The Terrible Journalism & Tom English Thread

[Ranaldo Bairn]

I think that's it.

They are constantly under the cosh to get copy out there, so mistakes happen. This guy had probably just written an entry 5 minutes previously on Norway's game tonight and in the rush, got confused. 

Doesn't excuse all of the howlers we see regularly, but some are due to that I'd wager.

[craigkillie]

2 hours ago, Dons_1988 said:

This is a genuine question, but how much pressure are these guys under to fire out content into the public sphere?

The number of basic mistakes can only really be attributed to someone working full pelt and no one checking their work. Which I just find mad for publishing something to a large audience. 

I think this is right, but also Twitter has taught me that quite a large chunk of Scottish football journalists are not particularly bright, not very good at checking facts, and also not very good writers.

I suppose it's not surprising, when it's a pretty low paid job with little security. Most of the people with the skillset which would make them excellent journalists are probably doing other more profitable things with those skills.

[Dons_1988]

7 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

I think this is right, but also Twitter has taught me that quite a large chunk of Scottish football journalists are not particularly bright, not very good at checking facts, and also not very good writers.

I suppose it's not surprising, when it's a pretty low paid job with little security. Most of the people with the skillset which would make them excellent journalists are probably doing other more profitable things with those skills.

The latter is probably fair too. But I still find it odd that there would be a culture of prioritising speed of content over taking 2 minutes briefly review what’s going out there. 

Im not in journalism or media so I maybe just don’t understand the landscape but surely the website is judged on the quality of content being put out there so spending a small amount of time checking it seems worth it?

[craigkillie]

My experience from speaking to people in the industry is that the bulk of it is absolutely fucked, and ran by people who have basically no idea what they're doing other than squeezing every possible penny out of a dying industry via advertising, clicks etc. There absolutely is a culture in a number of media outlets of being first rather than most accurate.

That shouldn't apply to the BBC though, but I think standards at BBC Sport Scotland are just very low as a result of poor editorial decisions.

[Stu]

Will try to answer a few things without getting myself into trouble with my bosses!

7 hours ago, Dons_1988 said:

The latter is probably fair too. But I still find it odd that there would be a culture of prioritising speed of content over taking 2 minutes briefly review what’s going out there. 

Im not in journalism or media so I maybe just don’t understand the landscape but surely the website is judged on the quality of content being put out there so spending a small amount of time checking it seems worth it?

You would think it is done a matter of course, but getting journalists to check their work is a pain in the arse. The plea to check your copy and proof your work is probably the most repeated words from my editors over the years - and not just directed at me. That was long before we had to worry about firing stuff online with any great urgency so it's not a new phenomenon, and you can imagine between the internet and the fact newsrooms are even more poorly staffed than before means stuff is checked even less than before.

I very, very rarely right only for the web but I think the majority of the time stuff going straight to web will only be checked by the person that wrote it without anyone else seeing it - if it's checked at all. That's a combination of the issue I started off with (we don't want/like to read our own stuff) and we just don't have the time. That's why there's stuff on this thread which I put down to typos and don't really see as terrible journalism, rather than the nonsense like the Dundee postponement mistakes from the weekend.

5 hours ago, craigkillie said:

My experience from speaking to people in the industry is that the bulk of it is absolutely fucked, and ran by people who have basically no idea what they're doing other than squeezing every possible penny out of a dying industry via advertising, clicks etc. There absolutely is a culture in a number of media outlets of being first rather than most accurate.

That shouldn't apply to the BBC though, but I think standards at BBC Sport Scotland are just very low as a result of poor editorial decisions.

Would definitely agree with the BBC point. Everyone else is out for clicks to drive ad revenue, which isn't an issue the BBC has so they should be able to take a few minutes to check that. However, their bosses are probably putting themselves under as much pressure as the rest of us even though they are ridiculously well resourced - I know someone who is doing shifts there to provide holiday cover. In more than 15 years in my job I can't remember when we ever had someone (other than the odd work experience person who wasn't paid) to come in while folk were on holiday.

As for the first part of your post...

Edited October 13, 2023 by Stu

[Molotov]

9 minutes ago, Stu said:

The plea to check your copy and proof your work is probably the most repeated words from my editors over the years…….I very, very rarely right only for the web

I stopped reading at that point. Schoolboy error. 

[Rugster]

10 minutes ago, Stu said:

.

I very, very rarely right only for the web ...

 

Just as well…

[Stu]

10 minutes ago, Molotov said:

I stopped reading at that point. Schoolboy error. 

 

9 minutes ago, Rugster said:

Just as well…

Ha! Proving my point that I don't bother checking my work 

[Molotov]

27 minutes ago, Stu said:

 

Ha! Proving my point that I don't bother checking my work 

You’ll be asking for the thread to be changed to your name…..

You spell your name “Stewart”?  

[DA Baracus]

Far too many journalists in football are nothing of the sort: 'lead generator' would be a more accurate term.

[parsforlife]

3 hours ago, DA Baracus said:

Far too many journalists in football are nothing of the sort: 'lead generator' would be a more accurate term.

You don't even need to limit that too football TBF,   apparently searching twitter, collecting posts and putting a headline 'you won't believe what is being said about x'  is a job.

[The Master]

[SJFCtheTeamForMe]

36 minutes ago, The Master said:

If we say it once we'll say it a 1000% times. That's what happens when you've got someone doing the graphic and social media work who has zero clue about Scottish football. 

[Loonytoons]

In what world could it be argued that a draw wouldn't be a better result for Scotland?

[itzdrk]

5 minutes ago, Loonytoons said:

In what world could it be argued that a draw wouldn't be a better result for Scotland?

We'd still have qualified, been two points ahead of Spain with same games played.  Could have done the group.  

We've qualified but likely to be second place.  

Both are great IMO but it can have been better. 

[Loonytoons]

3 minutes ago, itzdrk said:

We'd still have qualified, been two points ahead of Spain with same games played.  Could have done the group.  

We've qualified but likely to be second place.  

Both are great IMO but it can have been better. 

That was my point.  A draw would have been a better result, that cannot be argued.  Crichton seems to think otherwise.

[Crawford]

At the moment, BBC has it that Scotland only qualified on the back of the Norway Spain result and not because of the whole unbeaten run.

It's two paragraphs down before they say that it's with games in hand.

[craigkillie]

The reason we qualified tonight is because of that result, I'm not sure what else you'd expect them to say.

[The Master]

4 minutes ago, Crawford said:

At the moment, BBC has it that Scotland only qualified on the back of the Norway Spain result and not because of the whole unbeaten run.

It's two paragraphs down before they say that it's with games in hand.

That same report also states that Norway need to hope that Serbia qualify automatically, and hold on to third place in the group, in order to get a play-off spot. 

Which is wrong, because they’re already in the line of succession (as it were) for a play-off place, and their position only changes if countries above them qualify automatically (hence the Serbia requirement). Their own finishing position has no impact at all. 

[Loonytoons]

The fact that the BBC sport page even has how Norway might get around to  qualifying is another abomination.

English BBC will be gutted Haaland might miss the finals.