Archive.org, WHOIS Lookups, & Facebook >> WaPo, USA Today, & GQ
October 19, 2015 12:14 PM Subscribe
We’ve all followed the sad news about Lamar Odom… [It’s] prompted lots of journalists to ask a natural question: Who made Reload?… I’ve yet to see one proffer anything more than a skin-deep answer… Here are the simple steps I took to begin answering the question… My goal is to help you become a better consumer of the press, so that when you read paper-thin accounts like the above, you stop and say: “Hey! That’s not real journalism.” Only with that kind of pressure will the media improve.
With a few quick searches, Blake Ross took the press to task and solved a mystery.
With a few quick searches, Blake Ross took the press to task and solved a mystery.
lol at anyone who expects 99.99% of modern journalists to do anything more difficult than reprint a press release or write a listicle. Also, articles about some athlete's misadventures at a brothel are neither news nor journalism. Bread and circuses, people. Bread and circuses.
posted by entropicamericana at 12:44 PM on October 19, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by entropicamericana at 12:44 PM on October 19, 2015 [3 favorites]
FTFA:
(For example: last week there was a film crew in town. I read the tiny "Leased to" sign on one of the tractor-trailers and searched out the name of that temporary company. That led me to the name of the only employee, who is a film producer. And that got dumped into searches of Twitter and Google to see what the guy is doing these days. Viola!)
Is fifteen minutes of this kind of searching really that unusual? I would hate to think that we are still as credulous as the writer claims.
posted by wenestvedt at 12:49 PM on October 19, 2015 [7 favorites]
Please understand, this isn’t advanced computer wizardry. It’s something that anyone with the slightest technical background would try, and it’s something you should demand of your fourth estate.My family asks me questions sometimes, and with a combination of carefully-worded google searches using those mystikal tools called quotation marks, a dig through WHOIS data, and maybe a newspaper search or two, I often find out interesting things.
(For example: last week there was a film crew in town. I read the tiny "Leased to" sign on one of the tractor-trailers and searched out the name of that temporary company. That led me to the name of the only employee, who is a film producer. And that got dumped into searches of Twitter and Google to see what the guy is doing these days. Viola!)
Is fifteen minutes of this kind of searching really that unusual? I would hate to think that we are still as credulous as the writer claims.
posted by wenestvedt at 12:49 PM on October 19, 2015 [7 favorites]
The article sure is proud of itself, given it answers “Who registered reloadpill.com?”, rather than the harder question “Who made the Reload supplement?”
It’s undoubtedly a little bit smug in the framing, but the point still seems like a good one.
(For example: last week there was a film crew in town. I read the tiny "Leased to" sign on one of the tractor-trailers and searched out the name of that temporary company. That led me to the name of the only employee, who is a film producer. And that got dumped into searches of Twitter and Google to see what the guy is doing these days. Viola!)
Anecdata: I wouldn’t do this, because I wouldn’t care enough. That is, I’d care enough to be mystified at the production, but not to follow through with anything else.
posted by Going To Maine at 12:53 PM on October 19, 2015 [2 favorites]
It’s undoubtedly a little bit smug in the framing, but the point still seems like a good one.
(For example: last week there was a film crew in town. I read the tiny "Leased to" sign on one of the tractor-trailers and searched out the name of that temporary company. That led me to the name of the only employee, who is a film producer. And that got dumped into searches of Twitter and Google to see what the guy is doing these days. Viola!)
Anecdata: I wouldn’t do this, because I wouldn’t care enough. That is, I’d care enough to be mystified at the production, but not to follow through with anything else.
posted by Going To Maine at 12:53 PM on October 19, 2015 [2 favorites]
Is fifteen minutes of this kind of searching really that unusual?
I believe that taboos against that kind of information searching are growing stronger. If it happens in a business relationship people call it due diligence; if it happens in a personal relationship some people call it stalking. And more and more, business branding for the consumer is becoming more personal.
posted by infinitewindow at 12:53 PM on October 19, 2015 [3 favorites]
I believe that taboos against that kind of information searching are growing stronger. If it happens in a business relationship people call it due diligence; if it happens in a personal relationship some people call it stalking. And more and more, business branding for the consumer is becoming more personal.
posted by infinitewindow at 12:53 PM on October 19, 2015 [3 favorites]
Jeez, the self congratulatory "most people don't know" tone is /exactly/ the same as most shallow news pieces.
Sorry if I don't high five this dude for being so right all the time his friends tell him so.
posted by clvrmnky at 1:00 PM on October 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
Sorry if I don't high five this dude for being so right all the time his friends tell him so.
posted by clvrmnky at 1:00 PM on October 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
I don't think I will ever consider researching the ownership of a shady company "stalking", especially since companies are often collecting/purchasing all the personal information they can find on their consumers.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 1:02 PM on October 19, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 1:02 PM on October 19, 2015 [6 favorites]
I feel like journalism is at an inflection point here. They are still thinking that scoops are based on time-to-publish, but when that time is measured in minutes or tens of minutes for everybody, because the Internet is instant publishing, and that the readers are not receiving the information in scooped form. The "scoop" is just the version of the story that came out 5 minutes before the next one, and they all come out in an hour or two. The facts come out quickly, but the information doesn't.
