journalism

The Extermination of Copy Editors

By Matt DiVenere

Copy editors, the silent defenders of the written word, are under attack from multiple fronts and there is nothing they can do to defend themselves.

Was that too dramatic of an opening? Not even close.

When you look at the current state of journalism, copy editors should be the bell of the ball.  Instead, industry giants are rendering copy editors useless—pawns in an unfair game with the deck stacked incredibly against them.

We have been given one of two reasons why this is all unfolding: an industry shift toward more video content and a “lack of readership.” You’ve seen the internal memos being leaked that explain the company’s commitment to “staying with the times” and “responding to our viewers.”

However, the decision to move away from journalism happened a long time ago. It happened very subtly at first. But now that click-bait and video content runs the village, those who seek the written word have become labeled the village idiots.

Although this trend has gone on for much longer than it seems, it’s only come to fruition thanks to the slew of layoffs and restructuring in some of the largest media companies in the world. But there is one group of brave men and women who are standing up for themselves in the only way they know best: through the written word.

If you’re not following what is happening at The New York Times, you should. Not for the reason why you think, however. Yes, it is devastating what is happening to those copy editors. Staff cuts, workload increases, and an overall lack of respect being shown to them make an already thankless job nearly impossible to do.

What happens when our entire society needs information, but has no idea where to go?

I cannot imagine a world where we will question the reporters at the newspaper of record, because that would terrify me. And it should terrify you, too. Where do you turn once your most trusted source becomes null and void? What happens when you have no one to turn to for the truth? For objectivity? What happens when our entire society needs information, but has no idea where to go?

Are you going to believe everything you find on the Internet? Will you believe nothing at all and make up your own narrative as to what is really going on?

Both scenarios are dangerous. Unfortunately, both scenarios are happening right now. We have our political parties labeling news organizations as “fake news” and are more concerned about which way they are politically leaning than what is actually being told. This has sent such a shockwave through the American people to the point where it is now part of the everyday conversation. Instead of trusting a news source and the job it has done vetting the story, the first response is always politically based.

It is the responsibility of a news organization to deliver the facts of the story and to allow its readers the opportunity to start a dialogue and form their own opinions on the matters at hand. It is one of the pillars of journalism in this country. And the facts need to be 100 percent correct, every single time. No exceptions.

By eliminating copy editors and by pinning reporters into a click-bait corner, we are stripping them of their power. We cannot continue down this path. We need to empower them. We need to support them.

So bravo to the brave copy editors at The New York Times. Your stand doesn’t fall on deaf ears. It should be echoed to the masses. Keep fighting.

More Writer’s Bone Essays

Blame Ricky Bobby for CNN’s Retracted Story

By Matt DiVenere

Can we all admit that CNN has had a rough few months? The culmination of it all is the “resignation” of three CNN journalists because of a retracted and inaccurate article on hedge-fund manager Anthony Scaramucci and his alleged relationship with a Russian investment fund that was being investigated by the Senate.

Here’s the problem: Every news outlet would jump at the bit for this story. And, according to The New York Times, that’s exactly what CNN did by publishing this article—they jumped despite the network’s standards team concerns. I would have loved to be a fly on the wall for this meeting and who made the final decision to publish it.

Not too long ago (in a galaxy far, far away), when there was a retraction because of an inaccurate article, there were specific people in the workflow that the newspaper could point to. Yes, this error fell on these strong, veteran reporters and they paid the ultimate price for it.

Forget “fake news.” This is the Ricky Bobby generation. If you ain’t first, you’re last.

But let’s look at the bigger issue at work here. In today’s media landscape, news needs to be broken fast. It needs to be sent out before the ink dries. Well, the Internet ink at least. And when that story is broken, it gets repeated across hundreds of websites and on countless hours of network television.

This isn’t the first time a reporter has gotten a story wrong, and it certainly will not be the last. This need for speed mentality allows for crucial steps to be skipped, sped-up, or done just for show with any suggested changes or results ignored.

Now, I say this without any knowledge on what exactly happened behind the scenes at CNN, but there has to be accountability across the entire industry for articles like this. Especially now when you have the President of the United States spending (clearly) an abundant amount of time and (possibly) resources tracking network journalists’ every move.

Forget “fake news.” This is the Ricky Bobby generation. If you ain’t first, you’re last.

Journalists have always been competitive in nature. It’s just a part of the culture. Throw that competitive streak into a society that thrives on viral news, and you are bound to see people stretch their means to “win.” It’s a broken system and the only way it’s headed is down.

Everything the job has stood for is being dragged through the mud. It’s time to win back our integrity and to boot out anyone who thinks otherwise.

What’s worse is we need this system more than ever. We need it to be fixed, fast. But who will do it? Who can do it?

This is where the story becomes a tragedy for me. If you look at the younger generation of journalists, how will they be taught to succeed? Will the ultimate goal for future journalists be page views and notoriety? Will it be breaking meaningful, well-sourced news or is the race going to be the only driving force in the industry?

