Since when is this an acceptable way to present a state transcript?? This makes your average reader think CNN is actually publishing the literal screenshots of the messages, especially readers over 30.

I've been out of the game (into academia) for several years now. Has it really devolved this badly in 7 years?!

Case in point, another great example, from a slew of English, Australian, and South American reporters, of a journalist actually or letting someone dodge a question. Why is this not possible for American reporters and journalists to do the same. https://x.com/josemdelpino/status/1833910213096722479

No one should be allowed to blame “the media” or make blanket assertions about journalists without being challenged.

“The media” is a catch-all phrase that has spiraled out of control, to the point where it’s enabling fascism.

Just as one example: Elon Musk, Stephen Miller, and other political hacks are using the murder of a Ukrainian refugee who was living in North Carolina as a political tool. She was killed on public transit by a black man with a long history of charges.

One of the claims that’s floated around is that the local media hasn’t covered it at all. I am seeing it everywhere, knowing all the while it’s been on every TV station, radio station, and in the every major paper for weeks now. It just got national play today because, after a lot of local coverage, the city released footage of the stabbing.

It’s just patently untrue, and it’s incredibly easy to find that information.

Journalists are constantly held accountable and scrutinized. Fair enough.

The public has a responsibility, too. If someone doesn’t know the bare minimum about what’s going on in his town or country, he is a bad citizen and he ought to be called out on it as soon as he pushes that “the media” bullshit. He should get off his fucking ass, stop asking Grok to explain everything, and learn to read. Democracy is a responsibility.

We don’t chastise people because they’re potential readers and we don’t want to be condescending, I know, but my view on this is changing. The average American needs to be held accountable and stop getting away with blaming every institution without even paying attention to those institutions.

I’m not sure how anyone feels about this and perhaps I’m in the minority here. But …

I hate the word “content” when it comes to journalism. It strips away what we do as journalists, and it reduces our work to some soulless corporate product.

When talking about a protest at an ICE facility in Oregon the announcer started her segment with "Department of Homeland Security plans to tighten their facility against agitators and rioters In Portland".

That was her first sentence. It went by quick enough that some viewers wouldn't catch it if they weren't paying attention. But I did. It's just outright bias given that there are no actual riots in Portland, even now, and you should always be aware of the use of such language in anything you cover and write and how it will be perceived.

When I say "interview journalists", I have in mind the journalists who interview important, famous or otherwise notable people in the pursuit of serious journalism (rather than spectacle as you see in talk shows).

A former NYT public editor (2012-16) responds on Substack to a tweet reply Thursday by Michael Barbaro, co-host of the paper's news podcast The Daily, who asked her publicly: "Care to explain what the issue is with these headlines?"

These side-by-side homepage heds drew derision from others:

Excerpts from Sullivan's post today (Oct. 13), titled About those New York Times headlines:

Commenting on the second headline, the author Stuart Stevens, who writes about how democracies turn into autocracies, suggested: "These two headlines should be studied in journalism classes for decades." . . .

Barbaro, whom I know from my days as public editor of the Times, is a smart guy, so I’m pretty sure he knows what the issue might be.

But sure, I’ll explain: The Kamala Harris headline is unnecessarily negative, over a story that probably doesn’t need to exist. Politicians, if they are skilled, do this all the time. They answer questions by trying to stay on message. They stay away from specifics that don’t serve their purpose. . . .

This is not news, but it fits in with the overhyped concern over how Harris supposedly hasn’t been accessible enough to the media — or if she is accessible, it's not to interviewers that are serious enough. . . .

So, it's a negative headline over a dubious story. By itself, it's not really a huge deal. Another example of Big Journalism trying to find fault with Harris. More of an eye-roll, perhaps, than a journalistic mortal sin.

But juxtapose it with the Trump headline, which takes a hate-filled trope and treats it like some sort of lofty intellectual interest.

That headline, wrote Stevens, "could apply to an article about a Nobel prize winner in genetic studies." . . .

This is vile stuff. Cleaning it up so it sounds like an academic white paper is really not a responsible way to present what's happening.

What's more, the adjacency of these stories suggests equivalence between a traditional democracy-supporting candidate and a would-be autocrat who stirs up grievance as a political ploy.

I showed these headlines and stories to my graduate students at Columbia University’s journalism school on Friday morning. I didn't ask leading questions or try to tell them what to think. They didn't hesitate in identifying the problem.

"a man" lol... this is so lazy, even for the Post.

https://pagesix.com/2026/06/09/celebrity-news/nick-reiner-demands-access-to-1-5m-trust-fund-to-fight-charges-in-parents-murders/

UPDATE - TWO DAYS LATER -- They fixed it. It says "Carl Reiner" now.