So, "scoops," or competitive edge in news, are going to have to change, and I hope/predict that the scoop of the future will not be based on time-to-publish, but in level-of-detail. And this fits with the current practice, since the only edge any publication has is one of "more info."
posted by rhizome at 1:04 PM on October 19, 2015 [7 favorites]
So, "scoops," or competitive edge in news, are going to have to change, and I hope/predict that the scoop of the future will not be based on time-to-publish, but in level-of-detail. And this fits with the current practice, since the only edge any publication has is one of "more info."
posted by rhizome at 1:04 PM on October 19, 2015 [7 favorites]
That said, what's the going rate for freelance journalism researchers? Seems like there's an opportunity for a mercenary business model here.
posted by rhizome at 1:05 PM on October 19, 2015
posted by rhizome at 1:05 PM on October 19, 2015
for anyone who's not "we" (i guess that would include the occasional non-american who hangs around here), Lamar Odom was a basketball player who ended up in hospital with an overdose of a herbal supplement that was "viagra like", apparently sold via this site Reload. i think.
posted by andrewcooke at 1:06 PM on October 19, 2015 [11 favorites]
posted by andrewcooke at 1:06 PM on October 19, 2015 [11 favorites]
Going To Maine: That is, I’d care enough to be mystified at the production, but not to follow through with anything else.
OK, that's a fair point. This part of downtown used to have tons of movie crews, and it was common office chatter to talk about what we could figure out about them.
But many media outlets are dumping full-time reporters & photographers, which sends us into a Brave! New! World! of citizen journalism. My assumption is that quality here will decline for a while until those producers get more experience, making it even more important for readers to caveat lector.
posted by wenestvedt at 1:09 PM on October 19, 2015
OK, that's a fair point. This part of downtown used to have tons of movie crews, and it was common office chatter to talk about what we could figure out about them.
But many media outlets are dumping full-time reporters & photographers, which sends us into a Brave! New! World! of citizen journalism. My assumption is that quality here will decline for a while until those producers get more experience, making it even more important for readers to caveat lector.
posted by wenestvedt at 1:09 PM on October 19, 2015
for anyone who's not "we" (i guess that would include the occasional non-american who hangs around here), Lamar Odom was a basketball player who ended up in hospital with an overdose of a herbal supplement that was "viagra like", apparently sold via this site Reload. i think.
More or less. Reload is the name of the drug, not the site.
posted by Going To Maine at 1:11 PM on October 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
More or less. Reload is the name of the drug, not the site.
posted by Going To Maine at 1:11 PM on October 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
rhizome: That said, what's the going rate for freelance journalism researchers? Seems like there's an opportunity for a mercenary business model here.
Isn't that just a wire service with higher standards?
posted by wenestvedt at 1:12 PM on October 19, 2015 [3 favorites]
Isn't that just a wire service with higher standards?
posted by wenestvedt at 1:12 PM on October 19, 2015 [3 favorites]
"Don't Outsource Your Thinking."
This sounds good, but for 99.99% of the things that people will think about, they pretty much have to do this. Most people don't have the time to do the research, or the tools at hand to do all of them, or the skills to investigate – and frankly Blake Ross's little bit of amateur journalism is hardly a slam dunk revelation. It takes a lot of time, energy and training to do this with any utility.
Of course, given those facts, this really should be a case for the regulation of "dietary supplements" by the FDA (which has its own issues due to regulatory capture) rather than a sort of arrogant tut-tut at journalists and readers.
posted by graymouser at 1:13 PM on October 19, 2015 [2 favorites]
This sounds good, but for 99.99% of the things that people will think about, they pretty much have to do this. Most people don't have the time to do the research, or the tools at hand to do all of them, or the skills to investigate – and frankly Blake Ross's little bit of amateur journalism is hardly a slam dunk revelation. It takes a lot of time, energy and training to do this with any utility.
Of course, given those facts, this really should be a case for the regulation of "dietary supplements" by the FDA (which has its own issues due to regulatory capture) rather than a sort of arrogant tut-tut at journalists and readers.
posted by graymouser at 1:13 PM on October 19, 2015 [2 favorites]
I think this article makes a good point: It really takes a minimal amount of time, but some technological literacy, to dig considerably deeper into a lot of stories.
