You know what really rustles my jimmies

[BunniesMan]

The forum cop in me has grown to Facebook.

Now like many on LU, sometimes I resent the way journos - especially from the Tele - treat the NRL. But today, I've found myself feeling sorry for them.

There are several pages on Facebook, namely "Everything Rugby League" and "Rugby League Fanatics" spring to mind, who republish stories word-for-word, in full on their Facebook pages, accompanying images and all, with absolutely zero attribution or links back to the original source.

It's frustrating to see this morning that Josh Massoud (regardless of your thoughts on him) wrote a brilliant piece on the Mannah memorial service & Jon's final days... and these pages republish the article as if they wrote it. The post on each of the pages I mention above has several hundred shares and thousands of likes, hundreds of comments.

Is it any wonder journalism is a suffering profession when selfish glory-hunting Facebook pages like those ones rip the work of journos off?

Agree with all of this. I wish FB did more to stop this sort of thing.

It wouldn't be that hard to have a program running through their servers and when it found something that looked like an illegal copy of something on the net it could be brought to their attention and they could shut it down.

to be honest, I see where you are coming from, but this isn't causing any serious damage to the author's work. They still get published and paid. Only the publication is affected.

This should not be used as an excuse for substandard and shithouse journalism. Phil Rothfield and Bec Wilson aren't shithouse hacks because of a Facebook site and they deserves no sympathy because of it.

At the end of the day, morality, integrity, research, fact checking and writing ability is what matters most to a journo. Most of today's journos, not just in sport either, lack to many of these.

And the more the newspapers lose revenue the lower the quality of their future work.

Newspapers aren't offering as many jobs and less well paying jobs than they used to. So considering that there are less journalists and less well paid journalists, of course the quality of journalism will go south.

It has been building for years and only looks like getting worse.

 

[madunit]

And the more the newspapers lose revenue the lower the quality of their future work.

Newspapers aren't offering as many jobs and less well paying jobs than they used to. So considering that there are less journalists and less well paid journalists, of course the quality of journalism will go south.

It has been building for years and only looks like getting worse.

That is absolute bullshit.

There are more journalists today than ever before, historical information and research is easier now than ever before in the past, it takes half the time and money to get a semi decent education on journalism which would have sufficed for journalists 30 years ago.

You cannot claim that the poor ethics and ability of current journalists (of whom are lacking in these areas) on money, Facebook or anything else.

That is an utterly stupid argument made by someone with no knowledge of the industry in any aspect whatsoever.

 

[BDR]

You cannot claim that the poor ethics and ability of current journalists (of whom are lacking in these areas) on money, Facebook or anything else.

I was with you until this sentence, which I don't understand.

@BM: The number of journalists haven't declined, but the way they report news has.

 

[madunit]

You cannot pay a journalist to improve their morals, integrity and ability.

They either have it or they don't.

 

[BunniesMan]

How often do you here about News and especially Fairfax sacking workers?

Channel 10 has also had mass sackings recently.

There is no way the DT and SMH employ the same amount of journalists now that they did when their circulation was peaking.

 

[madunit]

oh so now you are changing your argument. We are talking about the total number of journalists, not at two specific companies.

There is a myriad of independent journo's today who write for free and their work is a shitload better than paid journo's.

This alone shits on your entire argument.

Sacking staff is a sign of a poorly run company, and has absolutely nothing to do with the journalists themselves.

 

[Timmah]

unit, does any of that excuse the original point, which is dodgy Facebook pages breaching copyright by reproducing these articles and the associated pictures with them WITHOUT any attribution whatsoever?

 

[madunit]

No.

I didn't suggest that.

I was making the very clear point that dodgy facebook pages are not the cause of bad journalism. Its an excessively flimsy premise.

 

[BunniesMan]

They're not the sole cause obviously. But they (and other anonymous websites/pages on the net that steal a journalists work) are a part of the problem.

 

[Timmah]

Gotta disagree unit. I believe that ongoing plagiarism and unauthorised reproduction of journalist's works are part of the reason many don't put much effort into it anymore.

Many of them probably know their work will get republished without attribution elsewhere and as a result the standard drops. As the standard drops, the readership drops and the media organisation makes less.

 

[BDR]

If the journalist is that lazy at their job they aren't good at it anyway.

 

[Jason Maher]

Hip hop and rap.

 

[Dani]

When you buy clothes and the security tag is left on.

 

[thorson1987]

When you buy clothes and the security tag is left on.

And DVD cases that are still locked

good thing i have a box of empty DVD cases just in case

 

[Dani]

I can't wear my pretty new bra until I can get the tag taken off

 

[BDR]

Let the twins hang free

 

[Dani]

They'd drag on the ground...

 

[BDR]

Now I feel sick

 

[Dani]

I'm sorry

 

[madunit]

Gotta disagree unit. I believe that ongoing plagiarism and unauthorised reproduction of journalist's works are part of the reason many don't put much effort into it anymore.

Many of them probably know their work will get republished without attribution elsewhere and as a result the standard drops. As the standard drops, the readership drops and the media organisation makes less.

Thats the most absurd shit I've heard.

Why would one intentionally produce shit work and not care about it, thus running the risk of losing their paying job just because some dickheads on facebook and the like don't source it?

I can see the point you are trying to make, but I can only see it as being utter nonsense that may apply to about 1% of all paid journo's.