4 ms·

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

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.

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.