This is part of what I tried to tell about discovering the secret FBI aerial surveillance program: It was really easy, and used entirely public sources! The good news is that one or two other people, and the Associated Press, did the work to dig deeper and find out what was really happening.
posted by jjwiseman at 1:14 PM on October 19, 2015 [5 favorites]
This is part of what I tried to tell about discovering the secret FBI aerial surveillance program: It was really easy, and used entirely public sources! The good news is that one or two other people, and the Associated Press, did the work to dig deeper and find out what was really happening.
posted by jjwiseman at 1:14 PM on October 19, 2015 [5 favorites]
The point of this article is that, for at least a few journalists, one or more of the following applies: (a) they don't know that a URL that now points to a Japanese dating site could've pointed to something else in the recent past; (b) they don't know they can use the Wayback Machine to see what that URL served in the past; (c) they know about these things but don't feel that their article needs to include them, (d) they know about these things, but didn't have time to do this research before an arbitrary deadline.
I strongly believe that A and B are true. Everything that happens after that — checking WHOIS, googling phone numbers, etc. — is bonus points, but I think that a journalist in 2015 should know at least those two things, or know how to find the person in the newsroom who can do that for them.
posted by savetheclocktower at 1:16 PM on October 19, 2015 [4 favorites]
I strongly believe that A and B are true. Everything that happens after that — checking WHOIS, googling phone numbers, etc. — is bonus points, but I think that a journalist in 2015 should know at least those two things, or know how to find the person in the newsroom who can do that for them.
posted by savetheclocktower at 1:16 PM on October 19, 2015 [4 favorites]
The article sure is proud of itself, given it answers "Who registered reloadpill.com?", rather than the harder question "Who made the Reload supplement?"
More answers than anyone else had come up with up to that point. Also, the article specifically acknowledges its limited scope, saying that with that very very basic sleuthing done, there is space for some actual journalism to happen.
posted by Dysk at 1:21 PM on October 19, 2015 [4 favorites]
More answers than anyone else had come up with up to that point. Also, the article specifically acknowledges its limited scope, saying that with that very very basic sleuthing done, there is space for some actual journalism to happen.
posted by Dysk at 1:21 PM on October 19, 2015 [4 favorites]
Every one of the links the author sited is an example of churn and burn "journalism." None of the authors of those pieces really want to get to the bottom of what's in a Reload pill but they have all of the right keywords for Google and are simply link bait.
I know a few really great reporters and they have no problem doing the "sleuthing" the author is so proud of himself for doing. The author states in the first few paragraphs that he has an axe to grind.
posted by photoslob at 1:37 PM on October 19, 2015 [2 favorites]
I know a few really great reporters and they have no problem doing the "sleuthing" the author is so proud of himself for doing. The author states in the first few paragraphs that he has an axe to grind.
posted by photoslob at 1:37 PM on October 19, 2015 [2 favorites]
"We've tried nothin' and we're all out of ideas."
posted by rhizome at 1:38 PM on October 19, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by rhizome at 1:38 PM on October 19, 2015 [2 favorites]
I was with him up until this point:
That is, in fact, the entire point of this post: Don’t outsource your thinking. Not to the government, not to the media, not to me. Confront the world skeptically, particularly in realms like supplements, where organizations we lean on for oversight may sometimes abdicate their responsibility. Educate yourself until alarm bells ring in your mind when you read observation masquerading as journalism. We are lucky to live in a time when we are all so empowered.
While I agree with that self-education and casting a critical eye on a lot of the information we have is always a good idea, I also think it is an incredibly privileged position. We are still in a time when people past a certain age can remember when the news was expected to report on things in a reasonably objective and reliable way. It's only recently that so many news orgs more or less abandoned that fiction. Add to this the incredibly rapid growth of the internet and the breadth and depth of information available and we have a huge swath of people who were never taught the kind of media savvy that's needed today, nor did they ever really need it until relatively recently.
Second, does he expect that every person who is elderly or living in poverty or don't have easy access to the internet (15% of Americans) or whatever else are supposed to somehow find the time or means to get to a computer and do some research on whatever claim some huckster is trying to sell them? And then they're somehow supposed to be able to differentiate all the shitty information from the good information that's out there - something that even people who are highly media-savvy sometimes have a hard time doing? I mean, I love the internet and I love researching things and even I was surprised about some of the misconceptions I had about certain cancer rates and treatments until I recently read the very interesting, in-depth and long article about that very topic by Awal Gawande in the New Yorker. And the only reason I know I can trust his judgement is because I've read most of the longform stuff he's written in the magazine over the years. Is it fair to expect a single mother with a couple of kids trying to juggle a couple of jobs to put in all that due diligence work because so many journalists are basically phoning it in?
I am all for media literacy and empowering people to be able to find the information they need for themselves. But acting like it's super easy and anyone should be able to do it is in my opinion, flat-out wrong, and I feel like I see people fall into that assumption all the time. The media plays an incredibly important role and we need to continue to demand higher standards from them (as well as the organizations that are supposed to provide oversight, which is a whole different post) instead of just saying "welp, I guess it's up to the public to figure it out on their own".
posted by triggerfinger at 1:38 PM on October 19, 2015 [7 favorites]
That is, in fact, the entire point of this post: Don’t outsource your thinking. Not to the government, not to the media, not to me. Confront the world skeptically, particularly in realms like supplements, where organizations we lean on for oversight may sometimes abdicate their responsibility. Educate yourself until alarm bells ring in your mind when you read observation masquerading as journalism. We are lucky to live in a time when we are all so empowered.
