Let’s be honest, we’ve all done it. While browsing Facebook instead of preparing for that tutorial, we’ve been lured onto that Buzzfeed article that’s popped up on our timeline. Irresistible headlines such as “Ten McDonald’s Menu Hacks You Need To Know”, “Ten Pictures Of Ryan Gosling Looking Dark And Mysterious”; homing missiles aimed straight at the average procrastinator.
On the surface this seems harmless. These vapid time-killers can provide us with a laugh and a few moments of distraction from the sometimes grim realities of student life. The danger is subtle, but it is real.
This danger arises when Buzzfeed is referred to as ‘journalism’. Journalism has evolved since the invention of the printing press, and for centuries it was known as the pursuit and distribution of important news. Surely the average person would be hard-pressed to call “If Horror Movie Villains Were Chilling On Snapchat” a story?
In an age where social media dominates the internet, and where people lead lives too hectic to sit down and read the paper every day, what we are witnessing is the dumbing down of journalism. We have seen a swing towards bitesize articles: The Independent launched ‘I’, tabloids continue to use sensationalised headlines and gossip stories. Buzzfeed are at the forefront of this, and seem all too eager to profit from journalism’s banalisation.
So what is to be done to preserve journalistic integrity? Change must come from the reader. As long as there is demand for these mind-numbing pieces, that is what they will give us. Try to resist the temptation to look at those “Ten Cats Who Are Having A Bad Day”, and instead dig out an article about some actual current affairs, or an opinion piece from someone with a respectable degree and no record of phone hacking.
It may seem like effort, but it still counts as procrastination, and it will allow you to appear intelligent around the dinner table when you show off your knowledge of current fiscal policy as opposed to J-Law’s quirkiest moments. The future of journalism is in your hands, don’t let Buzzfeed fatally dilute it.
Are Buzzfeed style articles diluting ‘real’ journalism? Give us your thoughts in the comments below!
Not really sure if the Tab are in a position to talk about other publications ‘ruining journalism’
Reply
Hey! If conflated opinion pieces and fillers about fires in bins aren’t the pinnacle of journalistic integrity, I don’t know what is.
Reply
Also the I doesn’t have bitesize articles, it’s just less articles than the standard newspaper (it’s a shortened version of the indy)
Reply
A lot of the articles in the i, particularly the opinion columns, are edited down versions of the ones in the Indy.
Reply
Interesting stance. I don’t read Buzzfeed myself, because they’re always so upbeat about everything, and maintain this facade that an article titled ’28 Everyday Struggles When You’re Six Foot Something’ is not only an example of journalistic integrity, but something which also contains comedy, which is just fundamentally untrue.
That being said, what I’ve become aware of, is that these click sit articles are merely a way of them attracting ad revenue. They do articles with far more serious tones. And again, I personally wouldn’t read them, but here is a recent example: http://www.buzzfeed.com/jimdalrympleii/at-ebola-ground-zero-in-dallas-residents-are-surprisingly-ca?s=mobile#1mr15v3
It’s clear there is some integrity there. Somewhere in the darkest, most turgid corner of the Buzzfeed offices. Maybe Soton Tab will find the it’s someday
Reply
Totally agree, Buzzfeed isn’t ruining journalism but revolutionising it. Huff post, Indy, Guardian, and other massive publications have started going the way of buzzfeed, and buzzfeed have some really good political/ hard news journalism. I don’t think you can argue that just because an article isn’t ‘hard news’ or about a serious subject it’s less journalistic. Lifestyle and feature writing can be just as tricky as ‘hard’ news stories. Sometimes, humour/satire is very hard to write.
Reply
lip
Reply
The greatest issue with the current shift in journalism is that the investigative element is being undermined by a devotion to ideology. Websites like BuzzFeed, Upworthy, etc. aren’t interested in fact-spreading but perpetuating a viewpoint that people find agreeable so they can share it on social media and get more ad revenue. They’re not interested in changing people’s minds, rather assuring their readership that what they feel is right in the first place; all that they do is give their audience a big pat on the back, in the same way that the Mail on the right does. What this leads to is unbalanced articles and misinformed readers, because the whole spectrum of information is being withheld so writers and readers alike can feel smug sticking to their dogmas. Instead of journalism wanting to tell us something new, it now wants to tell us what we already know.
Reply
Again, I’d like to reiterate, that I hugely dislike Buzzfeed, but I wouldn’t say they’re really the first and only to only give readers the information that appeals to their Pre-established political mindset. So, why are we singling out Buzzfeed, which in all fairness, doesn’t (for the most part) really count as a news website?
Don’t get me wrong, there is plenty to hate about Buzzfeed, and I will support any anti-Buzzfeed sentiment, or any clickbait site, that hugely exploits it’s readership to that extent (not like the good ol’ Soton Tab, eh?), and the accusations of plagiarism definitely should be followed up and their mind numbing drivel about “Which Disney Princess Best Represents Gorbachev’s ‘Glasnost’ Policy?” complete with irrelevant, humourless gifs need to stop.
While I would hardly describe Buzzfeed as news, it’s worth noting that ideology has always permeated newspapers, it is basically how they sell copies. The Daily Mail and The Sun are in huge circulation amongst the more right-wing members of the population, whereas The Guardian and The Independent do have a more left-wing agenda, and therefore readership. BuzzFeed’s political agenda, really bears nothing to this argument, as tracts have and always have an agenda.
This spiel has gone on longer than I expected (heavy fever is prompting me to write more than I should :P), but my point is, Buzzfeed’s ‘journalism’, for want of a better word, is poor. However, they can’t be faulted for having an agenda, specifically an agenda that is not too disagreeable (though, their agenda is only agreeable on the basis that anything telling you treat other people nicely, is obviously not going to be easy to disagree with! :P)
I kind of lost my way with this, and learned a valuable lesson about replying to Internet comments when you’re to ill to think straight 😛
Reply
Of course newspapers have agendas that they want to perpetuate, the difference is that unlike papers which have a duty to at least vaguely back up what they print with facts, this new breed of journalism at times can merely report emotional response. Furthermore, this is exacerbated by social media; people want to give off a perception of being good, accepting people and so arguments aren’t just simplified for the reader but they’re boiled down also for passive scrollers of news feeds. The concept of news outlets spoon-feeding their content to their audience is hardly a new idea, it’s just that with technology allowing us to express ourselves so quickly and publicly, it appears to be getting worse.
Here’s a little segment by Adam Curtis who makes the point a lot clearer than I do:
Reply
“tabloids continue to use sensationalised headlines and gossip stories”.
is the irony of this statement lost on you at The Tab?
Reply
The phone hacking scandal came from within the traditional realm of journalism which you praise – not Buzzfeed.
Reply
You’re a fucktard
Reply