There are no easy answers. There’s no overnight fix. This will take a movement and it has to start from within. The scale is tipping against journalists every second. Everything the job has stood for is being dragged through the mud. It’s time to win back our integrity and to boot out anyone who thinks otherwise. It’s time.

More Writer’s Bone Essays

Remembering Gwen Ifill

By Daniel Ford

Gwen Ifill, co-anchor of “PBS NewsHour” and moderator of “Washington Week,” died yesterday at the age of 61. 

Ifill was a trailblazing journalist who brought warmth, dignity, and class to a profession that doesn’t always reward those qualities. As a young journalist in New York City, I admired Ifill because she wore her passion, objectivity, and intellectual curiosity on her sleeve, and never failed to bring a smile and kind personality to even the most rancorous debates and discussions.   

Our nation is entering an era of uncertainty, one in which press freedom could be severely curtailed or discredited. As television critic Daniel Fienberg said on Twitter, “This is not the time to lose journalists of dignity, integrity, and professionalism.” My hope is that Ifill’s steadfast adherence to journalistic principles will provide a blueprint for aspiring journalists so that our citizens don’t forget, abandon, or abolish the American ideals people like Ifill embodied so brilliantly. 

During one of the talks below, Ifill says something that sums up everything I believe about journalism and the American experience. She was promoting her book, but was more eager to hear from the audience. She says, “I’ll turn it over to your questions because that’s how I get to learn stuff back.” Ifill understood that true learning comes from listening, which is why it’s imperative that you take time in the coming weeks and months to listen to her words and thoughts regarding our political system and today’s news media. We’re going to need to learn an awful lot in a hurry. 

Gwen Ifill, you will be sorely missed. I hope we live up to your classy example. 

The Real Reason Why This Election Cycle Is the Worst in A Long Time

By Dave Pezza

Yes, that headline reads like one of those shitty Facebook posts that the most annoying people can’t help but share every 20 minutes. We used to call it a hook, now we call it click bait, but either way you still clicked on it so...fooled you!

This election cycle is considerably unbearable not because of this year’s morally repugnant, economically exploitive, and embarrassingly hypocritical candidates. Although, those facts are not open for interpretation in the comments section. We are quite possibly facing the worst Democratic and Republican candidates for president in the last 40 years, maybe longer if you considered Nixon v. McGovern a terrible prospect (a quick reminder that Nixon won that election by 520 electoral votes to 17!). No, the true horror of the 2016 election is that we must brave it without our fiercest weapon in the fight against political tyranny, Jon Stewart.

I’m always a little late to the party, but after recently watching Stewart take over “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert” I realized how much I not only miss him, but how much I need him. His is the only public voice that has ever come close to harmonizing with my own. I watched “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart” religiously for years, especially during election years. Stewart has always had an inexplicable knack for sniffing out bullshit.  But more than that, he can present the flip-flopping, the contradictions, and the straight-up lies with such a grounded tone that any disagreements I may have with his personal politics melt away in the heat of his fiery carpet bombs of truth. And perhaps that is how we as a culture are most hurt by his absence. The absence of Jon Stewart is an absence of intelligent political conversation.

My fondest memories of “The Daily Show” are not his tirades on President Bush or his utter destruction of the Fox News Network, but his conversations and debates with guests with whom he simply did not agree. For example, Stewart and Fox News pundit Bill O’Reilly have had one of the best working relationships among political pundits of opposite sensibilities. They have appeared on each other’s programs a handful of times, and each time they managed to have intelligent, albeit heated, discussions about legitimate political topics, including popular vote versus electoral vote, white privilege, and the role of television journalism. They even took part in an actual televised debate in 2012 that lasted more than an hour and a half.

My fear is not that conservatism will run wild without the liberal Stewart keeping it in check (I think it is clear nothing can keep the Republican Party from a Death Star-scale implosion). My fear is what will happen now that these types of conversations are ending. Trevor Noah has tried his best to facilitate his own, unique version of “The Daily Show,” one that clearly and unapologetically skews to a younger and at times angrier fan base. And there is certainly nothing wrong or undignified about that approach. We also still have Stephen Colbert, who has never strayed too far from the Stewart mentality of responsible query and dissonance. But Colbert’s role in the zeitgeist is different from when he and Stewart shared an hour of late night coverage on a backwater network. Colbert now finds himself in an environment that calls for a bit more poise, some self-control, and some nonnegotiable ass kissing. Stewart put it more diplomatically (to no one’s surprise) after Colbert playfully reminded him that “The Late Show” is recorded live and that he couldn’t use the word “bullshit:” Stewart apologized, saying, “I’ve never been on a television show with stakes before.” 

And again, no one should criticize Colbert or his program for this. He is still Colbert, but a different forum on a different network means concessions. Even so, he has still done a terrific job of skirting that line in order to stay true to his faithful fans.

At the end of the day, we’re still missing our scrappy, Mets-loving, Arby’s-trashing political outlaw with nothing to lose, barreling ahead with appropriate abandon at the talking heads, the empty pant suits, and the spewers of nonsense and lies.

Essays Archive

 

Foul Pitts: A Fascist Attack on Journalism and the First Amendment

Mike Pitts, proud sponsor of fascism in America.

