Editorial change
May 29 2009 09:09
#32
What would a journalist know about journalism.
May 29 2009 09:12
#33
Writing for tabloids makes you no more of a journalist than writing for Freedom.
May 29 2009 09:16
#34
In the same way that driving a train makes you no more a train driver than playing with a hornby.
May 29 2009 09:19
#35
To be fair the standard of journalism in Freedom over the last few years is substantially better than that of any tabloids.
Weeler knows tabloid journalism is a farce, he also knows not to turn away easy money.
May 29 2009 09:35
#36
It's nothing to do with 'standard of journalism', as you well know.
Pretty basic common sense. If someone writes a for freedom, and calls themself a journalist, then they are mentally ill. This is not the case if someone makes their money writing for a tabloid. In fact, the opposite is true.
May 29 2009 09:38
#37
The confusion is probably arising from the conflation of tabloid writing and journalism though.
May 29 2009 09:39
#38
Jack wrote:
It's nothing to do with 'quality of journalism', as you well know.Pretty basic common sense. If someone writes a for freedom, and calls themself a journalist, then they are mentally ill. This is not the case if someone makes their money writing for a tabloid. In fact, the opposite is true.
Well yes in that their occupation is clearly a journalist.
However wasn't the issue only brought up in regards to journalistic standards and I'm afraid working for a tabloid only necessarily affirms you as a journalist in the same manner researching for climate change denial think tanks makes you a scientist.
May 29 2009 09:44
#39
Because tabloids are a fringe thing?
May 29 2009 09:53
#40
Quote:
If someone writes a for freedom, and calls themself a journalist, then they are mentally ill.
Depends on what they're writing, I'd say alot of the work of say, weeler, Louis Further (once edited a bit) and svartfrosk over the last while has qualified them to call themselves journalists far more than say, Richard Littlejohn's rants, even though he's extremely highly paid to do what he does.
Personally I make a distinction in my own head between a 'reporter/sub' (ie. paid to regurgitate a master narrative provided for them from elsewhere) and a 'journalist' (ie. someone who produces trustworthy news which has involved robust, independent research). But that's pretty much just my own interpretation.
May 29 2009 09:59
#41
Jack wrote:
Because tabloids are a fringe thing?
So what you are saying is that if climate change skepticims was more mainstream it would make it legit science?
Never had you down as a relativist muppet Jack.
The fact that tabloids are so common doesn't alter the fact that they don't stand up to any standard of journalism worth aspiring to.
Thankfully scientific standards haven't sunk quite so low as those in journalism.
May 29 2009 10:12
#42
revol68 wrote:
Weeler knows tabloid journalism is a farce, he also knows not to turn away easy money.
Yup. Also its fun to out members of the far right every week (5 this month and counting thanks) and have them lose their job while you get paid. The knee-jerk reaction to tabloids from the left is cute though, fucking guardian reading boojy cunts. Probably offended by the tits in them too.
Back to Freedom and what was going on before Oisleep rudely interrupted. I think what Rob was doing in terms of getting actual journalists in and using proper journalistic style was a great idea. You should run a paper the way you run a paper, just because its anarchist is no excuse for not being extremely high quality.
May 29 2009 10:17
#43
revol68 wrote:
The fact that tabloids are so common doesn't alter the fact that they don't stand up to any standard of journalism worth aspiring to.
But what does though? I mean the broadsheets are doing a lot of the same stories just in a different style. I've written exposés for dry as fuck political magazines and it was just boring as fuck. In a tabloid the same story would be much easier to read, so long as you're not lying then I don't see a problem. Its a matter of style rather than anything else, I dont think there is any pure journalism out there worth aspiring to.
May 29 2009 10:30
#44
weeler wrote:
revol68 wrote:
The fact that tabloids are so common doesn't alter the fact that they don't stand up to any standard of journalism worth aspiring to.But what does though? I mean the broadsheets are doing a lot of the same stories just in a different style. I've written exposés for dry as fuck political magazines and it was just boring as fuck. In a tabloid the same story would be much easier to read, so long as you're not lying then I don't see a problem. Its a matter of style rather than anything else, I dont think there is any pure journalism out there worth aspiring to.
Well I'd agree with you about the broadsheet in the main, however you do still get a few examples of good journalism in the likes of the Independent as opposed to absolutely next to none in the tabloids, well apart from when Piers Morgan tried to be clever and got Pilger on board the Mirror again in the run up to the invasion of Iraq.
May 29 2009 10:47
#45
Mm plus there's things you can do with a more broadsheet approach that you can't with a tabloid, most notably going into depth. Most news can (and should) be explained pretty quickly, which is what tabloids do best.
Sometimes though with a complex topic requiring a lot of explanation, you need something a bit chunkier. Tabloids can do that up to a point with the wonderful invention known as the factbox, but eventually if you want the guts of what's going on, you simply need to give it more room.
