Problems at Patch.com

23 pages on the hatred of Patch.com ... there are a lot of bored people on this chat board

 

That's nothing. The sound "ack" generated about 50 pages

 

So the 20 or so people who have posted on this thread aren't successful journalists? (Actually, it's probably more than that, but I'm not going to go back and count).

Wow, that pretty much sums up YankeeFan's argument right there.

 

I don't know how old you are, but I think veering from arrogant groupthink is a violation of sj rules.

 

Per Merriam-Webster:

Journalism:
a : the collection and editing of news for presentation through the media
b : the public press
c : an academic study concerned with the collection and editing of news or the management of a news medium
2
a : writing designed for publication in a newspaper or magazine
b : writing characterized by a direct presentation of facts or description of events without an attempt at interpretation
c : writing designed to appeal to current popular taste or public interest

To my mind, there is absolutely no question that Patch meets the definition of journalism. None whatsoever.

The discussion, instead, should be whether it's journalism with any quality or merit.

But it is journalism, even if done to the lowest common denominator

 

Sounded like a lot of people who had a personal stake in the game.

Probably should have said "objective" journalist instead of "successful" journalist.

That's fair. I disagree, but it's fair.

If it has no quality or merit, why call it journalism?

A vegetarian who eats meat isn't just a vegetarian without quality or merit, he's just plain not a vegetarian.

 

Being a vegetarian is a yes/no question. What a journalist is has always been a subjective question.

 

Merit does not define journalism.

Gathering and publishing news defines journalism.

There are a shit-ton - or at least once were - of atrocious small community newspapers from coast to coast.

The only really differences with Patch is it's a nationwide chain and online.

 

That, and he assumes that everybody who defends Patch must work for them. But he has been speaking from the wrong end of his anatomy throughout this entire discussion, so that's nothing new.

I do happen to know a couple of Patch editors in my area. Both of them were damn good reporters elsewhere before ending up at Patch. I am a bit motivated to stick up for them.

That said, YankeeFan's argument is ridiculously flawed. Mark tried to explain it to him, that despite his focus on Patch as a brand, readers just aren't going to see it that way. They are going to respond to the Patch that covers their town, not Patch as a whole.

Again, sometimes the lack of experience in the business really shines through. I really hate to put it that way. You can certainly learn a thing or two about journalism without working in the business, just as journalists can learn about the people and activities they cover without participating. But you have to actually try to learn something rather than just shoving your fingers in your ears and ranting about the same crap over and over again.

 

I just want to point out for posterity that oop, yes, THAT oop, posted the following sentence: But you have to actually try to learn something rather than just shoving your fingers in your ears and ranting about the same crap over and over again.

That's awesome.

 

It's not that I think everyone defending Patch works there, it's that I think most of the people defending Patch aren't objective. Like you, they know someone they respect that works there and reflexively defend their friends' work.

It's unnecessary. I haven't said there's anything wrong with Patch, just that it doesn't stand for journalism.

And, all of these pages in, not one person has said, "Patch absolutely does stand for journalism."

They can't and they won't because no organization that allows Timmy's mommy to cover Timmy's badminton tournament could be described as one that stands for quality journalism.

"Mark tried to explain it to him," is funny in its own right. I'll bet you the people at Patch believe they are building a brand, but because you and "Mark" don't understand what a brand is, I'm speaking from the wrong end of his anatomy.

I understand that many here are anti-business, but you should at least have a basic understanding of business principles.

Hell, "Mark" mocks the very idea of marketing as a field of study. Yet, it's much more scientific than journalism.

Believe what you want. I'll stand by my assertion that Patch and the New York Times are in different industries.

Patch's competition is the grocery store bulletin board, not the Times or other sources of journalism.

 

That wasn't the question you posed.

You asked, "I'd love for just one successful journalist to come on here and say that, "yes" Patch meets the definition of journalism."

And it's been answered.

It just doesn't meant it's good journalism.

If you put the worst cup of Folger's instant next to a cup of your high-dollar brew, asked 100 people to take a sip of both and asked 'em what they just drank, I bet you 95 percent of them would answer "coffee" to both.

Doesn't mean there isn't a huge difference in the quality of each.