Journalism Warning Labels: This Article Is Just A Press Release Copied & Pasted

from the who-reads-newspapers-any-more? dept

Fri, Aug 13th 2010 1:49pm — Mike Masnick

Romenesko points us to an amusing offering from a guy, Tom Scott, who noted that newspapers put warning labels on content that involves "sex, violence or strong language," but have no such warning labels for "sloppy journalism and other questionable content." So he made them. He's put together a printable document of journalism warning labels (and someone else has created a US formatted version (pdf)). Some of them are pretty damn funny. Here are just a few, though you should check out the whole list: Warning: Statistics, survey results and/or equations in this article were sponsored by a PR company:

Warning: This article is basically just a press release, copied and pasted:

Warning: This article is based on an unverified anonymous tipoff.

Warning: To meet a deadline, this article was plagiarised from another news source.

Warning: Journalist does not understand the subject they are writing about.

Warning: To ensure future interview with subject, important questions were not asked.

Of course, this assumes anyone actually still reads paper newspapers...

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: journalism, stickers, warnings

29 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Shawn (profile), 13 Aug 2010 @ 1:29pm

I was just looking at this off of a tweet by @THErealDVORAK and was debating on pushing to you. Funny and sad but true all at once.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
designerfx (profile), 13 Aug 2010 @ 1:59pm

yup
that just about sums up all of the problems with why people don't read newspapers anymore, in a nutshell.

in short, it's called integrity and ethics. Neither of which they are known for anymore.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2010 @ 2:12pm

Re: yup
Are you referring to "newspapers" or do you really mean the so-called "MSM"?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2010 @ 2:13pm

"Of course, this assumes anyone actually still reads paper newspapers..."

And this article assumes that techdirt is itself excluded from said criticism.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2010 @ 2:15pm

This should be required for every piece of journalism. But everyone should verify information from news sources. It annoys the hell out of me when my mother-in-law starts talking about the crap she read in the local paper without verifying it. And she repeats it as if its coming from her instead of "what I read in the paper....".

If someone says..."I heard it on the news" or "I read it in the paper"...I feel its completely unreliable and I definitely dont repeat it until I've verified it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2010 @ 2:19pm

Re:
...I definitely don't repeat it until I've verified it.
Silly question: how do you go about the process of verifying a story?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 13 Aug 2010 @ 2:25pm

Re: Re:
"Silly question: how do you go about the process of verifying a story?"

You use your alethiometer, of course. Jesus, it's not that tough....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2010 @ 2:28pm

only bother reading a newspaper for the more localized stuff, all the rest is exactly what ive read before... yesterday
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2010 @ 2:40pm

Re:
At least techdirt has mostly unmoderated comments (except for spammers of course) that allows criticisms. If you have any criticisms speak up. The MSM tends to censor criticisms and avoid debate. For instance, they are more than happy to put a pro patent position on television but they will never put MM (who would be more than glad to discuss the debate the issues) on MSM. See

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100727/10432810380.shtml

They gladly hold pro copy protection positions but they are reluctant to debate anything with critics.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100811/13244810588.shtml

You're here commenting, no one is stopping you. If you have a problem speak up. Why is it that anti IP people are more than willing to engage in debate while pro IP people are only willing to censor any dissenting views? Who should I believe, those who want to openly discuss the issues (techdirt) or those who only want to brainwash everyone to believe a specific position (MSM) without allowing critics to discuss or debate these issues.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Blatant Coward (profile), 13 Aug 2010 @ 2:47pm

Re:
There must be something broken with my computer, because this article I am reading has noting about any news source being immune to the need for these labels.

Are you perhaps just angry that you can't hire the HOPA girl? Or her brother mayhaps?

Anyhoo, Techdirt is certainly not immune, Please feel free to put as may stickers on your monitor as you like.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2010 @ 2:48pm

Re:
I also subscribe to the paper-paper for the local stuff (and skimming the paper every day is a decades old habit I don't care to drop), but increasingly I'm getting into seeing what they're writing about things I've seen on the web already, if it's verbatim, or in any more in depth, or anything like objective, etc.

It's almost akin to the Jumble.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 13 Aug 2010 @ 2:56pm

Re:
"And this article assumes that techdirt is itself excluded from said criticism."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Yogi, 13 Aug 2010 @ 3:27pm

Re:
If someone says..."I heard it on the news" or "I read it in the paper"...I just walk away. Who has time to talk with a person so stupid or naive as to not realize the inherent unreliability of a newspaper?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Brad Hubbard (profile), 13 Aug 2010 @ 3:40pm

This would be an awesome Plugin!
Now let's take this to it's next logical, social+media+web2.0 level.