While I agree with that self-education and casting a critical eye on a lot of the information we have is always a good idea, I also think it is an incredibly privileged position. We are still in a time when people past a certain age can remember when the news was expected to report on things in a reasonably objective and reliable way. It's only recently that so many news orgs more or less abandoned that fiction. Add to this the incredibly rapid growth of the internet and the breadth and depth of information available and we have a huge swath of people who were never taught the kind of media savvy that's needed today, nor did they ever really need it until relatively recently.
Second, does he expect that every person who is elderly or living in poverty or don't have easy access to the internet (15% of Americans) or whatever else are supposed to somehow find the time or means to get to a computer and do some research on whatever claim some huckster is trying to sell them? And then they're somehow supposed to be able to differentiate all the shitty information from the good information that's out there - something that even people who are highly media-savvy sometimes have a hard time doing? I mean, I love the internet and I love researching things and even I was surprised about some of the misconceptions I had about certain cancer rates and treatments until I recently read the very interesting, in-depth and long article about that very topic by Awal Gawande in the New Yorker. And the only reason I know I can trust his judgement is because I've read most of the longform stuff he's written in the magazine over the years. Is it fair to expect a single mother with a couple of kids trying to juggle a couple of jobs to put in all that due diligence work because so many journalists are basically phoning it in?
I am all for media literacy and empowering people to be able to find the information they need for themselves. But acting like it's super easy and anyone should be able to do it is in my opinion, flat-out wrong, and I feel like I see people fall into that assumption all the time. The media plays an incredibly important role and we need to continue to demand higher standards from them (as well as the organizations that are supposed to provide oversight, which is a whole different post) instead of just saying "welp, I guess it's up to the public to figure it out on their own".
posted by triggerfinger at 1:38 PM on October 19, 2015 [7 favorites]
There are lots of webpages with sources for journalists, but for some reason I've always liked Robert Niles' links for Finding Data on the Internet (Internet Archive - Current version).
posted by bentley at 1:47 PM on October 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by bentley at 1:47 PM on October 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
ATUL Gawande. Sorry, typing too fast.
posted by triggerfinger at 2:03 PM on October 19, 2015
posted by triggerfinger at 2:03 PM on October 19, 2015
"We've tried nothin' and we're all out of ideas." yt
OMG I have been saying that for YEARS and forgot it was a Simpsons reference.
posted by zutalors! at 2:40 PM on October 19, 2015 [2 favorites]
Where do journalists get their information from now?
The first time I needed to find something real-life related on the web, I went and asked a librarian. In 25 minutes I was aware of whois records, search engines, information request forms, etc...
A couple of years ago something did not smell right about a local online retailer. Their origin story was about two young women who grew tired of the misogyny and bullshit in their very niche industry, so they decided to start their own company. All their stuff was USA made, with the highest quality materials and with the utmost care. The two founders were open, friendly, always available on IRC and social media. Good people and good product all around.
Then one time I noticed something weird about one of their products. It could be an innocent mistake, or it could be that they were re-branding cheap imports and selling them as USA made. I asked them about it, and in place of the usual warm and funny responses, I got back a rant full of typos and exclamation points, something about the FDA and conspiracies and Chinese Communists.
Whois records, wayback machine and California's fictitious business name database showed that this business was owned by an LLC with a pattern of buying domains, pointing them to an online business for a year or two, then abandoning them. The businesses were mostly counterfeit watches, male enhancement pills, 'herbal' THC (???), and tons of re-branded stuff from Ali Baba.
To make the story short, the real man behind the operation made the mistake of following all of his fake companies on twitter and Instagram. He was the only common follower once I analyzed 4 of the companies. I sent him a direct message asking if I could be the exclusive distributor of one of his herbal supplements in the NorCal area, and a day latter I had a full name and address. With this I was able to find pictures of him on Facebook. He lives and works very close to my house, across the street from a coffeehouse I like.
This was the point were I should have broken the news in all the forums, how this business was a fake, the two founders did not exist, and the USA made product was just re-branded Chinese junk. I may have won a Pullet Surprise or two. But I am not brave, and I am very lazy.
And because I am not brave and I am very lazy, the one time I saw him in the coffee place I did not confront him or ask any questions. I just wrote on a post-it note "Hello $NAME. How's the $PRODUCT re-branding scheme working out for you? See you later. Love the Communist Chinese FDA" and slipped it into his shopping bag on my way out of the cafe.
