Problems at Patch.com

Then don't use this as proof that Patch = journalism.

He got a tip. Great.

If that's the standard, then Drudge is a journalist.

In an internet world, anyone can break news. That's not what makes you a journalist.

If you are a journalist, you shouldn't need me to explain this to you.

 

Then don't use this as proof that Patch = journalism.

He got a tip. Great.

If that's the standard, then Drudge is a journalist.

In an internet world, anyone can break news. That's not what makes you a journalist.

If you are a journalist, you shouldn't need me to explain this to you.
[/quote]

Ha! You trying to explain something to me is like an amoeba explaining something to Stephen Hawking.

Nice try.

Now, back on topic ... I didn't say "Patch = journalism," and you know it.

I said the guys that broke this story are journalists.

 

Fine Henry. I'm not sure what we're arguing about then.

Breaking News Tom is a journalist. He doesn't work for a journalistic enterprise, but he's a journalist.

In the past, being a journalist meant working for a journalistic enterprise. Maybe it doesn't anymore.

My problem has never been with Breaking News Tom. My only issue has been to point out that Patch is a brand. And, despite the protests of other it's not a brand that stands for journalism.

 

YF - Is ESPN journalism?

 

There a media partner of many of the leagues, conferences, and colleges they cover.

If a news org had a partnership with a politician they covered, would you consider them a credible source for news about that politician?

At least when newspapers (St Pete Times, and others) sponsor teams, they claim to have a Chines wall between the marketing folks that do the sponsorship and the editorial folks who cover the team.

Is there such a wall at ESPN?

Would you expect ESPN to break negative news about one of their partners?

Again, some journalism might come out of ESPN, but it's it's not the focus of the organization.

Does ESPN's brand stand for journalism? I don't think so.

It stands for live broadcasts of sports and sports commentary, not journalism.

 

What does Patch claim to do? If anyone has an internal document, please shed some light on this so this sub-thread can go away.

 

You tell me.

All I've said is that it's not journalism.

 

From the Patch About Us page at http://www.patch.com/about:

What is Patch?

Simply put, Patch is a new way to find out about, and participate in, what’s going on near you.

We’re a community-specific news and information platform dedicated to providing comprehensive and trusted local coverage for individual towns and communities.

We want to make your life better by giving you quick access to the information that’s most relevant to you. Patch makes it easy to:

Keep up with news and events
Look at photos and videos from around town
Learn about local businesses
Participate in discussions
Submit your own announcements, photos, and reviews

 

YF, you make some valid points, but you've dug yourself to China on this one.

There should be some more rigid standards across the board at Patch properties, of course. But some of their sites are very journalistically sound. Others, unfortunately, not so much.

 

Wicked, you've made my point for me.

If even one site is not journalistically sound, then the brand does not stand for journalism.

There's no two ways about it. It's one or the other.

 

So pretty much every newspaper chain in America is not journalism because most of them have at least one outlet that doesn't do it the right way.

Your ignorance and desperation to slam Patch is truly stunning.

 

That's like saying if one corporate-owned McDonald's uses horse meat in its burgers, all of their restaurants are bad.

I agree with you on this, that Patch needs to be more even across the board if it wants to be taken seriously. And that's probably not happening with Ariana turning it into HuffPost Local. (Did anyone else see that <a href="http://www.journalismjobs.com/job_listing.cfm?jobid=1258559">they're recruiting unpaid bloggers now</a>?)