I’m still reading Drew Curtis’ septic attack on the media with his book ‘It’s Not News It’s FARK’, subtitled How Mass Media Tries To Pass Off Crap As News.
In the third chapter, Unpaid Placement Masquerading as Actual Articles, his outrage over newspapers running lightweight PR stories as news is palpable. He uses some examples from his website, rubbishing the media for daring to publish the stories. He might like to consider that not all news stories can be of a Watergate-type impact and that a number of people like reading lightweight stories.
Yes, sometimes these stories are over the top or just plain wrong as Curtis is so keen to point out. But, generally, such stories are factually correct and are meant only as light reading.
In chapter four, Headline Contradicted by Actual Article, he displays a basic ignorance of how the media functions. ”Some journalists aren’t allowed to write headlines; this job is left up to the editor", he states.
Curtis clearly has no comprehension of the role of a sub-editor and that of the sub-editor’s desk in the production of major metropolitan newspapers, magazines and mass-distribution free publications. Sub-editors write the headlines for stories.
Yes, subs can get it wrong with a headline. Though, more often, they get them right.
Later, in a chapter The Out-of-Context Celebrity Comment, while tearing into an article about Radiohead singer Thom Yorke he states ”I’ve never heard of CND; sounds like some kind of congenital disease" and ”I’ve never heard of Friends of the Earth either”. This is written by a man who refers to journalists as ”lazy" - amongst other less flattering descriptions - in this book.
The Seasonal Articles chapter has him outraged over the media daring to repeat articles on an annual or seasonal basis.
He writes this; ”Nowadays, Mass Media has no qualms whatsoever about hiding behind the flimsy argument that popular news items are somehow important or relevant".
Actually, I think it is really good for Mass Media to run regular articles on issues of, for example, spiking of drinks, date rape, stranger danger (a warning to parents), regular car servicing, alcohol abuse, home security… oh I could go on and on and on with this list… because people need to be constantly reminded of these topics.
In the Media Fatigue chapter Curtis hits an all-time low in his comprehension of the media.
In critiquing the media over media fatigue he writes about a ‘pretend’ court case.
”The third article comes out when the sentence is handed down. Dumbass Receives (0-1000) Years in Prison for Shooting Friend. Again, the news information, in this case the prison sentence, will be the first paragraph, followed by yet another copy and paste of the original article. This allows the journalist writing the article to run an entire piece after about fifteen minutes of so-called work, giving him ample time to finish off the day’s sudoku puzzle or surf more tentacle [sic] porn than usual from his work computer."
Curtis, on the above statement, has clearly failed to grasp that not everyone spends their days, as he does, ”reading nearly 2,000 news articles a day". The news media background stories because there is no guarantee a reader will have seen previous articles on the topic. This is especially so in reporting on court cases.
As stated in my first blog on this book, I regard it as a mean-spirited, one-eyed view of the media. Curtis rubbishes the profession of journalism throughout, from his lofty pinnacle as founder of a website that (parasitically) publishes stories from the media.
However, there is an epilogue. What Should Mass Media Be Doing Instead?
Curtis does not understand the mechanics of how newspaper/magazines are produced, that is evident from what he has written in this book. Yet his epilogue lectures Mass Media on how to do their job!
There is one more blog on this book. It's here.
Let's see, your first major criticism of the book is:
"[H]e displays a basic ignorance of how the media functions. „Some journalists aren’t allowed to write headlines; this job is left up to the editor" "
But then immediately follow it up with this:
"Sub-editors write the headlines for stories."
So, basically, he was right? And that was your lead criticism, the strong point to start it all off?
Yeah, I stopped reading after that. You just sound shrill because he ~dared~ poke at your profession.
Clearly, though, your profession doesn't need a lot of help to look stupid.
Rodney's Reply: If you can understand the difference between the roles of a doctor and nurse in a hospital, you will grasp the difference between a sub-editor and an editor.
Sorry to hear about your short attention span.
Posted by: Yergela | August 10, 2007 11:30 PM
It may interest you to know that numerous media professionals--several of them quotet on the book's jacket copy--have noted that not only is Curtis dead-on accurate in his portrayal of media coverage tactics, one of them actually compared his book to her Journalism 101 text from college . . . and they matched almost point for point. You, meanwhile, sound like a grown-up toddler pissed off that he was caught with his hand in the cookie jar and got yelled at for it.
The media patterns Mr. Curtis speaks of in his book are apparent to anyone observant enough to look for them. You don't need to read 2000 news stories a day; all you need are a keen eye, a modicum of independent thought, and a willingness to see the world for what it is, not what you want it to be.
Sorry Rodney. You've missed the target on this one. Maybe you should read the book again, and think of it as gentle, constructive criticism instead of panic and see it as an attack. You might actually get something out of it if you do.
Posted by: Mr. C. D. | August 10, 2007 11:47 PM
Um... how does the author spell tentacle?
Posted by: MoeJ | August 10, 2007 11:49 PM
I'm sure he probably at least knows how and when to use "[sic]". That's more than I can say for some people.
Posted by: JP | August 11, 2007 1:26 AM
They are just mad because they know he is right and they can't face the facts.
Posted by: Dex | August 11, 2007 2:17 AM
I work for Mass Media; So I am really getting a kick out of most of these replies. Some of you guys are very good at making it sound like you know what you are talking about. But trust me.... You don't. I think you just want to make yourself sound smart, when in reality you don't know what you are talking about. This is how bad info gets passed around. If you don't know about the topic....Don't make yourself sound like you do. Cos some Farkers believe anything they hear.
Posted by: Whiskey on the Brain | August 11, 2007 4:37 AM
You'll get over it.
Posted by: Buttsecks | August 11, 2007 7:58 AM
Tentacle porn is gross!
Posted by: Tubgirl | August 12, 2007 4:08 PM
"He might like to consider that not all news stories can be of a Watergate-type impact and that a number of people like reading lightweight stories."
He says pretty clearly about 100 times in the book that he knows and understands that. That doesn't change the fact that half the other stuff that does see print is crap, for all the reasons he says it is. I used to work for a newspaper, and I know firsthand how when we had extra space to fill, we would put in stuff we thought was crap and hope no one would notice. Drew's take is dead on, and I can't understand why you would take such idiotic offense at it.
Rodney's Reply: What's one person's crap... (think of garage sales and you should grasp the point.)
Posted by: SmarterThanRodney | August 12, 2007 6:09 PM
Rod-
Since you replied here and via e-mail, I'll reply here as well:
Do I understand the difference between the nurse and doctor? I am wiling to bet more than you. Nice way to start off a rebuttal with an insult to my intelligence, however. Curtis' point, that the journo does not write the headline, still stands. Sub-editor, editor, either way, it is still someone who did not write the article, and is therefore prone to misinterpret it, either accidentally, or purposefully for better attention value, who is generating the headline. As you seemed to miss that point, you made yourself look rather foolish.
But I guess in the mad rush to find fault, you missed the point, didn't you? Excellent insight, exactly what most have come to expect of those who make their living trying to generate news that advertisers will support.
Sorry to hear about your poor career choice.
Posted by: Yergela | August 13, 2007 11:34 PM