And because I am not very brave, I did not wait to see his reaction, and I almost never go to that coffehouse any more.
posted by Doroteo Arango II at 2:42 PM on October 19, 2015 [4 favorites]
The first time I needed to find something real-life related on the web, I went and asked a librarian. In 25 minutes I was aware of whois records, search engines, information request forms, etc...
A couple of years ago something did not smell right about a local online retailer. Their origin story was about two young women who grew tired of the misogyny and bullshit in their very niche industry, so they decided to start their own company. All their stuff was USA made, with the highest quality materials and with the utmost care. The two founders were open, friendly, always available on IRC and social media. Good people and good product all around.
Then one time I noticed something weird about one of their products. It could be an innocent mistake, or it could be that they were re-branding cheap imports and selling them as USA made. I asked them about it, and in place of the usual warm and funny responses, I got back a rant full of typos and exclamation points, something about the FDA and conspiracies and Chinese Communists.
Whois records, wayback machine and California's fictitious business name database showed that this business was owned by an LLC with a pattern of buying domains, pointing them to an online business for a year or two, then abandoning them. The businesses were mostly counterfeit watches, male enhancement pills, 'herbal' THC (???), and tons of re-branded stuff from Ali Baba.
To make the story short, the real man behind the operation made the mistake of following all of his fake companies on twitter and Instagram. He was the only common follower once I analyzed 4 of the companies. I sent him a direct message asking if I could be the exclusive distributor of one of his herbal supplements in the NorCal area, and a day latter I had a full name and address. With this I was able to find pictures of him on Facebook. He lives and works very close to my house, across the street from a coffeehouse I like.
This was the point were I should have broken the news in all the forums, how this business was a fake, the two founders did not exist, and the USA made product was just re-branded Chinese junk. I may have won a Pullet Surprise or two. But I am not brave, and I am very lazy.
And because I am not brave and I am very lazy, the one time I saw him in the coffee place I did not confront him or ask any questions. I just wrote on a post-it note "Hello $NAME. How's the $PRODUCT re-branding scheme working out for you? See you later. Love the Communist Chinese FDA" and slipped it into his shopping bag on my way out of the cafe.
And because I am not very brave, I did not wait to see his reaction, and I almost never go to that coffehouse any more.
posted by Doroteo Arango II at 2:42 PM on October 19, 2015 [4 favorites]
And because I am not very brave, I did not wait to see his reaction, and I almost never go to that coffehouse any more.
Journalists are indeed pretty lazy these days....so you'd think the business reporter at your local paper would be all the more overjoyed to have a news story like that dropped in their lap. If you don't want to confront the dude yourself that makes sense, I'm not sure why you went to all that trouble and then didn't tell anyone about it. You don't even have to physically hang out in parking garages these days.
posted by Diablevert at 3:00 PM on October 19, 2015 [3 favorites]
Journalists are indeed pretty lazy these days....so you'd think the business reporter at your local paper would be all the more overjoyed to have a news story like that dropped in their lap. If you don't want to confront the dude yourself that makes sense, I'm not sure why you went to all that trouble and then didn't tell anyone about it. You don't even have to physically hang out in parking garages these days.
posted by Diablevert at 3:00 PM on October 19, 2015 [3 favorites]
Many journalists are getting paid pennies per word or "exposure" (AKA nothing)— a freelance researcher would get less than that, which is why such jobs rarely exist. The ones that do tend to go to Ivy League students who work for free for a well known journalist who has connections— they're basically interns. Rarely, if someone gets paid a decent advance for a book, they will hire factcheckers who can get paid decently, but the advances for nonfiction books dropped by 50% since 2008. So, while I am not defending lazy journalism, I will say that there is a reason so much of it is crappy right now that doesn't only have to do with laziness.
Secondly, finding out who is behind a health supplement that was part of a multi-drug cocktail that probably would have been deadly anyway, would not be first on my list as what I'd investigate with limited time and resources. The answer is likely to be: some scummy and easily replaced businessperson, just like most non-addicted drug dealers. So, while I certainly know how to use archive.org, etc. this is not where I'd bother.
The thing to investigate is how we have no regulation on this stuff, like this website did.
posted by Maias at 3:01 PM on October 19, 2015 [5 favorites]
Secondly, finding out who is behind a health supplement that was part of a multi-drug cocktail that probably would have been deadly anyway, would not be first on my list as what I'd investigate with limited time and resources. The answer is likely to be: some scummy and easily replaced businessperson, just like most non-addicted drug dealers. So, while I certainly know how to use archive.org, etc. this is not where I'd bother.
The thing to investigate is how we have no regulation on this stuff, like this website did.
posted by Maias at 3:01 PM on October 19, 2015 [5 favorites]
The main problem of capture is at the level of Congress, rather than the FDA. Congress is the reason we have no idea what's in vitamins.
posted by persona au gratin at 3:25 PM on October 19, 2015
posted by persona au gratin at 3:25 PM on October 19, 2015
Where do journalists get their information from now?