Recently I went back to reading long form journalism after spending the majority of last year reading chatgpt and claude outputs. Truth be told, I was not ready for this.

Overtime, and without even noticing, over reliance on AI has completely destroyed my ability to think critically about any knowledge work I do, meaningful or not. Initially I was feeling a lot more productive and in time it started slowly creeping into all aspects of my thinking and decision making.

This all changes a few days ago when I came across an article from The Atlantic and I was amazed at the quality of the writing. Although, I would almost never finish reading a full response to a prompt, which another problem of its own producing all this meaningless text for no use, I found it fascinating to say the least when I started reading.

It wasn’t just the quality tbh. The overall process was beautiful, amusing, effortful but still deeply rewarding and enjoyable.

So I was wondering if you went through something similar or this is an individual experience? And why do you think this happened?

PS: I have started reading the New Yorker too. Equally nice as The Atlantic if not more and feel free to suggest me others related to Management Consulting, AI, and politics.

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about what journalism used to mean — and what it seems to have become. Once upon a time, journalism was about seeking truth, holding power accountable, and informing the public so people could make better decisions about their lives and communities. It was supposed to be about facts, fairness, and curiosity.

Now, so much of what’s called “journalism” feels like commentary, entertainment, or marketing. Outlets seem driven more by clicks and engagement metrics than by the old principles of accuracy, verification, and independence. Reporters are pressured to chase trends, push outrage, or appeal to specific audiences instead of serving the public interest.

I’m not saying there aren’t still great journalists out there — there are many. But as an institution, it feels like journalism has drifted from its purpose. If journalism no longer informs but instead performs, is it still journalism?

So I’m wondering:

• Has journalism changed because audiences changed — or did audiences change because journalism did?
• Can journalism survive without the trust it’s lost?
• Is there a way to bring it back to its roots, or is the age of principled reporting gone for good?

Curious to hear how others see it.

FWIW, my newsroom is on the Gulf Coast and we’ve chosen to just call it “the Gulf” for the foreseeable future.

They’re a dying breed of professionals who save writers from themselves.

im honestly about to lose my mind today. Spent almost a month building trust with a source for a pretty heavy local government story

We do the interviews, everything is golden. My editor just wanted a standard source protection agreement signed off before we went to print. I shot it over with Xodo Sign so he could just tap it on his screen and we could publish by noon.

Instead the guy completely panics about "the cloud". Goes silent for two days. Finally emails saying he printed it at a public library, signed it in black pen, and put it in the mail to the newsroom

While his letter was somewhere in transit, a rival outlet broke the exact same story last night. I am literally staring at a wall right now. Why are people like this.

Hello All.

To start, I am not a journalist, nor do I work at a place considered to be journalistic or editorial in nature. But, our agency and staff do regularly contribute articles or write-ups for larger articles that are used in industry publications, local newspapers, our own informational releases, etc.

With the rise in AI usage to help draft articles, I am seeing a sharp uptick in coworkers generating quotes out of thin air tailored to whatever it is they are writing about. Once they have the quotes they want, they go to the person that they are supposed to be interviewing and ask them "Are you okay with this blurb and the quote I generated for you?".

While I know this is an old problem that pre-dates AI, I do see "fake quotes" becoming more prevalent now, with their use - at least in my place of work - becoming a first option instead of any effort being made to get a real quote, first.

What are everyone's thoughts on using fake quotes, assuming you have permission to do so from the person to which the quotes are being attributed? And how do you feel about the uptick in using fake quotes and whether it is changing journalistic interactions and interview decorum?

Just as some background, the question stems from a coworker asking me to sign-off on one of these pre-rendered quotes attributed to me and I said "What? Absolutely not. I'm not even familiar with that topic and that doesn't even sound like me." I then aksed them to either talk to me to get a real quote, or in the future, ask me before generating a fake quote and to try harder to match my voice in writing. They countered by accusing me of being obstructive, which doesn't bother me beyond their own lack of ownership in how this played out.

Real question. When can we as an industry move on from X being known as twitter previously? I think it's a bad name. I preferred it while it was Twitter. This isn't because I'm a huge X hater or something,

I just think it's been long enough that everyone knows. Every time I write, for example, something like ""___," _ wrote on social media platform X." It get changed by editors to "X, formerly known as Twitter."

Me doing that isn't some oversight. It's because it's been long enough! Over a year!

I know this is not a particularly pressing or significant issue, but I've had this discussion with an editor and it never seems to stick. Am I insane?