[feather_share show="twitter, google_plus, facebook, reddit, tumblr" hide="pinterest, linkedin, mail"]

I love a good subtweet. So long as it isn’t misogynistic, racist or a personal attack on my upbringing, I usually get a strange form of excitement from people sending pseudo-insults across cyberspace.

Working for a creative product, I am no stranger to people thinking they can freely insult our product because it is something visual and easy to critique. Sometimes these comments are harsh and unwelcome and leave me questioning our readers, but every now and again, a productive message gets filtered through. And those are the subtweets our paper lives for.

The Silhouette is McMaster’s student paper. Your student fees pay for it, and we want to represent you accurately. All of our content is made by student staff, and everyone here is part of the McMaster community and the MSU. We like hearing from you. We like knowing what you want from us.

It’s easy to throw a snarky insult our way and reap in the favourites on your Twitter or Facebook post, but what we’re really looking for is your honest concerns and advice for a product that will make you happy.

To help get this feedback, I am excited to announce a new initiative that will help you share your ideas, while also providing us with the constructive comments we’re hoping for. “Silvision” is a three-part campaign that includes a feedback survey and public forum, and will share the ways you can get involved and materialize your visions for your student paper. Subtweet or not, we want to get your input.

[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]

 

Journalism has dug itself a hole that it will not be able to crawl out of.

You know the story by now: print outlets continue to hemorrhage cash, and television viewership is on the decline with an aging demographic.

The blame for the bleeding out of journalism is often put at the feet of the consumer. “They don’t want to pay for content” or “people just don’t read the news anymore” is what you hear as the industry excuses themselves for what has happened.

Journalism outfits have not kept up with the wants of their readers, nor do they treat their readership with much respect. If you use sports journalism as a case study for the industry, you can see why journalism has slid to a point of near-irrelevance.

A Toronto Sun columnist wrote a story with an anecdote about Phil Kessel eating hot dogs from a stand downtown. This hot dog story is a part of the Toronto sports media’s affection for criticizing Kessel’s weight. They continue to criticize his weight across journalism outlets, yet the former Leaf won the fastest skater competition at the All-Star weekend this year. Not to mention, the reporter got the location wrong and the error had to be clarified by a Maple Leafs fan blog.

This lack of respect and understanding is not limited to print. At the Canadian University Press conference this past January, a CBC/Sportsnet on-air personality told a room of student journalists that sports fans do not want to feel they are at school when they are watching sports. There is a degree of truth to that— sports are a popular form of entertainment and often an escape from the grind of life. But while making that point, the TV personality tossed aside the rising analytics community. His talk had a certain arrogance to it, one not surprising if you have watched major network sports broadcasts recently. The personality believed the industry knew what they were doing, and the fans were wrong in their criticisms.

A month after his talk, Rogers (the company that owns Sportsnet) announced that their hockey ratings were down. Instead of looking inward, Rogers blamed the ratings provider. The arrogance isn’t just on-air, it’s in the boardroom.

And who can blame sports fans for leaving? The product they are consuming is not changing based on their own feedback, and in some cases, the product is actually insulting the consumer. On-air talent has frequently sneered at those who cite analytic stats, with some calling them “analy-idiots.”

Sports fans and media consumers as a whole are not stupid. With more information than ever, a consumer does not need the traditional media to learn something— they need an Internet connection. This notion has passed the industry by and it will take a swallowing of pride if traditional journalism wants to return to anything close to its previous peak. Until then, the industry is living on borrowed time.

I’ve never been a fan of Buzzfeed. Given that the form resembles a second grader colouring out of the lines, the writing feels scattered and trivializing. Complex ideas are captured by gifs of Harry Potter, guitar-playing cats, and simple analogies. Though their is undeniable accessibility - anyone can read the boldface verbal pyrotechnics and digest the quick snippets of life -the issues are presented as though they require little to no thought. There is no critical engagement and the statements, very much like this one, are just generic snapshots. At best, it’s an introduction of an essay without the body paragraphs; at worst, it’s an analysis of Honey Boo Boo’s mother’s stance on Obama Care.

But some believe it's not all that bad. They tell me that I wouldn’t have been blessed to know of Honey Boo Boo in the first place without Buzzfeed. It reaches its audience and it does so consistently. Though I feel it as nothing more than a capitalization on the most animalistic impulses of immediate satisfaction, the reason why I dislike it is exactly why it’s popular, which perhaps, says how foolish I am in the end.

