User talk:Northamerica1000/Churnalism/Archive 1

Archive 1

The lede in this statement is wrong. So is the thesis underlying its first three paragraphs.

The lede to this page says "The term "churnalism" does not appear anywhere in Wikipedia policy".

Actually, WP:SENSATION refers to it specifically: "Even in respected media, a 24-hour news cycle and other pressures inherent in the journalism industry can lead to infotainment and churnalism without proper fact checking, and they may engage in frivolous "silly season" reporting." And that reference is directly relevant to which those who use the term in reference to news sources which don't exercise good judgment in repeating statements by primary sources without any independent analysis or editorial input apart from paraphrasing the primary source material (usually a press release) slightly.

I'll let people concerned about other uses of the word defend their use of the word, but I've discovered one case of churnalism which was wildly successful among the tabloid press and the fringe theory Web sites.

Thunder Energies Corporation issued press releases throughout the business and tabloid press relating to a telescope they claim allows "Invisible Terrestrial Entities" and "antimatter galaxies" invisible to ordinary telescopes to be seen. Without any effort to validate that extraordinary and implausible claim, News of Science, CNN Money, Yahoo! Finance and other news organizations ran the story as straight news.

Nowhere did any of the business news sites call their local university's physics or astronomy department to examine the truthfulness of this claim, and then cite what they were told (some of the British tabloids did just that, surprisingly). Thus, all we have for it in all the business press stories is Thunder Energies' word that their telescope works as advertised. And not one of those stories, in my opinion, ought to be treated as a independent secondary source. Each of those articles is a monument to journalistic malpractice. loupgarous (talk) 00:41, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

As far as the "unfalsifiability" of the term "churnalism," here's an easy test for churnalism of the "direct quote from the press release" kind. A news article making an extraordinary or implausible claim ought to be an opportunity for a Google search on the subject.

News of, say, Elon Musk's announced plan to send colonists to Mars is both extraordinary and implausible (to some), but verifiable by the presence of articles in the electronic press both affirming its existence and questioning its feasibility (at least). You can find plenty of articles about Musk's Mars shot proposal which aren't from a SpaceX press release or verbatim text from his press conference.

The Thunder Energies press release, by contrast, is only expanded on in articles by news organizations we don't consider reliable sources in wikipedia - the tabloid press, fringe theory publications and Web sites, and blogs and other self-publications with no editorial oversight. When I impeach the business press for running with Thunder Energies' press release copy, it's because that's precisely what they did - reproduced what we consider a primary source, a press release, with only minimal changes and no evidence at all even of the reworking this same press release got in the tabloids.

You can disprove an assertion of churnalism in this case. You can't say most reputable news sources are doing churnalism by reporting on the Musk Mars shot, because they mostly put that story in perspective with previously proposed Mars shots. Aviation Week and Space Technology, which is also a trade publication, gives a spectrum of viewpoints in its coverage of the Musk proposal. Its articles are bylined (with actual people's names, not "Staff Writer""), and not paraphrases of corporate press releases. loupgarous (talk) 01:35, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

• The first sentence of the lead has been changed, because "churnalism" is mentioned at WP:SENSATION. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:03, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

POV tag

I believe that the article is non neutral. I tagged the article accordingly. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:07, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Would you care to discuss the ways you think it is non-neutral? If you don't do so within a reasonable span of time, we don't have much to go on but your stated opinion that it's not NPOV. loupgarous (talk) 01:35, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I've found the lead to be non neutral as it presents the position of those who argue for deletion at AfDs in a negative light, while casting doubts on their arguments. Sample content:

• The term is sometimes used as a reason at AfD discussions to dismiss any source that covers business and entrepreneurship, even if it's The New York Times (more Pulitzer Prizes won than any other news organization) or The Wall Street Journal (#1 newspaper in the US by circulation). Almost every company covered on Wikipedia is big enough to have a Public Relations (PR) department, and when anything newsworthy happens regarding the company, the PR department is likely to put out a press release, because it is their job to do so. The press release will typically talk about whatever facts are most likely to interest journalists, because that is the point of a press release, so the contents of the press release will almost certainly overlap with article content.

K.e.coffman (talk) 02:52, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

This is not an article....its an essay in the project namespace (as indicated by the current tag). Pls see Wikipedia:Essays#About essays.--Moxy (talk) 02:53, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

The linked essay states: "An essay, as well as being useful, can potentially be a divisive means of espousing a point of view" -- this is what this essay is doing. I did not see anything that essays cannot be tagged. A clarification would be great. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:58, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Dearest User:K.e.coffman: thanks for the hearty laugh! Your tagging of this essay as an "article" is perhaps the most funny and ignorant thing I've seen recently on wikipedia, and that is saying a lot. Again, thank you for the enjoyment! -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 06:47, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Badly written

1. The lead should start with defining "churnalism", and only after that say when it is used.
2. Churnalism also causes WP:RS concerns, which are not covered in this essay. Debresser (talk) 13:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC)