4 ms·

This isn't the usual yada yada; it's a dramatic media experiment. Some quick quotes from the article: Advocacy is a longstanding taboo in American journalism,

by raldi 10y ago

This isn't the usual yada yada; it's a dramatic media experiment. Some quick quotes from the article: Advocacy is a longstanding taboo in American journalism, making reporters and editors wary of discussing solutions to the problems they highlight in their coverage. [T]he question of whether San Francisco’s journalists are crossing into activism has not come up, at least not in the initial meeting of news organizations last month. [...] “It was sort of shocking that there was no dissension [...] On the contrary, the conversation was, ‘Let’s do way more.’” "Your job is to investigate solutions," she said. "People want to read about how to fix broken systems." It's disappointing that most of the comments here are missing all of this, and just focusing on the same old arguments about homelessness that could be made on any of the articles that get written 25 times a week.

Shivetya 10y ago
I like how they try to portray the idea that that American journalism isn't on the constant advocacy path because I cannot recall a time they are not. locally (Atlanta here) the homeless situation never comes up unless some over the top sporting event or convention is in town. then its stories about how they are being pushed out or hidden from view. If anything the news plays the lets ignore them line because it doesn't want to jeopardize its access to some politicians by making it an issue. I would assume that in SF either someone in the news finally said "screw it" or they have some unseen politicians in the background giving them the the go. Sorry to sound so cynical but damn if homelessness and similar issues only arise during political season.
- pdabbadabba 10y ago
  > I like how they try to portray the idea that that American journalism isn't on the constant advocacy path because I cannot recall a time they are not. This is important--and you can see it on the issue of homelessness itself. Journalists' failure to cover homelessness may (charitably) have been borne of a desire for neutrality, but failure to cover an issue is not necessarily neutral in effect. If homeless is, objectively, a serious problem, the failure to cover it is a form of tacit (though inadvertent) support. It's just that ones motives are harder to discern and, thus, one's actions are more readily justified when one does nothing. When one does something, the universe of justifications narrows dramatically, and there's no escaping the fact that the world will be able to see and evaluate your motives.
  - burfog 10y ago
    It's not news. It's not as if they all became homeless last night. That would be news.
    - pdabbadabba 10y ago
      Journalism =/= news reporting. I think you're missing a lot about modern journalism if you think that journalists just cover "things that have just happened." There is also investigative journalism, profiles, editorials, etc. Just go take a look at nytimes.com. What fraction of the stuff you see there is just reporting on things that have just happened? If you think the New York Times really would be better if it were pared down to only "news," I expect you're probably in a very small minority.
nihonde 10y ago
"People want to read about how to fix broken systems." I hope that's true, but I suspect that people prefer to read about how broken things are, and point fingers at the perceived culprits. Fixing things leads eventually to "slow news days". Where I live in Japan, it's not uncommon for the news to spend a bunch of time on a non-fatal car crash, or a string of petty thefts in convenience stores, or a section of train tracks that needed to be fixed in a hurry. Every few weeks, some government official will be disgraced for having a staff member who spent a few dollars worth of public funds on a discretionary lunch or something like that. Occasionally, someone will get murdered (usually small kids, sadly) and that will dominate the news for a day, or a week. Celebrities getting married. And then the horror show of news from other parts of the world. I'm exaggerating, but not by much. We should all be so lucky to have these slow news days.
- nihonde 10y ago
  By the way, I'm aware that Japanese media is tightly coupled to the ruling party. You'll be hard pressed to find anywhere that isn't these days. What I'm trying to get at is the focus on small stuff for lack of awful big stuff that actually gets addressed. Keep in mind, we're talking about a place where a giant wave swept in and killed twenty thousand people and their pets and livestock, etc. in a few minutes, so it's not like it's trouble-free here.
calibraxis 10y ago
> “There’s outrage fatigue,” Mr. Donohue said. “You can very easily leave people feeling helpless, which can then lead to being disengaged.” An anthropologist analyzed despair fatigue. And discussed journalism's role: How could such total, lock-step defiance of reality be maintained in a country with a formally free press and highly educated population? To some degree, you find the familiar bubble effect. Politicians, journalists, lobbyists, CEOs, and corporate bureaucrats rarely talk to anyone except each other. They constitute a distinct intellectual universe. (http://thebaffler.com/salvos/despair-fatigue-david-graeber http://thebaffler.com/salvos/despair-fatigue-david-graeber) The NYT article mentions, "journalists who advocate causes might be selective in their reporting or biased in their coverage." But of course, "professional journalism" hides selective, biased coverage. For example, something's newsworthy when a government or corporate bureaucrat says it: When a journalist reports what official sources are saying, or debating, she is professional. When she steps outside this range of official debate to provide alternative perspectives or to raise issues those in power prefer not to discuss, she is no longer being professional. (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/McChesney/Media_Crisis_Times.html http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/McChesney/Media_Crisis_Tim...)