But not any longer, see? If Buzzfeed is the future of journalism, here is the article of the future: an opinion about an opinion on an opinion. Simple, right? I thought so. I’m sure Honey Boo Boo’s mother would agree.

So these are the top thirteen things wrong with opinion pieces and those who compose them.

1.They’re an opinion, amirite????

 

 

 

 

Argument over. Me - 1. Opinions - 0.

2. There are not enough cats in them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This makes up for any opinion ever. Even, maybe, this one.

3. Newspapers, and the sections in them like opinions, are a dead form.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here’s an opinions editor trying to make their piece interesting to his audience who stands unmoved.

4. There are too many issues to consider in just one article.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

An opinion's editor motto.

5. The world is never black and white, despite what the electronic ink says. And most articles just volley back and forth endlessly.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Instead of arguing violently, let's just follow this kid's example.

6. Journalism is the art printing something to go out of date only to print some more that goes out of date later. 

 

 

 

 

Here we see the print cycle of journalism.

7. Any one can have an opinion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Even Doge can. Also he is wearing socks. Some opinion editors don't.

8. Opinion editors are just people trying to save fish from drowning, whatever that means.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here we find an opinion's editor making his point.

9. They also kick children

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

An opinion editor dishing his investigative dirt and then tasting it too. Great inquiry skills.

10. And scare them too.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This child just read an opinion's piece.

11. They end almost arbitrarily even though there is always a continual discussion on the matters discussed, and this falsified finished suggests that they are all knowing, all revolutionary when really their two-cents is hardly worth rounding up to a dollar.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Most of our thoughts about opinionated articles.

12. They shamelessly dance around as objective journalism while they are just the  limited, personal interpretations, analysis, and misconceptions of one person distilled and contained to a scattershot of some 700-words.

 

 

 

 

 

Here's me trying to understand what I just wrote.

13. Want to know what’s wrong with an opinions article? Read one. Luckily, you just did.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks for nothing.

'Buzzfeed' image c/o Scott Beales / Laughing Squid on Flickr.

By Spencer Nestico

The role of journalism has always been primarily to connect developing stories with the public. Journalists will type away incessantly at their old typewriters, all the while priding themselves in their role to deliver a product that was not only factual and interesting, but something that yielded a deeply vital outcome: a well-informed population. You see, communication and knowledge are the reasons that nations become successful in their endeavors because people understand the issues. Conversely, this is currently the reason for why nations have difficulty advancing their policies - bad journalism.

It’s hard to pinpoint where exactly in the last 20 years did journalism begin to get less and less objective and more and more fatally sensationalist. Regardless of the history, it’s undeniably apparent that things have changed. The role of the journalist is no longer to present a balanced view on events, it’s to present such a balanced view that there’s no longer any point in writing about it. The great emphasis given to reporters and writers in news team is to refrain from bias at all costs, and this is probably one of the worst things to happen to the art. This is because there’s no differentiation being made between natural bias and acceptable scrutiny. A great example can be seen from the recent Presidential election. News teams have been so focused on presenting an impartial judgment of the two candidates that the public gets a mistaken impression that both candidates are equal in their ability to run the White House. This is wrong.

It seems that one of the greatest felonies that the journalist world has made is that they assume stories can no longer be interesting or acceptable unless they are just that: interesting and acceptable. News media is a great example of this. Fox News is one of the most humorously entertaining excuses for a news show, one that replaces actual analysis with gross exaggeration and even total fabrication. These types of media no longer have faith in their own stories, or their own viewers. They have lost the modest personality that was so attractive about reporters back in the day, the ones that made the likes of Walter Cronkite and Harry Reasoner household and national heroes.

It is lamentable to see the turn journalism has taken in the last decade. It’s sad to see lies told solely for the purpose of evening the odds and balancing stories, all in the name of fairness. The respect that the field once had has all but seemed to diminish.

