Seems a bit overreacting dissing the whole of journalism for the odd pun seen in an article.
Eg: John Oliver’s late night show is, objectively, quite good journalism (even if he denies it) though it’s not very “serious”.
Eh.. I dunno. I've watched, and will continue to watch, every episode of Last Week Tonight, however, I don't consider it "objectively good" journalism at all. I enjoy it as a silly, biased take on current events from a funny guy.
The "Amnesia effect" applies equally well to Oliver:
>“Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them.
In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.”
It’s something I’ve begun to notice in almost every piece, like it is now worth some kind of internet points. It pops up in texts that are otherwise completely ‘serious’, even more formal ones, which is unsettling. Not exactly what I’m looking for when reading news about a tragedy, business failure or science.
Eh.. I dunno. I've watched, and will continue to watch, every episode of Last Week Tonight, however, I don't consider it "objectively good" journalism at all. I enjoy it as a silly, biased take on current events from a funny guy.
The "Amnesia effect" applies equally well to Oliver:
>“Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them. In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.”