Ab Antiquo

To deliver information, as free from partiality as they can make it. Now, that's damn near impossible to do, but an effort should be made. That often means including facts, quotes, etc, that people don't like. A journalist should try to refrain from making their own conclusions in the article, and instead allow the readers to do so to the best of their own ability. I don't, however, think a journalist needs to have every single fact prior to posting an article and think it's disingenuous for anyone to claim that's even possible. WIth how cloistered our city is, a lot of information simply isn't available unless it's willingly coughed up, and not being able to comment on a specific shouldn't then preclude a journalist from informing other city inhabitants about what's going on.

I'm also staunchly against the always-popular question of "Why is this news?" It happened. That's why it's news. If it affects multiple individuals, it's news. This city is so small that if we only wrote about what affects the vast majority at once, then many would be left out of the happenings. I'm also against the belief that if X is reported on, but Y is not, then inherently the journalist has some secret vendetta against X and is writing an article to somehow demean them. If you don't want to be in the news, don't do newsworthy things. If you want something in the news that happened, send a journalist a tip and see if they're interested -- but it's a damn unpaid job, folks. No one is obligated to chase your story because you want tit-for-tat because another story happened.

In the earlier days of ‘journalism’ in this city, going back to the Grimoire and Nitty Gritty, what they and others that followed them did more than anything, and what I believe their core function above all else should be, is to spark activity and discussion.

‘Journalistic integrity’ and ‘facts’ be damned. Never let a teeny thing like facts ruin a good story!

The journalist’s number one aim should be to set a fire under people to get them talking, ideally get them bitching or even fighting. This bitching and fighting then rolls on into more and more and boom - the journalist has provided a whole host of activity and entertainment, which more than anything is the life blood of the city. Without it, more of us fall into a deep sleep and before we know it the remaining vampires are being bent over by Paladins or Immolators or both.

Sartori wrote: ↑

Tue Mar 10, 2020 9:24 am

In the earlier days of ‘journalism’ in this city, going back to the Grimoire and Nitty Gritty, what they and others that followed them did more than anything, and what I believe their core function above all else should be, is to spark activity and discussion.

‘Journalistic integrity’ and ‘facts’ be damned. Never let a teeny thing like facts ruin a good story!

The journalist’s number one aim should be to set a fire under people to get them talking, ideally get them bitching or even fighting. This bitching and fighting then rolls on into more and more and boom - the journalist has provided a whole host of activity and entertainment, which more than anything is the life blood of the city. Without it, more of us fall into a deep sleep and before we know it the remaining vampires are being bent over by Paladins or Immolators or both.

I agree with this entirely, if we're talking about non-news sections of a newspaper. As far as news goes, I do think it's important to be trust worthy. The news is a sacred thing, for me, and while it may not always be top quality, I think it's the most important for it to be as factual and fair as possible.

Everything else in a newspaper can be whatever the fork the writer wants, in my opinion, because ever other section is entertainment (minus bindings/severances/burial reports which are basically very specific news sections).

So in reference to journalism and the role of it in RBC, my opinion is that it is: To be true to their purpose in whatever they are writing. If they want to be satirical or a flame thrower, do that. If they want to be a respected and trust worthy news source, do that. The people are going to say you're whatever is convenient for them to say anyhow. The best I can ask of any journalist is to at least be true to their purpose, even if it's to fuck all the shit up. Maybe that's messed up, but there it is.

Joy wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 11, 2020 2:22 am

So in reference to journalism and the role of it in RBC, my opinion is that it is: To be true to their purpose in whatever they are writing.

Very well put.

But I ask - while people come for the stories, the.. factual accounts of what’s happened, do you not think that it’s for pure entertainment that they stay?

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying a journalist should outright make stories up to get clicks and get people engaged, but what they definitely should do is add a certain.. flavour, to deliberately cause disharmony so as to spark a reaction from someone. Anyone.

”Joy zeroed Sartori. Sartori currently sits at 0 pints. Rest well.” - factual. Respectfully keeping integrity.
“Sartori fell at the hands of Joy tonight. He currently sits at 0 pints. We have reports that he ran as the final blows were raining down on him. Some say he begged for the holy water to stop flowing. Some say he’s still locked in a cycle of begging even now, despite the attack being long since finished! No necromancer for you old boy, you got stomped.

I know what I had more fun reading, and would be more likely to comment on with more than the usual ‘rest well.’

Jauk in particular was a master of this kind of.. creative spin, that would ignite discussion or conflict or both. A journalist’s role in this city? Gather and report on the facts in as entertaining and deliberately off-piste way to spark further discussion (or bickering)- for the greater good.