There are whole sites that basically exist to link journalists with either press releases or people / companies who fit with a particular idea for a story. I won't link to any directly as they can get a bit funny about it. They're not secret, but they're relatively discrete subscriber-only sites you generally pay to be part of.
Ostensibly it's a convenient way to link up with experts quickly and easily, which is especially useful if you're a niche mag or young journalist still starting up. Too often though it's just a lazy way of getting easy clickbait articles or similar, particular for certain UK papers.
For that the process is:
1) Come up with topical/controversial/ragebait idea.
2) Hit up one of these sites for confirmation/content to support that idea.
3) Write it up as if you did some research or uncovered something important.
Here are some recent requests I've seen:
"Looking for someone who has injured themselves at a friend or family member's home and then sued or made a claim for compensation."
"I need a few quick email quotes on why adult children still live at home, how to manage them, and how to stop parenting."
"I'm looking for female graduates who, since having children, have given up their first career to focus on their family BUT now work in some other lower-paid sector such as retail because it suits family life so much better. If you know of someone like this, please get in touch for more details. Can pay £300 on publication to each case study."
Feel free to guess which national UK papers posted those.
I'm actually registered on a few sites like this as very occasionally they yield a good source. Mainly though they just serve as a constant, massive fucking kick up the arse reminding me that it's important to do our own research and to do it carefully and properly, because that's precisely what a lot of other people aren't doing and it's not right.
Mostly not by choice, I must add. Nobody goes to university to study journalism because they want to write for the fucking Daily Mail. But unfortunately that's what pays the bills. You can't eat research, nor will it pay your rent.
posted by garius at 3:37 PM on October 19, 2015 [6 favorites]
There are whole sites that basically exist to link journalists with either press releases or people / companies who fit with a particular idea for a story. I won't link to any directly as they can get a bit funny about it. They're not secret, but they're relatively discrete subscriber-only sites you generally pay to be part of.
Ostensibly it's a convenient way to link up with experts quickly and easily, which is especially useful if you're a niche mag or young journalist still starting up. Too often though it's just a lazy way of getting easy clickbait articles or similar, particular for certain UK papers.
For that the process is:
1) Come up with topical/controversial/ragebait idea.
2) Hit up one of these sites for confirmation/content to support that idea.
3) Write it up as if you did some research or uncovered something important.
Here are some recent requests I've seen:
"Looking for someone who has injured themselves at a friend or family member's home and then sued or made a claim for compensation."
"I need a few quick email quotes on why adult children still live at home, how to manage them, and how to stop parenting."
"I'm looking for female graduates who, since having children, have given up their first career to focus on their family BUT now work in some other lower-paid sector such as retail because it suits family life so much better. If you know of someone like this, please get in touch for more details. Can pay £300 on publication to each case study."
Feel free to guess which national UK papers posted those.
I'm actually registered on a few sites like this as very occasionally they yield a good source. Mainly though they just serve as a constant, massive fucking kick up the arse reminding me that it's important to do our own research and to do it carefully and properly, because that's precisely what a lot of other people aren't doing and it's not right.
Mostly not by choice, I must add. Nobody goes to university to study journalism because they want to write for the fucking Daily Mail. But unfortunately that's what pays the bills. You can't eat research, nor will it pay your rent.
posted by garius at 3:37 PM on October 19, 2015 [6 favorites]
So, while I am not defending lazy journalism, I will say that there is a reason so much of it is crappy right now that doesn't only have to do with laziness.
Absolutely, and I think it has to do with the particular point in evolution we find ourselves in the Information Age, stuck between eyeball-collecting scoops that allowed outlets to own a story for days or weeks, and the immediacy of information propagation. What makes one news story any different than any other, especially for corporate and government stuff where external communication is so controlled? I don't think there's a new way yet.
posted by rhizome at 3:48 PM on October 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
Absolutely, and I think it has to do with the particular point in evolution we find ourselves in the Information Age, stuck between eyeball-collecting scoops that allowed outlets to own a story for days or weeks, and the immediacy of information propagation. What makes one news story any different than any other, especially for corporate and government stuff where external communication is so controlled? I don't think there's a new way yet.
posted by rhizome at 3:48 PM on October 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
What makes one news story any different than any other, especially for corporate and government stuff where external communication is so controlled?
Sometimes, nothing, like the story today about John Brennan's AOL account getting hacked by a teenager. All of the mass media takes are the same, for instance CNBC:
"The NY Post said that the CIA Director's private AOL account was hacked, but CNN says the FBI says there was no classified information compromised, and we're totally not curious how they came to this conclusion since this story broke less than 24 hours ago. In fact this story is so boring we won't even mention the other articles where they discuss what was posted to Twitter. I guess you can try Gawker or something. We will mention a previous hack which involved Comcast, who would not comment for this article. BTW, Comcast owns us."