It’s notable however to understand that not all reporters and members of the news media are corrupted, but just the big ones. Corporate media outlets like CNN and ABC News are the ones who are consistently producing the inaccurate material, spreading news that is so blatantly bare of opinion in order to please every possible reader that it really says nothing at all. On the other hand, small independent writers, or popular talk show hosts like Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert still seem to retain a decently analytical mind, one that can actually question and argue the views held by Conservatives, whose only reply is always just an appeal to traditionalism. These are the men and women who should really be heard by America and are the ones who actually want to make a point, and well-educated ones at that.

Journalists have a right to take a stand on issues. They have a right to make judgments. Journalists have the factual knowledge and in-person experience on the issues that they investigate that citizens never get a chance to acquire, and this is why journalists have a responsibility to convey their actual findings to their audience, and not some heavily edited drivel that attempts to pander to both sides. These are the journalists we need right now, the ones who aren’t afraid and will come back from their reporting with news that they excitingly realize must be told.

During the 20^th century reporting was done out of a responsibility and service to a people, and although I am assured that statements made by current members of this occupation would say the exact same thing, its just different. Journalism has never been used more aggressively to evoke sentiments of discontent and prejudice, and to foster a mentality that is unable to become open-minded or questioning. To go back to those days of honest broadcasting requires not only a massive restructuring of the news media, but also an increase in the level of acceptance that people have for each other in daily society. Either way, I’m just a corrupt journalist, so how would I know?

A panel discussion on unpaid internships at the Will Work for Exposure Conference on Oct. 19 in Toronto.

The culture sector, long known for its precarious working conditions, is shaping up to be more arduous for its workers. On Oct. 19, a mix of students, professionals, artists and union leaders converged in Toronto to talk labour injustice at the ‘Will Work for Exposure’ conference at Ryerson University.

Organized by Ryerson’s Centre for Labour Management Relations and members of the Canadian Media Guild and ACTRA, the conference addressed topics including wage theft, copyright and workers’ rights.

The event also provided the venue for one of Canada’s first public debates on unpaid internships, according to organizer Nicole Cohen.

Kim Pittaway, former editor-in-chief of Chatelaine, who has taught journalism at Ryerson and the University of King’s College, noted in her panel speech that getting a first job as a journalist is much harder now than when she was starting out.

“When I did connect with an employer, I was paid an actual wage. And that doesn’t happen these days with the students I have taught,” said Pittaway. “For most of them, the reality is they won’t be considered to be hirable until they’ve done, not one internship, but two or three or four unpaid internships back to back.”

Pittaway said students should be especially wary of unpaid work at for-profit organizations.

“There’s a problem when profit-generating organizations reap the benefits of younger workers,” she said. “A lot of young journalists are surprised and grateful when people pay them, and they undervalue their own work.”

Other panelists expressed similar sentiments in the afternoon session on unpaid internships.

One was Agata Zieba, a former journalism student who spoke about her experience at two unpaid, full-time stints in the magazine industry.

“I did everything from administrative work to writing online articles to plenty of fact-checking. Everyday I pushed myself to work harder and for longer than I was told to,” said Zieba. “I didn’t want to be forgotten once the next round of interns replaced me in four months or six weeks.

“I felt I was getting great experience, but I admit that I kept wondering, why am I working for free?” she said.

Edward Keenan, senior editor at The Grid, also weighed in, having started out as an unpaid intern and also having managed an internship program.

“I don’t think I’d be a journalist if unpaid internships didn’t exist. I was competing with too many people vastly more qualified than me, at least on paper.”

Referring to internships at The Grid, formerly Eye Weekly, Keenan noted, “If those positions were paid, there are thousands of mid-career journalists in this city who could take them first.”

He also pointed to the oversupply of workers in the industry, with the number wanting work far exceeding the number of jobs available.

“Virtually no one enters the culture industry because they desperately need to feed their families. We’re not forced into this business by circumstance,” he said.

Why, then, aren’t more young people turning away from culture work? The answer has to do with the ‘reality TV model,' according to keynote speaker Andrew Ross, professor of social and cultural analysis at New York University.

“Culture work is more gratifying,” he said. “People will be drawn to the contest.”

In his speech, Ross spoke about higher levels of free labour after the 2008 financial crisis. He argued that, among other factors, student debt contributes to an increasingly unfair labour market.

“Debt is a condition of entry into the workforce for most,” he said, comparing this to a “modern form of indenture.”