by raldi 10y ago

Shivetya 10y ago

I like how they try to portray the idea that that American journalism isn't on the constant advocacy path because I cannot recall a time they are not. locally (Atlanta here) the homeless situation never comes up unless some over the top sporting event or convention is in town. then its stories about how they are being pushed out or hidden from view. If anything the news plays the lets ignore them line because it doesn't want to jeopardize its access to some politicians by making it an issue. I would assume that in SF either someone in the news finally said "screw it" or they have some unseen politicians in the background giving them the the go. Sorry to sound so cynical but damn if homelessness and similar issues only arise during political season.

pdabbadabba 10y ago
> I like how they try to portray the idea that that American journalism isn't on the constant advocacy path because I cannot recall a time they are not. This is important--and you can see it on the issue of homelessness itself. Journalists' failure to cover homelessness may (charitably) have been borne of a desire for neutrality, but failure to cover an issue is not necessarily neutral in effect. If homeless is, objectively, a serious problem, the failure to cover it is a form of tacit (though inadvertent) support. It's just that ones motives are harder to discern and, thus, one's actions are more readily justified when one does nothing. When one does something, the universe of justifications narrows dramatically, and there's no escaping the fact that the world will be able to see and evaluate your motives.
- burfog 10y ago
  It's not news. It's not as if they all became homeless last night. That would be news.
  - pdabbadabba 10y ago
    Journalism =/= news reporting. I think you're missing a lot about modern journalism if you think that journalists just cover "things that have just happened." There is also investigative journalism, profiles, editorials, etc. Just go take a look at nytimes.com. What fraction of the stuff you see there is just reporting on things that have just happened? If you think the New York Times really would be better if it were pared down to only "news," I expect you're probably in a very small minority.

nihonde 10y ago

"People want to read about how to fix broken systems." I hope that's true, but I suspect that people prefer to read about how broken things are, and point fingers at the perceived culprits. Fixing things leads eventually to "slow news days". Where I live in Japan, it's not uncommon for the news to spend a bunch of time on a non-fatal car crash, or a string of petty thefts in convenience stores, or a section of train tracks that needed to be fixed in a hurry. Every few weeks, some government official will be disgraced for having a staff member who spent a few dollars worth of public funds on a discretionary lunch or something like that. Occasionally, someone will get murdered (usually small kids, sadly) and that will dominate the news for a day, or a week. Celebrities getting married. And then the horror show of news from other parts of the world. I'm exaggerating, but not by much. We should all be so lucky to have these slow news days.

nihonde 10y ago
By the way, I'm aware that Japanese media is tightly coupled to the ruling party. You'll be hard pressed to find anywhere that isn't these days. What I'm trying to get at is the focus on small stuff for lack of awful big stuff that actually gets addressed. Keep in mind, we're talking about a place where a giant wave swept in and killed twenty thousand people and their pets and livestock, etc. in a few minutes, so it's not like it's trouble-free here.

calibraxis 10y ago

> “There’s outrage fatigue,” Mr. Donohue said. “You can very easily leave people feeling helpless, which can then lead to being disengaged.” An anthropologist analyzed despair fatigue. And discussed journalism's role: How could such total, lock-step defiance of reality be maintained in a country with a formally free press and highly educated population? To some degree, you find the familiar bubble effect. Politicians, journalists, lobbyists, CEOs, and corporate bureaucrats rarely talk to anyone except each other. They constitute a distinct intellectual universe. (http://thebaffler.com/salvos/despair-fatigue-david-graeber http://thebaffler.com/salvos/despair-fatigue-david-graeber) The NYT article mentions, "journalists who advocate causes might be selective in their reporting or biased in their coverage." But of course, "professional journalism" hides selective, biased coverage. For example, something's newsworthy when a government or corporate bureaucrat says it: When a journalist reports what official sources are saying, or debating, she is professional. When she steps outside this range of official debate to provide alternative perspectives or to raise issues those in power prefer not to discuss, she is no longer being professional. (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/McChesney/Media_Crisis_Times.html http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/McChesney/Media_Crisis_Tim...)