Talk:Pink-slime journalism

Requested move 14 November 2021

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)

---

Pink-slime journalism → Pink 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)

• Move per reasons above. X-Editor (talk) 18:07, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
• Comment from creator: I have no particularly strong opinion on whether to hyphenate or not, so long as there are redirects between the two. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:07, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
• Move. Seems the unhyphenated is the common name.JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 18:08, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep per BarrelProof. I hadn't considered MOS:HYPHEN. --JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 14:23, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: It seems easier to read with the hyphen included. Of course pink slime doesn't have a hyphen in it, but here we are talking about a modifier of journalism, not the noun term. MOS:HYPHEN explains such uses. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 02:00, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Further comment: Please note that without the hyphen, one could read this as being about slime journalism with a particular color. More properly, the color belongs to the slime, not to the journalism. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:32, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
  • FWIW, this is why I picked the title with the hyphen. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

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

• Oppose per WP:HYPHEN N°3. The pink slime article title doesn't have hyphen because that title is an adjective plus a noun, but here "pink-slime" is a compound modifier of "journalism" and requires a hyphen. —  AjaxSmack  20:26, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose – adjectival phrases that modify nouns should be hyphenated, per MOS:HYPHEN and the desire for more precise titles when possible. I don't see WP:COMMONNAME as being particularly relevant: we as a project have made a stylistic determination that compound modifiers should generally be hyphenated, so sources that don't follow that convention have little bearing on the appropriate title for this article. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:29, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

Definition/defining sentence needs work

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:

• Deleting 1. I don't see why this type of journalism has to be appear on a website devoted to this type of journalism to qualify as pink slime.
• I'm good with 2 (poor quality)
• Deleting #3. I don't see how bringing in a local news angle is definitional for pink slime. You could have pink slime style/quality articles about national or state issues.
• Deleting 4. It could be that more pink slime at the present time is coming out from Republicans or corporate shills but as we point out later in the article, there's at least one Democratic group doing it. This establishes that it can come from either side of the aisle and, in fact, even without that, pink slime journalism at its essence doesn't even have to be about politics.
• Deleting 5. Not if there are also Democratic practitioners as has been said to be the case.
• I agree with 6. That seems to be definitionally characteristic of pink slime
• I agree somewhat with 7 (I don't agree with it being about just local news) -- low wage employees and the use of computer automation to generate news from various datasets seems very characteristic. Novellasyes (talk) 20:50, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

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)

Hoodline: Is it pink slime?

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)

• Reading this Reuters article, these folks might also be pink slime. Novellasyes (talk) 15:07, 6 June 2024 (UTC)