4 ms·

> "disingenuous" or "biased" or "unethical" Mainstream journalism will also do just fine.

by smegel 10y ago

M_Grey 10y ago
Implying that once outside of the "mainstream" journalistic integrity suddenly improves? Nonsense.
- harry8 10y ago
  Implying that staying inside the "mainstream" journalistic integrity suddenly improving is a false assumption. I don't know that I agree with it, but it's a valid opinion to have that mainstream is no better than elsewhere.
  - M_Grey 10y ago
    I addressed someone's implication, I didn't offer one of my own.
    - harry8 10y ago
      And my interpretation of their implication differed to yours, as I explained.
- logicallee 10y ago
  But it does. We (readers here, you, me, etc) are far outside of mainstream at this news site, HN, and journalistic standards are much higher. When you go from default subreddits to niche ones, the journalidtic integrity improves substantially. Yes, yes, once outside the mainstream, integrity suddenly improves, across the board.
  - M_Grey 10y ago
    We're not journalists, this is not a journalistic outlet.
    - logicallee 10y ago
      I'm just going to go ahead and disagree. This is journalism and news in 2016. (I'm also including people's blog write-ups that they or others submit.) On tech and fundraising issues, I'd say HN and yhe niche blog posts submitted, do count for a kind of journalism.
      - M_Grey 10y ago
        Only by throwing the definition of the word out the window to make a point, could that possibly fly.
        logicallee 10y ago
        Fair enough. there's no good word for people giving lots of facts in a blogpost that is meant to be informative, open to comments, includes updates and good-faith efforts to be informative and correct. it may not be journalism, but people read these blog posts and these posts have huge weight. I don't think there's historical precedent for this kind of self-publishing, so not sure the terminology has caught up, but I'll concede your point regarding the specific term 'journalism'. Would you include in 'journalism' very badly-written articles that are done by a writer collecting or reporting on sources (example: reporting on a tweet and its responses), while using horrific grammar and being very low-quality? You know the kind of link-bait 'articles' I'm talking about - I wonder if you would consider that part of journalism or not.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  - mozumder 10y ago
    > HN, and journalistic standards are much higher. Mainstream media has FAR higher journalistic standards than independent media. Major media sites have volumes of books that their reporters follow for their editorial process. AP has a style guide you can buy (and vet). Independent media follow no such journalistic rules. Never trust independent media. Mainstream corporate media is far more trustworthy, since they are a known known. It's such a fallacy to assume that just because it's independent that it's more trustworthy, when the exact opposite is true.
    - nickpsecurity 10y ago
      You just argued that mainstream media has rules, that they problems they bring in are well-understood, and independent media is untrustworthy. You provided evidence for two of them. You did not in any way show mainstream media to be more trustworthy than independent media. If anything, they're clearly not due to all the times they've been caught manipulating their audiences, lying, or even justifying a right to lie. They're both untrustworthy and consistently subversive in how they do things. So, the proper response is to do just what honest journalists or even agents in intelligence collection are taught to do: use diverse sources, rate their integrity, identify their biases, and merge them in a way that accounts for the two. It's what I have to do if I rely on the mainstream sources. It's been clear on a regular basis that their goal is to hold interest of specific demographics to keep them looking at ads rather than inform them. They're also very prone to self-censorship of anything that gets in the way of that due to cash flow.
      - mozumder 10y ago
        > So, the proper response is to do just what honest journalists or even agents in intelligence collection are taught to do: use diverse sources, rate their integrity, identify their biases, and merge them in a way that accounts for the two. That's pretty much what mainstream media does. That's why you see major investigative articles with lots and lots of cross-referenced sources. You know about the Theranos fraud because mainstream media, The Wall Street Journal - the largest newspaper in the country - thoroughly exposed them. Did you thank mainstream media for their work?

> "disingenuous" or "biased" or "unethical" Mainstream journalism will also do just fine.

by smegel 10y ago

> "disingenuous" or "biased" or "unethical" Mainstream journalism will also do just fine.

M_Grey 10y ago

Implying that once outside of the "mainstream" journalistic integrity suddenly improves? Nonsense.

harry8 10y ago
Implying that staying inside the "mainstream" journalistic integrity suddenly improving is a false assumption. I don't know that I agree with it, but it's a valid opinion to have that mainstream is no better than elsewhere.
- M_Grey 10y ago
  I addressed someone's implication, I didn't offer one of my own.
  - harry8 10y ago
    And my interpretation of their implication differed to yours, as I explained.
logicallee 10y ago
But it does. We (readers here, you, me, etc) are far outside of mainstream at this news site, HN, and journalistic standards are much higher. When you go from default subreddits to niche ones, the journalidtic integrity improves substantially. Yes, yes, once outside the mainstream, integrity suddenly improves, across the board.
- M_Grey 10y ago
  We're not journalists, this is not a journalistic outlet.
  - logicallee 10y ago
    I'm just going to go ahead and disagree. This is journalism and news in 2016. (I'm also including people's blog write-ups that they or others submit.) On tech and fundraising issues, I'd say HN and yhe niche blog posts submitted, do count for a kind of journalism.
    - M_Grey 10y ago
      Only by throwing the definition of the word out the window to make a point, could that possibly fly.
      - logicallee 10y ago
        Fair enough. there's no good word for people giving lots of facts in a blogpost that is meant to be informative, open to comments, includes updates and good-faith efforts to be informative and correct. it may not be journalism, but people read these blog posts and these posts have huge weight. I don't think there's historical precedent for this kind of self-publishing, so not sure the terminology has caught up, but I'll concede your point regarding the specific term 'journalism'. Would you include in 'journalism' very badly-written articles that are done by a writer collecting or reporting on sources (example: reporting on a tweet and its responses), while using horrific grammar and being very low-quality? You know the kind of link-bait 'articles' I'm talking about - I wonder if you would consider that part of journalism or not.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- mozumder 10y ago
  > HN, and journalistic standards are much higher. Mainstream media has FAR higher journalistic standards than independent media. Major media sites have volumes of books that their reporters follow for their editorial process. AP has a style guide you can buy (and vet). Independent media follow no such journalistic rules. Never trust independent media. Mainstream corporate media is far more trustworthy, since they are a known known. It's such a fallacy to assume that just because it's independent that it's more trustworthy, when the exact opposite is true.
  - nickpsecurity 10y ago
    You just argued that mainstream media has rules, that they problems they bring in are well-understood, and independent media is untrustworthy. You provided evidence for two of them. You did not in any way show mainstream media to be more trustworthy than independent media. If anything, they're clearly not due to all the times they've been caught manipulating their audiences, lying, or even justifying a right to lie. They're both untrustworthy and consistently subversive in how they do things. So, the proper response is to do just what honest journalists or even agents in intelligence collection are taught to do: use diverse sources, rate their integrity, identify their biases, and merge them in a way that accounts for the two. It's what I have to do if I rely on the mainstream sources. It's been clear on a regular basis that their goal is to hold interest of specific demographics to keep them looking at ads rather than inform them. They're also very prone to self-censorship of anything that gets in the way of that due to cash flow.
    - mozumder 10y ago
      > So, the proper response is to do just what honest journalists or even agents in intelligence collection are taught to do: use diverse sources, rate their integrity, identify their biases, and merge them in a way that accounts for the two. That's pretty much what mainstream media does. That's why you see major investigative articles with lots and lots of cross-referenced sources. You know about the Theranos fraud because mainstream media, The Wall Street Journal - the largest newspaper in the country - thoroughly exposed them. Did you thank mainstream media for their work?