It depends on the service. I understand that Reuters allows minor edits as long as they don’t change the sense of the piece. To materially alter sense could get someone in contractual problems
Thanks. I have a great deal of respect for Karl and his material. Another example of a former MSM journo who made a change. Sean Plunket is another. I am sad to hear your local daily has suffered from the malaise I discuss.
Never mind the big urban and national dailies. Our local newspaper has historically been a reliable source of local news, comment and lively letters to the editor. From the beginning of the rollout of The One Source of Truth this has been eroded so now no letters to the editor, no dissenting views about anything, vilification of some candidates in the local body elections because they had a connection with Voices For Freedom (they were elected anyway!), etc etc. The editor has, I believe, changed from being enthusiastic about his job to going through the motions. And why, you may ask? Because all the copy for this small country paper now has to get sent away to get the approval of the big bosses and if they don't like it it doesn't get printed.
Veteran journo Karl du Fresne recently did an excellent short piece beginning:
" I had an exchange of emails yesterday with a fellow retired journalist who lamented the tendency for reporters to embellish their stories with personal opinion, something that was firmly discouraged in our time."
He goes on to offer two possible explanations on how this has come about. Worth reading. It's part of "Three Thoughts for Today" on his blogspot (June 9, 2023).
To fix itself the mainstream media would have to show some humility.
I see very little of that.
It's always conspiracy theorists, or Russia, or mysterious members of the far right.
Most of what we did for covid had neglible affect for costs that are still unquantified. This is very well represented in the scientific literature. The media championed all of this with a complete lack of balance and often a liberal dashing of hysteria.
There is also little acknowledgement that the media has a heavily left leaning bias; there are almost as many journalists who describe themselves as far left than there are journalists occupying the entire right spectrum.
This is further reflected in the university employed "experts".
How could we get anything but a heavy left leaning bias?
As far as I am aware minor edits such as spelling, emphasis, etc. depending on region/location are usually within the syndication agreement. How proactive the content licensors are in terms of enforcement it anyone's guess.
Charlie Mitchell has written some of the worst, most blatant smearing of counter-narrative people in NZ. For example, his hit-piece on Simon Thornley which was particularly vicious.
Basically all media are currently engaging in the same thing worldwide. Looking for ways to limit and reestablish reputation damage following their abandoning of all moral and ethical standards for the last couple of decades but in particular since 2020. In signals intelligence parlance, limited hangouts. It's pathetically obvious, yet it is very effective for the majority of people who have started the process of questioning their (media) integrity. Gets enough people back on track, with the trusty bad apple adage often rolled out.
It depends on the service. I understand that Reuters allows minor edits as long as they don’t change the sense of the piece. To materially alter sense could get someone in contractual problems
Yes, but only if the syndicating publisher disapproved.
Agreed. I did say “could”
An excellent piece of writing. Clear and precise.
Thanks. I have a great deal of respect for Karl and his material. Another example of a former MSM journo who made a change. Sean Plunket is another. I am sad to hear your local daily has suffered from the malaise I discuss.
Thank you.
Much appreciated.
Never mind the big urban and national dailies. Our local newspaper has historically been a reliable source of local news, comment and lively letters to the editor. From the beginning of the rollout of The One Source of Truth this has been eroded so now no letters to the editor, no dissenting views about anything, vilification of some candidates in the local body elections because they had a connection with Voices For Freedom (they were elected anyway!), etc etc. The editor has, I believe, changed from being enthusiastic about his job to going through the motions. And why, you may ask? Because all the copy for this small country paper now has to get sent away to get the approval of the big bosses and if they don't like it it doesn't get printed.
Veteran journo Karl du Fresne recently did an excellent short piece beginning:
" I had an exchange of emails yesterday with a fellow retired journalist who lamented the tendency for reporters to embellish their stories with personal opinion, something that was firmly discouraged in our time."
He goes on to offer two possible explanations on how this has come about. Worth reading. It's part of "Three Thoughts for Today" on his blogspot (June 9, 2023).
To fix itself the mainstream media would have to show some humility.
I see very little of that.
It's always conspiracy theorists, or Russia, or mysterious members of the far right.
Most of what we did for covid had neglible affect for costs that are still unquantified. This is very well represented in the scientific literature. The media championed all of this with a complete lack of balance and often a liberal dashing of hysteria.
There is also little acknowledgement that the media has a heavily left leaning bias; there are almost as many journalists who describe themselves as far left than there are journalists occupying the entire right spectrum.
This is further reflected in the university employed "experts".
How could we get anything but a heavy left leaning bias?
"pressitutes"
?
Kindly inform me; is it unusual for a newsroom to make edits to stories from a wire service?
As far as I am aware minor edits such as spelling, emphasis, etc. depending on region/location are usually within the syndication agreement. How proactive the content licensors are in terms of enforcement it anyone's guess.
Charlie Mitchell has written some of the worst, most blatant smearing of counter-narrative people in NZ. For example, his hit-piece on Simon Thornley which was particularly vicious.
Thanks for that. I suggested it might have been a bit of throwing under the bus. Are you suggesting that?
Basically all media are currently engaging in the same thing worldwide. Looking for ways to limit and reestablish reputation damage following their abandoning of all moral and ethical standards for the last couple of decades but in particular since 2020. In signals intelligence parlance, limited hangouts. It's pathetically obvious, yet it is very effective for the majority of people who have started the process of questioning their (media) integrity. Gets enough people back on track, with the trusty bad apple adage often rolled out.