Reply #56: The UK 'model' is 'observation journalism'

[Oeditpus Rex]

Compared to American media (and in this I include Canada), quotes from sources are rare in British newspapers; it's much more "this is what I saw and this is what I interpret from it." This leaves readers with only the reporter's version, which isn't enough.

You may not be a fan of "he said/she said" journalism because — if I understand your point — it gives only a semblance of balance. But that depends on how many sources are quoted and, more importantly, whom they are. I agree that U.S. media has come to rely far too much on "unnamed sources" and I've campaigned against it, both actively as an editor ("Get something on the record") and on journalism forums.

But the point remains that often that's all reporters can get these days, with the Wregime's attitude toward the media. For all the times readers complain that "They're not telling the whole story," it's not because the reporter is complacent or being held back by lap-dog editors, publishers or owners (though the latter two certainly do exist) but because the Wregime simply cuts off information or intentionally supplies wrong information.

It isn't so much journalism that's fucked up as how it's perceived by all sides: as an enemy. It's a hell of lot harder for reporters to do their jobs when no one trusts them and some try to stifle them. It's a vicious cycle.