Online Journalism Reveals the Omnispert Mentality in Full Bloom
January 23, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
PREAMBLE
I am a dinobaby. I worked in big, rapacious outfits. I worked for a family-owned newspaper. I worked for a giant, faceless professional publisher. I worked alone, serving as the world’s ugliest Kelly Girl (a once-proud rental agency). Over the last couple of decades, I have watched as “real” journalists have broken from a run-down stable and headed toward the green, shimmering pasture on the horizon. Some died and became Wal-Mart greeters. Others found their way to the promised land.
The journey and its apparently successful conclusion caused a change in the mindset of some “real” journalists. A few morphed into YouTube-type video stars; a smaller number became talking heads on a cable or broadcast channel with fewer viewers than the iconoclastic NoAgenda.com podcast. Others underwent an intellectual transformation. From reporting the news, these fortunate (possibly chosen) individuals became what I call “omnisperts”; that is, my word for an “everything” expert. The shift is fascinating, mostly because I observed “real” news people in the companies for which I worked either as an officer or a consultant.
An expert on everything is usually self-appointed. These “everything experts” or “omnisperts” can find fault and simultaneous emit entitlement. The idea is that “you are stupid” and “I am smart.” The approach is often a key component of “real” journalism today. Social media has, like radiation, altered the DNA from reporter to source of divine wisdom. Thanks, MSFT Copilot Bing thing. Definitely good enough and illustrative of the system’s biases: White, mail, big city, and money.
The shift in the DNA of a “real” journalist from a person assigned a story or, in the case of a feature writer, a finder of a story in alignment with the “desk” issuing the work order, has been caused by the flow of digital bits via Facebook, Twitter, and other social media conduits. Bombard a rat with enough gamma radiation, and what happens? Well, the rats — before their life force takes a vacation can exhibit some interesting behavior and a lucky few output some baby rats. These can be objects of radiation specialists’ learning trajectory. Surprised because I relate radiation to bits from social media? Some are; some are not.
I thought about my experiences with “real” journalists when I read “The 20-Year Boondoggle.” The boondoggle is the Department of Homeland Security. The subtitle to the write up asks, “So What the Hell Happened?”
MY APPROACH
Now before I address, the language in the headline, the “real” news in the write up, or the confusion of doing what I thought journalists in the organizations at which I worked years ago did, I want to comment on the presentation of the textual information.
The publication in which this “real” news story appears is the Verge. Some of the stories are difficult for me to read. An essay about Google was a baffler. I just gave up because blocks of text and graphics jumped around. This Boondoggle piece is a mix of flickering background images and text. (I made a note of the illustrator. I don’t want to be involved with this fellow, his firm, or his “school” of graphics for business information in the future.) The essay (because I am not sure it is “real” news) features a puppet. I don’t think a puppet is a positive, but it does a good job of communicating the idea that “someone” is pulling strings. There is a big graphic showing people sliding down something and into flickering water. Remember, please, that this is a “real” news article, but it is trying, really trying, to be a TikTok-meme machine I think. Then there is an illustration of people with their heads either in the “clouds” (which are vibrating like a DaVinci Fusion effect or a giant swarm of blue bees). The image is not a positive one in my opinion. The illustration which troubled me is one that shows people falling out of the fourth floor of an office building to their death. A sketch of a motion picture or made-for-streaming spy story surveillance room suggests that the world outside of the office and on the computer monitors is a chaotic mess. That’s okay. Has the world ever been something other than a chaotic mess?
These illustrations make clear that the 8,000 or so words in the “real” news report that the author and the publisher find a US government agency to be a problem. I know this because the subhead “The Problem Is” is used six times. Helpful. The repetition makes clear that the article itself is revealing information that is definitely super problematic. If a grade school teacher or an entitled Google-type executive says “The problem is” to someone six times, it’s safe to say that you are [a] going to have a chance to find your future elsewhere, [b] what you and your agency have done is really, really bad and you must be punished, and [c] we know better than anyone else how to do your work. “Listen up, losers” the article shouts, jiggles, and repeats more than Chubby Checker’s “The Twist” or a knock off disco tune in a bar in Ibiza.
But what about the information in the write up. Okay, okay. Let me offer three comments, and invite you to read the 8,000 word original, award winning, knock out “real” news story yourself. (I had to down this puppy in three separate sessions because it exemplifies the journalist as omnispert in a top shelf way. (I think I should spell omnispert as omnispurt to better capture the flood of “real” news.)
THREE IRRITATIONS
First, the write up points out that the US Department of Homeland Security sucks. I find it fascinating that those who have not had an opportunity to work in either law enforcement, intelligence, or allied fields find that a Federal agency is a failure. I don’t have an easy way to address this “certain blind spot.” Maybe a couple of ride alongs or working on a project focused on locating a bad actor would provide some context. I know that words won’t do it. The gulf between “real” journalists and the individuals who work to enforce applicable laws is a wide one. I will not suggest that “real” journalists fall to their deaths from an office window. I am a dinobaby, not a “real” journalist criticizing the work of people who — believe it or not — are in harm’s way every single day. Think about that when ordering a cinnamon latte tomorrow morning.
Second, no one pays any attention to DHS. Once again, it would be helpful for a “real” journalist to step back and ask, “Are large government agencies in the UK, France, Germany, or Japan functioning in a materially different way? With perspective, one can appreciate the problem of a work force cut free from the social norms, shared beliefs, and willingness to compromise once part of industrial societies’ culture. The “government agencies” reflect the people who work there. And guess what, “real” journalist, those people are like you. They exhibit the same strengths and weaknesses. I would submit that you are providing more information about your weaknesses, preferences, and biases than actionable information about a government agency.
Third, the cherry picking of examples is part of the “real” news game. I get it. What I don’t get is the sense of entitlement oozing from the word choice, the dorky headlines, and the boy, these people are stupid approach. Here’s one example and not the most egregious one by the way:
The lack of control starts at headquarters and trickles down.This means DHS has trouble keeping track of what’s in its warehouses, from electronic equipment to antiviral medication, as well as what warehouses it even controls. It means that there have been times when a single deportation officer has been assigned to supervise nearly 10,000 non-detained migrants. It means the department lacks consistent, enforceable requirements for subcontractors around price, schedule, and capability, such that in 2015, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found only two of 22 major programs at DHS were on track — racking up an estimated $9.7 billion more than expected.
A POSSIBLE FIX
Wow, DHS is supposed to “fix” this problem. Maybe the “real” journalists would like to apply for a job, rise through the ranks, and make everything better. Fat chance.
Net net: How quickly can AI replace certain human “real” journalists? Answer: Not soon enough.
Stephen E Arnold, January 23, 2024
Comments
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