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 4:19 PM on October 19, 2015 [3 favorites]
Sometimes, nothing, like the story today about John Brennan's AOL account getting hacked by a teenager. All of the mass media takes are the same, for instance CNBC:
"The NY Post said that the CIA Director's private AOL account was hacked, but CNN says the FBI says there was no classified information compromised, and we're totally not curious how they came to this conclusion since this story broke less than 24 hours ago. In fact this story is so boring we won't even mention the other articles where they discuss what was posted to Twitter. I guess you can try Gawker or something. We will mention a previous hack which involved Comcast, who would not comment for this article. BTW, Comcast owns us."
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 4:19 PM on October 19, 2015 [3 favorites]
Journalists are indeed pretty lazy these days
I'm pretty sick of hearing this trope. It's precisely because journalists are so overworked and underpaid that not every aspect of a story is exhaustively researched. Sure, it may have taken 10-15 mins to do the research that Ross did, but if you look at the articles he links, they aren't primarily about who made Reload, and they contain all kinds of chunks information that also took 10-15 minutes to research and the reporters were on deadline and working on three other stories at the same time.
Then you have a smug silicon valley guy "taking the press to task" because reporters didn't fully research a tangential part of the story. I'd think he would have a valid criticism if the articles purported to be investigative pieces about who manufactured Reload, but they're not.
I'm also dismayed that the "lamestream media" rallying cry and distrust of journalism by the right seems to be going mainstream. If journalism is suffering, it's because people don't sufficiently recognize its importance and aren't willing to pay for quality content.
posted by ultraviolet catastrophe at 4:20 PM on October 19, 2015 [5 favorites]
I'm pretty sick of hearing this trope. It's precisely because journalists are so overworked and underpaid that not every aspect of a story is exhaustively researched. Sure, it may have taken 10-15 mins to do the research that Ross did, but if you look at the articles he links, they aren't primarily about who made Reload, and they contain all kinds of chunks information that also took 10-15 minutes to research and the reporters were on deadline and working on three other stories at the same time.
Then you have a smug silicon valley guy "taking the press to task" because reporters didn't fully research a tangential part of the story. I'd think he would have a valid criticism if the articles purported to be investigative pieces about who manufactured Reload, but they're not.
I'm also dismayed that the "lamestream media" rallying cry and distrust of journalism by the right seems to be going mainstream. If journalism is suffering, it's because people don't sufficiently recognize its importance and aren't willing to pay for quality content.
posted by ultraviolet catastrophe at 4:20 PM on October 19, 2015 [5 favorites]
aren't willing to pay for quality content.
The resources have changed. The sites that are going out of business may be those who can't adapt to that change. It may just be that sites evolving from the generic newspaper model have overlap here. (apologies for the Capitalist Darwinism) But something has to give, and I don't think information is ever going to travel any slower. Right now it seems like information "unfurls" into the future, but journalists are a scrappy lot and capitalism suggests there will be a demand for people who can make it unfurl faster.
Payment is a tough nut. I have to think improvements in ad technology will have something to do with it, and not by just emulating old print and TV models. Everybody already gets 1000 newspapers for free, so paying by the "brand" doesn't make sense anymore.
posted by rhizome at 4:37 PM on October 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
The resources have changed. The sites that are going out of business may be those who can't adapt to that change. It may just be that sites evolving from the generic newspaper model have overlap here. (apologies for the Capitalist Darwinism) But something has to give, and I don't think information is ever going to travel any slower. Right now it seems like information "unfurls" into the future, but journalists are a scrappy lot and capitalism suggests there will be a demand for people who can make it unfurl faster.
Payment is a tough nut. I have to think improvements in ad technology will have something to do with it, and not by just emulating old print and TV models. Everybody already gets 1000 newspapers for free, so paying by the "brand" doesn't make sense anymore.
posted by rhizome at 4:37 PM on October 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
"The NY Post said that the CIA Director's private AOL account was hacked,
The story is right there, everything you need to know... the head of the biggest spy organization in the world uses AOL??? (total rimshot there!)
posted by sammyo at 4:41 PM on October 19, 2015 [4 favorites]
The story is right there, everything you need to know... the head of the biggest spy organization in the world uses AOL??? (total rimshot there!)
posted by sammyo at 4:41 PM on October 19, 2015 [4 favorites]
I think you guys are being dense. It's not about whether we NEED to know who manufactured Reloaded (or at least, who registered reloadedpill.com), it's about the fact that three different major news websites covered this story and all three devoted a paragraph to reloadedpill.com directing to a Japanese dating website.