Ezra wrote: ↑

Tue Mar 10, 2020 9:19 am

To deliver information, as free from partiality as they can make it. Now, that's damn near impossible to do, but an effort should be made. That often means including facts, quotes, etc, that people don't like. A journalist should try to refrain from making their own conclusions in the article, and instead allow the readers to do so to the best of their own ability. I don't, however, think a journalist needs to have every single fact prior to posting an article and think it's disingenuous for anyone to claim that's even possible. WIth how cloistered our city is, a lot of information simply isn't available unless it's willingly coughed up, and not being able to comment on a specific shouldn't then preclude a journalist from informing other city inhabitants about what's going on.

I'm also staunchly against the always-popular question of "Why is this news?" It happened. That's why it's news. If it affects multiple individuals, it's news. This city is so small that if we only wrote about what affects the vast majority at once, then many would be left out of the happenings. I'm also against the belief that if X is reported on, but Y is not, then inherently the journalist has some secret vendetta against X and is writing an article to somehow demean them. If you don't want to be in the news, don't do newsworthy things. If you want something in the news that happened, send a journalist a tip and see if they're interested -- but it's a damn unpaid job, folks. No one is obligated to chase your story because you want tit-for-tat because another story happened.

In light of recent events, I want to highlight what Ezra has said here. I've been "zeroed" by hunters on the regular because I don't care about having a big blood supply, but I do care about a big wallet.

It wasn't until I pissed people off in WAYT that being zeroed was even noticed, and when it was it came with suspiciously targeted timing.

Now, I could be mistaken, but I think it was a purposeful assumption that someone had decided to zero me and the article was more for public humiliation than reporting a fact.

I don't necessarily think journalists should be censored, but I do think that the people here want more than a gossip column. I think that me, personally, being zero by a paladin but given the same thread and reporting as someone who fell in an actual worthwhile battle sets a bad taste in the public mouth.

To a lot of people that might sound whiny, but I guess what I'm trying to say is that if some of us see someone zeroed we want to know if it was a random act of violence, casualty of war, or gang outbreak. Not that someone tripped on the sidewalk and needed stitches.

Make it worth our time.

Greyce wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 11, 2020 9:04 pm

I don't necessarily think journalists should be censored, but I do think that the people here want more than a gossip column.

You're wrong.

Gossip and drama breed activity. Take a look at the stats at the bottom of the board, note when a lot of users are active. It's hardly ever when a factual, historical piece is posted, rather it is almost always when there are petty arguments in one thread or another, someone is "mysteriously" zeroed, and general drama is happening.

As a general rule, people flock to gossip, theatrics, and panic - at least insofar as the media is concerned. Humans are the same. The masses don't want a lengthy historical retelling of old wars or informative discussions about the applications of weapons or consensus debates, despite what they may each say individually. They only ever rear their ugly heads when someone is being mocked or hurt or when a fight breaks out (in Ravenblack this can mean war articles, but in human terms this can mean celebrity fights).

They are drawn to certain individuals, as well. Cults of personality. The Big Names. Notice that more activity is generated, for example, when Seyda makes a comment than when Greyce does. This is because as a species, we are magnetized to these "celebrity" personas. I won't theorize as to why here, suffice to say that they are. It doesn't matter who contributes more meaningfully. Seyda's name will always garner more responses and discussion than Greyce's. (Just using examples here and I mean nothing by it.) This alone tells us again - people do not actually care about the content or quality of the information presented. They just want to be entertained.

So when you draw attention to yourself in an otherwise slow news period, in the middle of a post-war lull while new groups are forming and everyone is taking a breath to see what comes next, you are given the attention you were. Had you done any of that in the middle of a war or when more "relevant" drama was happening, it would've been brushed over.

tl;dr: Don't flatter yourself, they weren't picking on you. You were just the most entertaining thing at the moment.

As far as this discussion goes...

Nobody gets into journalism for altruism. Journalists are narcissistic at heart. They (we) thrive on the attention they generate. We have to. Journalism is not only unrewarding, but also often outright lonely - say the wrong thing at the wrong time in the wrong context so someone can misinterpret it and you've made an enemy of an entire group of people. In a city as small as ours, that's a very hefty price to pay for true altruism. So is it any real wonder that most people won't do it? The PR risk far outweighs the potential reward. It's easier to make a witty, eviscerating comment during relevant periods and generate approval that way than it is to put hours of work into something every week only for people to scream that you're being biased or have an ulterior motive (whether you do or not) and use it as a justification to slander your name.

