3 ms·

Re 3.: I think you mistake a lack of neutrality for lack of objectivity. Back in the "he said she said" days of journalism objectivity and neutrality were one i

Re 3.: I think you mistake a lack of neutrality for lack of objectivity. Back in the "he said she said" days of journalism objectivity and neutrality were one in the same, but the article is about how the wheels are coming off that model (in a nutshell, this is due to an overabundance of information and the rise of PR). Objectivity is is possible without neutrality: in this model of journalism speaking the truth doesn't require opposing viewpoints, and not only can but must feature an editorial slant. So I don't think that considering editorial journalism as objective is in any way illiterate. Cronkite may roll in his grave, but the landscape of media has changed.

AlldenKope 10y ago
The rise of PR is definitely a problem, as is the consolidation of media conglomerates. Plus good journalism is just really difficult. Another comment below referenced the Gell-Mann effect, which is really easy to lose sight of in day to day reading. There is also a lot of pressure to publish quickly - at the cost of quality - and that's on top of the incentives to nab clicks. I like the notion of journalism as debate, where the sides are clear and each must marshal evidence to support their position. Though like another comment said, we can still get BS evolution vs skeptic debates because too often the burden of evidence is ignored. Then what are the sides? Left vs Right? Corporate vs Independent like Politifact vs Fair.org? And then: evidence can be manufactured. Need support for a policy? Fund a think tank to do a study it. Not that studies are always self-interested. Take Y-Combinator's exploration of Universal Basic Income. They don't stand to directly benefit from exploring it; they see a massive challenge, and have the assets to explore UBI as a potential solution. I do, however, believe journalism will improve in the long run, in large part because I believe good ideas and quality usually survive. And we have more good ideas than ever.
- weaksauce 10y ago
  There are great ideas out there but there is also a lot of noise out there. The noise drowns out the quality because it's easier to produce and it's more frequent.
- Retra 10y ago
  Yeah, you can't publish some big ground-breaking world-shattering report every day. And nobody is going to pay you to do it only once unless you're going to conclude what they want you to.

AlldenKope 10y ago

The rise of PR is definitely a problem, as is the consolidation of media conglomerates. Plus good journalism is just really difficult. Another comment below referenced the Gell-Mann effect, which is really easy to lose sight of in day to day reading. There is also a lot of pressure to publish quickly - at the cost of quality - and that's on top of the incentives to nab clicks. I like the notion of journalism as debate, where the sides are clear and each must marshal evidence to support their position. Though like another comment said, we can still get BS evolution vs skeptic debates because too often the burden of evidence is ignored. Then what are the sides? Left vs Right? Corporate vs Independent like Politifact vs Fair.org? And then: evidence can be manufactured. Need support for a policy? Fund a think tank to do a study it. Not that studies are always self-interested. Take Y-Combinator's exploration of Universal Basic Income. They don't stand to directly benefit from exploring it; they see a massive challenge, and have the assets to explore UBI as a potential solution. I do, however, believe journalism will improve in the long run, in large part because I believe good ideas and quality usually survive. And we have more good ideas than ever.

weaksauce 10y ago
There are great ideas out there but there is also a lot of noise out there. The noise drowns out the quality because it's easier to produce and it's more frequent.
Retra 10y ago
Yeah, you can't publish some big ground-breaking world-shattering report every day. And nobody is going to pay you to do it only once unless you're going to conclude what they want you to.