“If [students] are lucky enough to land paid work, a large part of their wages are more and more used to pay off loans taken out simply to prepare themselves for employability in the first place.”

In recent years, debate over whether unpaid internships are exploitive has been heating up in Canada and the US.

Many argue that these positions are restricting access to the culture sector, giving an edge to those who can afford to take on unpaid work. Currently, there are no regulations for unpaid internships in Canada and, as several speakers pointed out, few reliable statistics on the subject.

“There’s very little being written about it,” said Andrew Langille, Toronto-based lawyer and blogger at Youth and Work.

Langille noted that unpaid internships not only affect young workers, but also recent immigrants, workers in their 20s and 30s, and older workers switching careers.

“It’s very difficult for government and academics like myself to comment in any meaningful way without knowing the scope of the issue,” said Langille. “I think [data collection] is a big start.”

Consider this an epitaph.

Sure, I’m not exactly six feet under. And sure, I’m not slowly eroding away, unless old age counts for anything. Luckily or not, I’m still among the living, grunting and gurgling and grumbling my way along as if no day were different than the last. Yet these words, fickle as they may be, are indeed my last. Believe it. For these are the last words of a dying art.

This used to be special. All of it. From news to opinions to sports, journalism used to be the hub where creative minds met and coalesced. People, with little more than an insatiable yearning to write, flocked to poorly lit basements in an attempt to answer journalism’s call. With cold coffee replacing the blood in their arteries and teeth-shattering, stale bagels comprising their only form of sustenance, they wrote not simply for themselves, but for others as well.

In its truest form, journalism was a characterization of the world, and the journalists were its chroniclers. They penned history rather than making it themselves.

They played with fonts and the infinite breathlessness of white space when others wouldn’t. They were the Dostoevskys, the Kafkas and all the other literary juggernauts sandwiched into newsprint. In a sentence, they defined their time because they wrote about it exclusively.

Maybe that’s a bit overdramatic, but at a sacrifice of their sanity and sleep, they tried to change the world one column at a time. With each article, they hoped to get the facts out. They assumed that by offering objective criticism of society, they’d be highlighting its faults, all the while celebrating society’s mechanism that allows recognition of them. Most of all, they just wanted people to care.

But after tirelessly combing newspaper archives and looking at the names of people past and present, people who dreamt that the words etched into paper were instead carved into stone, people who aren’t remembered today, they – like I – realize that optimism got the better of them.

Perhaps that’s the problem: people expect too much. Journalists, like the people who read their articles, are crushed under the gravity of this actuality. For not only do the readers expect entertainment, they expect the truth, and often times there is little overlap between the two.

In this world, there is a reality of life, with its unforgiving disappointments and unparalleled radiance mixed together so eerily, and then there’s the reality of journalism.

Don’t let the columns fool you. The two are not the same. Unlike the font on this page, the world isn’t black or white. It’s gray. And often times, you can’t tell the heroes from the villains. And when you can, you are imposing your own judgments on a scenario you weren’t meant to judge.

You flash verbal pyrotechnics here, a joke there. Then you forget why you even started writing in the first place and so you begin to write about something cheap, something easy, all the while forgetting about the hard-hitting articles that you spent days on, wondering if you should insert a comma here, or here, or even here.

This is the progression of the death of journalism. Look at any magazine, tabloid or newsprint, and you’ll see the same. Stories of petty crimes, celebrity news, and advertisements – all of it pour over on the front page like flies to a carcass.

Perhaps it’s because of the ebb of eventuality. Perhaps even more truthfully, without the ability to discern between that which is ambiguous and that which is true, journalism was always meant to fail. In absence of clairvoyance, people rush to something concrete, something they can hold, taste and feel. They do not like being confused. They like something they can root for – something easy on the eyes and minds. We are simple-minded creatures, and despite the four billion years of evolution, we fail to act the part.

So in our search for simplicity, we decide the complex is really too complex and sometimes it’s better not to ask why, but how instead. And even then, that may be too much. That is why, in the ugly aftermath of journalism’s decline, when the smoke has settled and the fires abate, journalism reduces itself into this. It is everything below and everything above. It is riddled with clichés, cheap tricks and tactless graphics to gain attention. The graphic on the previous page for this article is evidence of that enough. So is the article itself. For if you need any evidence of the death of journalism, look no further than this sentence.