A service where users can issue warning labels on sites they visit which fall into one of these categories. Other users see the warning labels, comment accordingly, and the most commonly given label stays at the top. Doesn't have to be just negative, too.

Great thing? You do it all through a browser plugin - like Web Of Trust for content quality rather than just malware. Sites who WANT to boast having original, well-researched content can voluntarily display their badges.

Hmm, I might have to work on this...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
trilobug, 13 Aug 2010 @ 4:40pm

I'd buy that for a dollar.
Brilliant!

I love the little icons, hilarious.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2010 @ 4:56pm

Re: Re:
Wow so you go to Gaza for every flare-up, eh? That is hardcore. How did you hear about Chernobyl?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pixelation, 13 Aug 2010 @ 6:11pm

Warning...
this comment may be my opinion.
It may also be rude, sarcastic and inane.

What we need is for this type of warning label to be legally required. The lawyers sure hope so because they will get more work and it will certainly prevent any lies or deceptions getting through.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TtfnJohn (profile), 13 Aug 2010 @ 6:11pm

Re: Re: yup
newspapers, magazines, MSM, not so MSN and all news media mainstream or tributary, right or left wing etc.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Beth, 13 Aug 2010 @ 6:14pm

They should replace the "crawls" on the 24h news stations with all of these phrases just running repeatedly across the bottom of the screen.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mr Big Content, 13 Aug 2010 @ 6:32pm

Techdirt Debates
Is it any wonder that representatives of legitimate Intellectual Property organizations are reluctant to engage in the so-called “free debate” on Techdirt? They know full well this is not a welcoming, nurturing environment where all points of view are equally accepted and valued. Maybe if you people looked aside from your narrow focus on so-called “facts”, you might discover other, more profound points of view that transcend those “facts”.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2010 @ 6:46pm

Re: Techdirt Debates
"Is it any wonder that representatives of legitimate Intellectual Property organizations are reluctant to engage in the so-called “free debate” on Techdirt?"

I wasn't referring to debates on Techdirt.

"They know full well this is not a welcoming, nurturing environment where all points of view are equally accepted and valued."

First of all no one is stopping you from commenting here and no one is stopping others from coming here and agreeing. It is the mainstream media, that censors opposing views, that is not welcoming of all points of view.

Secondly

Why should we, or anyone, equally accept and value the point of view that 2 + 2 = 5 over the viewpoint that 2 + 2 = 4

What's wrong with people not accepting certain points of view, especially fallacious ones. You think that people should simply accept a point of view because you said so?

Viewpoints must gain acceptance through their merits, not through your mere proclamations.

Perhaps if you can defend your viewpoint with logic and reasoning, instead of merely asking for acceptance, you might actually get acceptance.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Beta (profile), 13 Aug 2010 @ 7:00pm

a few more I'd like to see
[suggested icons in brackets]

Article may contain classic logical fallacies. [ancient Greek philosopher, exasperated]

Extensive quotes from uninformed officials and/or celebrities. [person surrounded by microphones, emitting many speech bubbles]

Information in last paragraph may debunk entire article. [reader examining bottom of page with magnifying glass, thought bubble with exclamation mark]

Extreme abuse of statistics. Mathematically literate readers may experience headaches, dizziness. [graph with curve drawn through some points, others crossed out]

Vague language throughout. [clouds]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2010 @ 7:44pm

Re: a few more I'd like to see
What?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2010 @ 9:09pm

Re: Re: Techdirt Debates
Hint: The person you are replying to is a parody (check his username).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BearGriz72 (profile), 13 Aug 2010 @ 9:39pm

Re: Re: Techdirt Debates
The correct statement is, "2 + 2 = 5 for very large values of 2". ;)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Aug 2010 @ 1:23am

Re:
Hi, TAM. Want a crying towel?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Groove Tiger (profile), 14 Aug 2010 @ 9:00am

Re:
Congrats, you just criticized techdirt. And on techdirt's own page! That proves that it is not excluded, and in fact, encouraged.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2010 @ 5:47am

Wow this really applies to TechDirt.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 17 Aug 2010 @ 8:17am

Re:
It's not an assumption, it's a fact. Techdirt isn't even published on paper, so clearly that criticism doesn't apply.
[ link to this | view in thread ]