churnalism

The dark forces of churnalism are on the march - again.

There is certainly an increasing issue with what has been called 'churnalism'.

Churnalism has increased to the point that many stories found in the press are not original.

Is there any obligation to name the company responsible for churnalism like that?

There are clear reasons for the spread of churnalism.

This is hardly the most egregious example of churnalism.

It reeks of churnalism made respectable by putting a link.

An issue that remains, in our view, relevant to quality content is churnalism, especially with the renewed focus on digital first.

Some organizations and tools have arisen to combat churnalism.

Is this just a bit of even-more-pathetic-than-usual churnalism?

This article is the opposite of churnalism.

Uncritical use or overuse of press releases by journalists has been dubbed churnalism.

It's lazy to take PR material at face value, and churnalism just to pump it out.

Churnalism travels fast, especially in silly season.

There's free news everywhere and the boundary between real reporting and 'churnalism' is increasingly blurred.

Churnalism is the creation of articles from press releases, wire stories and other unoriginal material.

Guardian a little less churnalism please.

We do have some "think tanks" which are closer to being propaganda outlets, less seriously research than "churnalism" - using the cuttings to make points.

I suspect that some of this "churnalism" arises not so much from laziness as from insecurity.

It's lazy churnalism and not even accurately churning the PR release correctly.

But what is to stop The Guardian having a policy to say that you will not routinely name commercial sponsors of churnalism pieces without good reason?

Enough churnalism and echo-chambering, please.

Churnalism isn't good writing.

Journalism not churnalism in education please...