all that's required for making correct decisions are facts. anything else in there and judgements fall out of line with reality. |
| trobrianders |
Posted - 10/21/2009 : 05:19:29
dan's making a mountain out of a molehill. I believe it's still responsible journalism to point that out over and above the fact that he's rightly raised the distinction. Journalism's not journalism without interpretation of fact IMO.
_______________
Ed is the hoo hoo |
| danjersey |
Posted - 10/20/2009 : 20:04:08
quote:
Originally posted by hammerhands
You could replace journalism with just about any word.
why would I want to replace the word journalism with another word when discussing the meaning of the word journalism? |
| darwin |
Posted - 10/20/2009 : 19:51:47
Ok, so your point is emerging. |
| hammerhands |
Posted - 10/20/2009 : 19:28:07
You could replace journalism with just about any word.
an art critic whose essays and sauces are never dull
an art critic whose essays and finish are never dull |
| hammerhands |
Posted - 10/20/2009 : 19:16:44
It's not a vital part of the example either. It's like answering the question, use journalism in a sentence, with
Journalism is a four syllable word. |
| danjersey |
Posted - 10/20/2009 : 18:45:33
My point was, how limited is Mac's current definition of journalism? And that their single example for the use of, centered on something so innocuous as art critic. |
| darwin |
Posted - 10/20/2009 : 18:18:26
"Mac's "Dictionary" considers the product of journalism an act of criticism!"
I don't think that's true. I think that dictionary was pointing out that criticism is an example of journalism. |
| danjersey |
Posted - 10/20/2009 : 18:14:57
Thats the spirit, Kathryn!
I was unable to cut and paste the definition leaving me with the task of actually copying verbatim and in doing so made the error you so appropriately pointed out. Which dovetails nicely with my initial reason for creating this topic. |
