Home  

Random  

Nearby  



Log in  



Settings  



Donate  



About Wikipedia  

Disclaimers  



Wikipedia





Talk:Pink-slime journalism





Article  

Talk  



Language  

Watch  

Edit  


Latest comment: 1 month ago by Novellasyes in topic Hoodline: Is it pink slime?
 


Learn more about this page

Requested move 14 November 2021

edit
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. This is one of those cases where MOS hyphenation doesn't always match sources. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 04:53, 1 December 2021 (UTC)Reply



Pink-slime journalismPink slime journalism – The name itself is a pejorative that derives from pink slime, which doesn't have a hyphen. As a result, the vast majority of sources that I see don't appear to have the hyphen in it. These include all of the sources cited currently in the article that use "pink slime journalism" or some variant phrase, as well as others listed below:

  1. CJR
  2. Deseret News
  3. Media nation (this looks and feels like a blog, but it's cited currently)
  4. CJR again
  5. The Communication Review (refers to the analogy of "pink slime", but doesn't use "pink slime journalism" as a phrase therein)
  6. WLDS-AM
  7. Scripps media (via KMGH-TV)
  8. USA Today
  9. Texas Observer
  10. Yahoo! Finance
  11. The Nation

It seems to be an intentional choice to use the hyphen in the lead (the article creator created a redirect to the hyphenated version), so I don't expect this to be uncontroversial. However, I believe that the article title should be changed to be without a hyphen, along the vein of WP:COMMONNAME. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 17:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. SkyWarrior 02:06, 22 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Note: WikiProject Journalism has been notified of this discussion. SkyWarrior 02:06, 22 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Issues

edit

Hadn't come across this article before. First thing that struck me, in addition to its overlap with e.g. astroturfing, is the conspicuous "left and right" at the top. We appear to cite several articles about this phenomenon's connection to conservative talking points, but the one source that specifically talks about the left is an opinion column in Newsweek, which shouldn't actually be carrying any WP:WEIGHT and appears to create a WP:FALSEBALANCE. However, we do also cite a Fortune article which mentions a connection to the left, so I'm holding off on making an edit until getting some other opinions here. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

In 2020, Open Secrets wrote about "political operations...pouring millions of 'dark money' dollars into ads and digital content masquerading as news coverage to influence the 2020 election." They mention a couple of examples. "One newer group heralding the new era of pseudo-news outlets is ACRONYM, a liberal dark money group with an affiliated super PAC called PACRONYM." and "Websites affiliated with Courier Newsroom that appear to be free-standing local news outlets are actually part of a coordinated effort with deep ties to Democractic political operatives." I've seen those two places mentioned (frequently) as the primary examples of this from left-of-center operations. Metric Media is usually mentioned as the right-of-center operation. However, there's another distinction to be drawn. An operation can be doing what Open Secrets claims ACRONYM and Courier News are doing, but not do it in a pink-slimeish way. In other words, there's a distinction between being a pseudo-news outfit or trying to appear to be an independent newsrooms when you actually aren't and committing pink slime. Pink slime journalism isn't the only way to be a pseudo-news outfit. Novellasyes (talk) 12:43, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Definition/defining sentence needs work

edit

What are the defining characteristics of pink-slime journalism? According to the current two opening sentences, the defining characteristics are:

  1. It is journalism published on a news outlet that exists for this purpose ("dedicated")
  2. It is poor-quality
  3. It is made to appear to be local news
  4. It is perpetrated by Republican groups and corporate public relations firms
  5. The goal is to "push right-wing agendas" and also to "gather user data".
  6. The reports are either computer-generated or written by poorly-paid outsourced writers, often using fake names
  7. Pink-slime journalism involves outsourcing local news stories to low-wage employees, or using computer automation to generate news stories from various datasets.

There's a lot going on there! I'd propose:

I've made some tweaks to the lead sentence to change it to Pink-slime journalism is a practice in which news outlets publish poor-quality news reports which appear to be local news, often to push right-wing agendas and gather user data. I agree that it had gotten somewhat bloated. It should summarize the article, though, and I think the local news portion and the "often to push right-wing agendas" both well reflect the existing article text. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:07, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hoodline: Is it pink slime?

edit

What’s in a byline? For Hoodline’s AI-generated local news, everything — and nothing. It has these characteristics that we define as indicating pink slime: (a) appears to be local, (b) relatively low quality, (c) leaning heavily on computer (in this case, AI) generation of content. The one thing missing is that Hoodline doesn't seem to have a partisan motivation. Novellasyes (talk) 13:09, 5 June 2024 (UTC)Reply


Add topic

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pink-slime_journalism&oldid=1227571641"
 



Last edited on 6 June 2024, at 15:07  


Languages

 



This page is not available in other languages.
 

Wikipedia


This page was last edited on 6 June 2024, at 15:07 (UTC).

Content is available under CC BY-SA 4.0 unless otherwise noted.



Privacy policy

About Wikipedia

Disclaimers

Contact Wikipedia

Code of Conduct

Developers

Statistics

Cookie statement

Terms of Use

Desktop