Often the problem which faces left publications in general is we take on a lot of the latter, if only because we're explaining our politics and position the whole time. Part of what I was doing with Freedom was stripping out that aspect other than in the features/comment, both because after the first time it becomes turgid repetition, and because mostly, if you've researched it right, people will come to the conclusion you want while appreciating the lack of preaching.
May 29 2009 11:07
#46
revol68 wrote:
Well I'd agree with you about the broadsheet in the main, however you do still get a few examples of good journalism in the likes of the Independent as opposed to absolutely next to none in the tabloids, well apart from when Piers Morgan tried to be clever and got Pilger on board the Mirror again in the run up to the invasion of Iraq.
I like the mirror the best and get along well with them, I think maybe the problem here is that its politicos looking at papers. I mean, ideally papers would syndicate Wages, Price and Profit and have cover stories about who Zizek is fucking this week but for the most part there is a lot of non political news that needs to get done. When a man united fan commits suicide and then a bunch of liverpool fans smash up his grave, thats when tabloids come into their own and give me a two page spread.
May 29 2009 11:09
#47
ps - the reification of journalism here is opening all sorts of possibilities for activist jargon 
May 29 2009 11:12
#48
Rob Ray wrote:
if you've researched it right, people will come to the conclusion you want while appreciating the lack of preaching.
Thats the thing about the media creating hegemony, when we do it right people don't know we've done anything at all. Anarchists, who ought to understand this somehow think they'll counter it with publications that often scream at people and insult their intelligence.
May 29 2009 11:28
#49
Gotta say I agree with the general consensus on here regarding Freedom's quality of late. Presentation is really important here, with its new shape you need to think long and hard about the content of pages 1, 3 and 5 cos they're the ones browsers will look at first. I think one issue had G20, Ian Bone, G20 on those pages which basically meant I wasn't prepared to distribute it. Sorry.
May 29 2009 16:07
#50
Interestingly the former editor of Freedom has contributed a very interesting article to the latest Black Flag all about the G20 - how inward looking! 
I think any teething troubles we are currently seeing in Freedom (like the layout issue Alan describes) are purely down to the editors being a bit rushed, and settling in.
Ian Bones does talk some shite in his column though to be fair. But Freedom should always be open to different anarchist voices as long as they're not complete wingnuts, it was just as open under Rob Ray despite what some of his detractors might say.
May 29 2009 18:37
#51
Well yeah I ran or offered interview pieces with pretty much every major anarchist subset bar the primmies at one time or another. I wasn't aware I had detractors, how exciting!
May 29 2009 19:08
#52
vanilla.ice.baby wrote:
Ian Bones does talk some shite in his column though to be fair. But Freedom should always be open to different anarchist voices as long as they're not complete wingnuts, it was just as open under Rob Ray despite what some of his detractors might say.
I wouldn't mind if it was the odd interview or opinion article - he appeared in the blog bites section back in the day and I wasn't bothered about it. It does say something though when you have an Ian Bone column right at the front of the paper, where there used to be really good investigative writing from a class struggle perspective.
The Rob Ray doctrine was a good one I think - news reporting should be of a good quality and be readable to those outside the ghetto, agitprop should be properly argued in features, opinion pieces and letters. If Freedom is going to serve a purpose it should be doing something different to organisational freesheet, which are basically agitational.
May 30 2009 10:03
#53
Alan wrote:
I think one issue had G20, Ian Bone, G20 on those pages which basically meant I wasn't prepared to distribute it. Sorry.
Rob Ray's final issue.
There's one of your detractors Rob. 
Django I agree that some of that stuff would be good, why don't you write it or get someone else to write it?
May 30 2009 10:09
#54
Cause I'm well busy as it is on the editorial/design groups of Resistance and Organise and being an active AF member
I have done stuff for Freedom in the past, and hope to again, but I can't make any regular commitments.
May 30 2009 10:22
#55
I did do a G20 special directly after the demos, so it had a G20 intro, piece on Ian Tomlinson's death, and a roundup of the weirdest mainstream coverage. I've only ever put Bone in as a blog though. I did offer him a page to do news coverage on at one point - he's a good journalist when he's not on a rant - but he turned it down.
May 31 2009 09:25
#56
Jack wrote:
What would a journalist know about journalism.
workerist
Jun 1 2009 13:06
#57
I've just seen a draft of the latest issue of Freedom, the front page has an article on Unison and the national shop steward's network, and an article about UCATT and the olympics.
Inside are articles about the London Met University crisis, the police FIT, posties and the BNP leaflets, prison stuff, gurkhas, peruvian mineworkers, vietnam wildcats, a double page spread on Visteon, the anarchism conference, and the usual reviews, Bone, letters, etc...
well worth 80p!
Hack comes to mind.
Rich nonetheless to spout the odds about what is and isn't journalism.