I'm not just talking about myself here either, despite what some may think. Vex posted an article recently. It was brief, consice, and to the point. It was news, whether you wanted it to be or not, because it was something people were talking about and invested in (if it weren't, there wouldn't have been three pages of replies). He did his job. He presented information in a relatively neutral if slightly inaccurate manner. It was also on the subject of some aforementioned drama. Despite this, critics used it as an excuse to rail him and his reputation. Whether he had a motive behind the article or not is irrelevant - nobody else was posting shit.

On the other side of that coin, when he presented a completely factual, numerical accounting of the auctions and avoided the subject of any potential gossip or poking at "big names", nobody commended him for the effort. It didn't receive three pages of replies. It produced nothing.

The masses are sheep and the masses want titillation.

But to the question: what is the role of a journalist?

Depends on the journalist and their goals. I'd say it shifts from article to article, not person to person. Each piece has a different goal, whether to inform, entertain, or provoke. The problem here is that a sole journalist can not shift from posting a gossip column about who's fucking who one week to provoke activity and then try to claim neutrality or altruism (there's that word again) in the posting of a war piece in the next. Maintaining that delicate balance is ultimately up to the few individuals actually willing to put the work into this.

But each journalist, I would argue, does it for two reasons: their own ego and a compelling care for the city at large. As discussed, journalism is unrewarding. So why do it? Ego alone can't justify this. Then it must be because nobody else will and it needs to be done. And on that point, I believe we all agree: journalists are desperately needed, specifically in RBC. I'd elaborate more, but I've been typing for too long and it's past my bedtime.

That being the case, then the role of a journalist is simply this: to entertain, provoke, and inform. Or to shorten that: to generate activity and discussion in an otherwise stagnant environment.

Liander wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 11, 2020 11:21 pm

That being the case, then the role of a journalist is simply this: to entertain, provoke, and inform. Or to shorten that: to generate activity and discussion in an otherwise stagnant environment.

I do agree with this, but as we're both aware (from my prodding your edits at previous articles as being too emotionally charged, or you thinking my writing needs to be a bit more interesting), we disagree on how always to do that. But at the end of the day, you do have a point in that it almost doesn't matter -- we all know what gets read. Your articles, as everyone can agree, have a bit more oomph than mine, or Vex's, or most others'. Your articles consistently got more hits and comments. For better or worse, that is the reality of the situation.

Liander wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 11, 2020 11:21 pm

I'm not just talking about myself here either, despite what some may think. Vex posted an article recently. It was brief, consice, and to the point. It was news, whether you wanted it to be or not, because it was something people were talking about and invested in (if it weren't, there wouldn't have been three pages of replies). He did his job. He presented information in a relatively neutral if slightly inaccurate manner. It was also on the subject of some aforementioned drama. Despite this, critics used it as an excuse to rail him and his reputation. Whether he had a motive behind the article or not is irrelevant - nobody else was posting shit.

On the other side of that coin, when he presented a completely factual, numerical accounting of the auctions and avoided the subject of any potential gossip or poking at "big names", nobody commended him for the effort. It didn't receive three pages of replies. It produced nothing.

I'm glad someone else pointed this out. People want news, but not that news, and that other thing is boring, but oh no, that is too scandalous and it's not news at all!

Writing a solid article is a lot of work, which is why I haven't done it in years. Whether you've gone out of your way to be impartial or now, it's absolutely thankless unless you're doing a fluff piece that's cataloging events from years gone by, or providing a nuanced editorial on something everyone can agree on. A reporter's job is to entertain, provide information, and give people something to talk about.

The rest of the city? Don't complain about nothingness and then bitch about what there is while providing nothing else. Journalists have a job, but so does the readership if we want to keep the city going. Try being constructive.

Vex wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 12, 2020 12:06 pm

Writing a solid article is a lot of work, which is why I haven't done it in years.

That.

However, I still maintain that the "secret sauce" so to speak for the Grimoire and the Nitty Gritty was the fact that they both existed at the same time. You had two main journalists for each group and an extended staff on each. Anytime anything happened, it was a mad dash to try to be the first to the story, get the facts, and get it up. I know for us, when the NG scooped us, there was literally a "FUCKING HELL" moment and then a mad dash to get to the other side of the story and get THAT up before they had a clean sweep. I think the competition was crucial because it made us more proactive at chasing news, getting stories, or even throwing up a hint of a rumor that something might be amiss just to be the first to publish. The end product for the city was essentially two complete sides of most stories and events if people read both, and that was a win for everyone, even if you lost the scoop race.