If you know how web domains work, the next step (to the Wayback Machine!) is glaringly obvious, and yet not a single major news website took it. Hack writing is hack writing but how about making sure your freelancers have basic web research skills?
posted by subdee at 7:51 PM on October 19, 2015 [6 favorites]
If you know how web domains work, the next step (to the Wayback Machine!) is glaringly obvious, and yet not a single major news website took it. Hack writing is hack writing but how about making sure your freelancers have basic web research skills?
posted by subdee at 7:51 PM on October 19, 2015 [6 favorites]
I also found it interesting that the active ingredient in a "Viagra-like" "herbal supplement" is... Viagra, basically.
posted by subdee at 7:52 PM on October 19, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by subdee at 7:52 PM on October 19, 2015 [2 favorites]
Lots of journalist bashing going on here.
MetaFilter members are not representative of Internet users as a whole -- we are much more websavvy, so pat yourself on the back. Most humans, including journalists, aren't aware of how the domain registration works, have never heard of whois, and don't know how to do boolean searches (which Google only semi-supports these days, anyway).
In addition, many are unwilling/afraid to pick up the phone and call a place and ask questions. I've been mystified by long comment threads wondering about a company's hours or some other trivial question that a simple phone call would clear up immediately. Hell, I've broken stories simply by being the first to pick up the phone and call.
Couple the above with the fact that journalists are overworked, underpaid and under constant deadline, and you get major publications reporting about a "mysterious" Japanese webpage instead of delving deeper. Not to mention that the Odom story was being covered by the celebrity and/or sports beat, neither of which are likely to have much web research experience nor investigative reporting chops.
posted by me3dia at 9:17 PM on October 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
MetaFilter members are not representative of Internet users as a whole -- we are much more websavvy, so pat yourself on the back. Most humans, including journalists, aren't aware of how the domain registration works, have never heard of whois, and don't know how to do boolean searches (which Google only semi-supports these days, anyway).
In addition, many are unwilling/afraid to pick up the phone and call a place and ask questions. I've been mystified by long comment threads wondering about a company's hours or some other trivial question that a simple phone call would clear up immediately. Hell, I've broken stories simply by being the first to pick up the phone and call.
Couple the above with the fact that journalists are overworked, underpaid and under constant deadline, and you get major publications reporting about a "mysterious" Japanese webpage instead of delving deeper. Not to mention that the Odom story was being covered by the celebrity and/or sports beat, neither of which are likely to have much web research experience nor investigative reporting chops.
posted by me3dia at 9:17 PM on October 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
There are whole sites that basically exist to link journalists with either press releases or people / companies who fit with a particular idea for a story. I won't link to any directly as they can get a bit funny about it.
Well, I'm a funny guy who can work Google a bit, though probably I haven't found the more discreet ones:
Help A Reporter Out
SourceBottle
ProfNet Connect
The model seems to be free for journalists, advertisers pay.
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 9:52 PM on October 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
Well, I'm a funny guy who can work Google a bit, though probably I haven't found the more discreet ones:
Help A Reporter Out
SourceBottle
ProfNet Connect
The model seems to be free for journalists, advertisers pay.
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 9:52 PM on October 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
Complaints that journalism is going downhill "these days, as a result of the internet" sound to me like "kids these days" comments.
Journalism has always been full of worms and sucked. Sturgeon's law applies here as anywhere else.*
The only difference the internet makes (apart from confounding the business model) is to give us (in some cases) alternative voices which allow us to see the Fnords from time to time. The fact we're only just now seeing it does not mean it wasn't always there.
* That still allows for 10% being not sucky.
posted by oheso at 4:16 AM on October 20, 2015
Journalism has always been full of worms and sucked. Sturgeon's law applies here as anywhere else.*
The only difference the internet makes (apart from confounding the business model) is to give us (in some cases) alternative voices which allow us to see the Fnords from time to time. The fact we're only just now seeing it does not mean it wasn't always there.
* That still allows for 10% being not sucky.
posted by oheso at 4:16 AM on October 20, 2015
Then you have a smug silicon valley guy . . .
Or as I've come to think of it, someone posting @ Medium. It seems to be the new home for "My life is a working model for everyone else on Earth regardless of their situation or background."
posted by yerfatma at 8:00 AM on October 20, 2015 [1 favorite]
Or as I've come to think of it, someone posting @ Medium. It seems to be the new home for "My life is a working model for everyone else on Earth regardless of their situation or background."
posted by yerfatma at 8:00 AM on October 20, 2015 [1 favorite]
Lightly related: Luke O’Neill at Esquire opines about “#BoycottStarWarsVII and Why the Internet Is Trolling Itself to Death”
posted by Going To Maine at 7:34 PM on October 20, 2015
posted by Going To Maine at 7:34 PM on October 20, 2015
It seems to be the new home for "My life is a working model for everyone else on Earth regardless of their situation or background."
And in the homogenized world of Medium, you still get haves and have-nots.
posted by rhizome at 11:50 AM on October 21, 2015
And in the homogenized world of Medium, you still get haves and have-nots.
posted by rhizome at 11:50 AM on October 21, 2015
« Older “...illustrate exactly why people of colour need... | The Democratic Party is in deep trouble Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by fitnr at 12:42 PM on October 19, 2015 [5 favorites]