I want to discuss something here that has been bothering me for quite awhile.
Have you ever taken time to consider the typical nature of online so-called "news" websites or blogs? I'm talking about the kind of "news" sites which allow, encourage and even actively promote reader participation. I'm talking about the kind of "news" sites which go well beyond just reporting the factual information related to news stories and the actual quotes given by the newsmakers in those stories. I'm talking about the online "news" sites that intentionally stir up controversy in order to encourage reader participation .... in order to create "buzz" .... in order to increase advertising revenue and reader subscription fees. Those are the online "news" sites I'm talkin' about!
Objective and professional journalists, and there are many such fine journalists in America, will report all the pertinent facts about a news story. An objective and professional journalist will answer the following questions in sufficient detail to satisfy all or most of the questions his/her readers may have: What happened or is about to happen? Where did it happen or is it about to happen? Who and/or what is (are) the source(s) for the news story? (Note: A really good journalist will try to confirm his stories using two or three independent sources of credible information.) Are the sources used/quoted credible and are the sources uniquely positioned to know what they are talking about? What are the implications and/or consequences of this news story? In other words, why should the reader even care about this news story?
An online so-called "news" site which invites (and often incites) its readers to make comments on a story about which all sides of that story have not been thoroughly and fairly researched and represented does a great disservice to its community of readers. Readers often get stirred up and agitated, because all sides of a particular story have not been fairly reported, which is too often done purposely. Readers also get stirred up and agitated by the comments published on the "news" site by "shills" who are used (sometimes employed) to pump-up controversy, reader interest and readership volume. In such instances, it's all about pumping-up readership to attract advertising revenue rather than objectively reporting on the news stories.
Here at Hermann Hearsay, we DO NOT purport to be a legitimate online "news" website. Rather, our purpose is to expose the hypocrisy of sites which DO represent themselves as legitimate "news" sites of the "future" and drain precious advertising dollars from local businesses to run what basically amount to "opinion blogs". We expose this kind of hypocrisy by using humor in our "reporting". We use various forms of humor to drive our points home .... parody, farce and exaggeration.
Our readers can judge for themselves. Afterall, all of our readers here at Hermann Hearsay are highly-educated and exceptionally discerning. I've had the pleasure of meeting and becoming acquainted with all of my readers. I maintain that IF you are looking for hard news coverage without the attendant chatter of partially-informed readers, you should read your local newspaper (like the Hermann Advertiser-Courier), a good state/regional newspaper (like the St. Louis Post-Dispatch) and a prominent national/international newspaper (like the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times). Reading these newspapers will give you plenty of current news and news analysis written by EXPERIENCED PROFESSIONAL JOURNALISTS. And when you read these fine newspapers, you must still be aware that every reporter is a human being and thus has his/her own personal biases and agendas. The editors of these publications also have their own personal biases and agendas. But our readers already know that. Our readers are intelligent, critical and analytical. They will not be taken in by spin or one-sided, biased reporting!
And then, if you want to discuss and argue about local, county, state, national and international issues, don't argue with other unnamed, anonymous readers on one of those so-called "news" websites. Instead, go down to your local coffee shop, restaurant, barber shop, beauty shop or tavern and strike up a satisfying and stimulating conversation with your neighbors. You'll meet and make new friends. You'll have interesting, stimulating and informative conversations. And best of all, you won't have to pay a "subscription fee" for the privilege!
Truman T. Tiger
Owner and Founder
Hermann Hearsay
Well said, Truman. However, we need to recognize that it is much easier to get on one of these so-called "news" site and anonymously pontificate to all who will read. Many like to argue back and forth anonymously. As much time as some spend on these so-called "news" sites, they have little time left over to read actual newspapers written by legitimate journalists!
ReplyDeleteAlfred
Precisely, Truman! Can't people through the hypocrisy of these so-called daily "news" blogs. Read the Hermann A-C, either in newsprint form or on their website. There is a reason they don't allow for comments by their readers. I applaud them for holding to this editorial policy!
ReplyDeleteElmer
Truman, I read the Hermann A-C, the sports page of the St. Louis-Post Dispatch and Hermann Hearsay. Mostly I get my news down at the coffee shop.
ReplyDeleteWhat does it cost to advertise on one of these online "news" sites? Doesn't it make a lot more sense to spend limited advertising dollars by placing ads in an established local newspaper. The advertising reach is much better! Thousands of subscriptions instead of a few hundred subscriptions! Furthermore, the newspaper lays around in coffee shops, restaurants, barber shops, beauty shops and physician offices where it gets read by many more people than just the annual subscribers. The advertisements have more "credibility" because they appear in long-establish, credible newspapers. Discount coupons are better facilitated by newsprint ads. Etc., etc. I don't get it, Truman. Why would any rational thinking business owner spend limited advertising dollars with online "news" websites which are actually just glorified blogs?
ReplyDeleteGabby
Please don't sell Hermann Hearsay, Truman! We like it just the way it is!
ReplyDeleteTruman, I know a fellow who might be one of those "shills" you referred to. His initials are "H.V." and he appears on some of our local daily "news" sites quite often and quite prominently. Somehow he has the time to comment (read pontificate) about just about everything that is written. I don't know if he is paid or compensated in some way to do this, but I think it's a definite possibility!
ReplyDeleteGertrude S. from Rhineland
I'm just wondering if Elmer and A. E. Newman might be "shills". Afterall, if you look back through previous postings, you will see that they have both commented quite a bit!
ReplyDeleteJeffrey