Mike Pitts, proud sponsor of fascism in America.

By Daniel Ford

I tried really hard to shrug off the legislation put forward by South Carolina legislator Mike Pitts that would register journalists the state found “responsible.”

It’s a Presidential election year; politicians, pollsters, lobbyists, and voters engage in all manner of dopey things. However, Pitts’ bill, ominously named the “South Carolina Responsible Journalism Registry Law,” is so insidious and ill conceived that I’m surprised J.J. Abrams didn’t feature it as a Sith plan in “The Force Awakens.”

You’d have to admire Pitts’ cojones if not for the document’s blatant fascism and disregard for the First Amendment.

I’m not sure where someone born and raised in a democracy would think “rounding up” people (of any race, creed, occupation, etc.) is a good idea. Oh wait, of course I do! We’ve had a bad habit in this country of grouping “others” we don’t agree with (or who are in our way) and shuttling them off into the wilderness. Native Americans had the audacity to want to remain on their land, so our recently arrived ancestors provided enough small pox and whiskey to lull them (aka threaten them with extinction) into the wastelands of Oklahoma and points west. The Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, so why not incarcerate innocent Japanese-American citizens in internment camps along the West Coast? African Americans want to move to the city after being enslaved for hundreds of years in the South? No problem, we have a ghetto for that!

It’s historically easy to look upon our perceived enemies and reach for an antiquated solution. Journalists are egomaniacal, sensationalist, and should leave poor, well meaning politicians alone so they can run our government and economy into the ground in peace. It’s their fault for exposing that the emperor rarely wears clothes. It’s their fault for asking pesky questions like, “Why are you comfortable waving a flag that symbolizes slavery and hate?” It’s their fault politicians willingly walk into scandals that require a vigilant, watchdog press to keep voters informed.

Do some journalists make a name with schlock and awe? Of course. Does egotism run amok in newsrooms? Oh, you betcha. However, I’ll take the slings and arrows for those boobs in order to avoid a reality where the press doesn’t exist and politicians inform us by stroking our hair and whispering in our ears, “Everything is okay; just go to sleep.”

Ideas like Pitts’ aren’t only dangerous, they’re lazy. Oh yeah, and they are grossly unconstitutional. Leave the Bill of Rights alone, Mr. Pitts, and try to write laws that might actually help your constituents.

Essays Archive

What You Don't Want to Hear as a Journalist: "You’re A Terrible Interviewer"

President Obama on "Between Two Ferns"

President Obama on "Between Two Ferns"

By Matt DiVenere

You know those brain farts that you get sometimes? Maybe you walked into a room with a purpose, but within seconds completely forgot why you were there? It happens to all of us. Unfortunately, when it happens to journalists, it ends up on YouTube.

There’s been two pretty significant “bad interviews” in the past week – one was intentional, and one was, unfortunately, not.

The first was by comedian and beard-aficionado Zach Galifianakis. Yes, it was in complete satire and was for marketing purposes for the Obamacare healthcare website; however the interview with President Barack Obama was quite a success. A 40 percent increase in traffic to the government website along with the video itself being seen over three million times within hours on the Funny or Die website can be characterized as a job well done for the marketing geniuses behind this.

I’m no stranger to the “Between Two Ferns” web series by Galifianakis. I’m a fan of anything he’s done, especially from a comedic standpoint (Don’t get me started, I can talk comedy for days). Despite the obviously-scripted dialogue from the President, Galifianakis delivered yet again.

If you watch other episodes from this series, the idea of a “terrible interview” rings loudly. It got me to thinking about my early days in journalism and a few of my very noticeable flops. But before I could elaborate on those “glory day” memories, the Internet hit it rich again.

That’s gold, Jerry! Gold!

Listen, I don’t watch Piers Morgan’s show on CNN (and, judging by the show’s ratings and the fact he was fired, not many other people do either). But if the person you interview all of a sudden tells you how terrible you are as an interviewer instead of answering your question, you’ve done something wrong. And it’s probably not just one thing, it's probably the entire thing.

Every time you sit down for a one-on-one interview with someone, it’s as intimate as you can be on a verbal level with a stranger. So there’s a very real possibility that at some point you or the person you’re interviewing is going to be as uncomfortable as they will ever be in their life during your interview. That will happen. A good interviewer will steer you back into the conversation, while others will just leave you flailing in the wind.

My very first interview in college still haunts me to this day. My first-ever college journalism class gave us an assignment on the first day to go out and interview a resident director about college life and their job. So I set up the interview, get my pad and paper, and head over to her office. Well, I walked in, introduced myself, took a seat, and bam! Nothing. Completely forgot the questions I was going to ask. I then decided to spend the next 15 minutes asking her about things that she didn’t even care about. Abruptly, I stood up, thanked her for her time and left.

By the time I got outside, I realized what I just did. All of my dreams and aspirations came crashing down on me at that moment. What in the world am I doing? Luckily, I willed myself to turn around and redo the interview.

Now, whenever I go to an interview, you better believe I have some topics and questions written down in my notepad.

For more essays, check out our full archive