3 ms·

>A lot of reporters over the summer were so scared by the prospect of a Trump presidency that they talked – in some cases publicly – about abandoning traditiona

by gozur88 10y ago

>A lot of reporters over the summer were so scared by the prospect of a Trump presidency that they talked – in some cases publicly – about abandoning traditional ideas about journalistic "distance" from politicians, in favor of open advocacy for the Clinton campaign. You'd think people who work in an industry in which credibility is your only enduring asset would realize what a terrible mistake this is. If you're a journalist who believes the facts support your position, why would you need to cross over into advocacy? Why not give your readers the evenhanded facts, i.e. why not do your damned job?

Esau 10y ago
Fear of Trump, and the threat he represents to a free press, probably has a lot of do with this. But you are right: they need to strive to be objective.
- norikki 10y ago
  Do you think President Trump will harm freedom of the press?
  - Esau 10y ago
    The way he has spoken about the press, his stated desired to make libel easier, and his thin-skinned reactions to criticism - I do believe there is a slim chance he could try to damage press freedoms. Hopefully, it will all turn out to be much ado about nothing.
- snowwrestler 10y ago
  They need to strive to be accurate and true. Objective implies neutrality, but the facts aren't neutral. If a politician says that black is white, the headline "Politician: Black is White" is objective, but not accurate or true. The reporter knows that black is not white, the editor knows that black is not white, heck the typesetter knows that black is not white. The politician obviously knows too--or at least they should. So the headline should read "Politician Lies About Black Being White." That's really what happened. Once a upon a time, journalism viewed itself as a check against government--an institution dedicated to holding leaders responsible and accountable. Somewhere along the way the concept of "objectivity" turned them into mere stenographers for the powerful. Journalists must adapt to the reality that information is not scarce anymore. If people want to know what Trump said on Twitter, they can follow him on Twitter! It's free and just as easy as loading up a news website. So news outlets don't need to just repost what Trump said. They need to do reporting (and write headlines) that provide accurate context and tell their readers the truth about what Trump said.
  - ulucs 10y ago
    And then we get every news outlet nitpicking the statements of the outgroup while tolerating the ingroup [0]. We need to add fair. [0] http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/14/beware-isolated-demands-for-rigor/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/14/beware-isolated-demands...
  - gozur88 10y ago
    >Objective implies neutrality, but the facts aren't neutral. No, I don't think this is true. "Truth" may not be neutral, depending on who your favorite philosopher is, but facts are neutral. Yes, journalists need to adapt to a reality where information isn't scarce, but throwing away all semblance of objectivity is exactly the wrong way to do it. That doesn't mean they just report what people say (which is more laziness than any attempt at objectivity). It means they dig into political scandals for both parties in an evenhanded manner. If as a consumer of news I can't trust them to report the facts, they are entirely unfit for purpose.
snowwrestler 10y ago
Taibbi is responding to what he calls a disgusting anonymous smear job against fellow journalists, by perpetrating a disgusting anonymous smear job against fellow journalists. Neither of the stories he links to in that paragraph actually says what he claims they do. One is his own story, which does not name a single name or include a single quote from a journalist going into the tank for Clinton. The other is a NYTimes opinion writer exploring how the media's dedication to "balance" and merely reporting what politicians say might be played by a politician who repeatedly and blatantly lies about everything. This is true! Rutenberg nailed the challenge, the media failed it, and the results are plain for everyone to see.

by gozur88 10y ago

Esau 10y ago

Fear of Trump, and the threat he represents to a free press, probably has a lot of do with this. But you are right: they need to strive to be objective.

norikki 10y ago
Do you think President Trump will harm freedom of the press?
- Esau 10y ago
  The way he has spoken about the press, his stated desired to make libel easier, and his thin-skinned reactions to criticism - I do believe there is a slim chance he could try to damage press freedoms. Hopefully, it will all turn out to be much ado about nothing.
snowwrestler 10y ago
They need to strive to be accurate and true. Objective implies neutrality, but the facts aren't neutral. If a politician says that black is white, the headline "Politician: Black is White" is objective, but not accurate or true. The reporter knows that black is not white, the editor knows that black is not white, heck the typesetter knows that black is not white. The politician obviously knows too--or at least they should. So the headline should read "Politician Lies About Black Being White." That's really what happened. Once a upon a time, journalism viewed itself as a check against government--an institution dedicated to holding leaders responsible and accountable. Somewhere along the way the concept of "objectivity" turned them into mere stenographers for the powerful. Journalists must adapt to the reality that information is not scarce anymore. If people want to know what Trump said on Twitter, they can follow him on Twitter! It's free and just as easy as loading up a news website. So news outlets don't need to just repost what Trump said. They need to do reporting (and write headlines) that provide accurate context and tell their readers the truth about what Trump said.
- ulucs 10y ago
  And then we get every news outlet nitpicking the statements of the outgroup while tolerating the ingroup [0]. We need to add fair. [0] http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/14/beware-isolated-demands-for-rigor/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/14/beware-isolated-demands...
- gozur88 10y ago
  >Objective implies neutrality, but the facts aren't neutral. No, I don't think this is true. "Truth" may not be neutral, depending on who your favorite philosopher is, but facts are neutral. Yes, journalists need to adapt to a reality where information isn't scarce, but throwing away all semblance of objectivity is exactly the wrong way to do it. That doesn't mean they just report what people say (which is more laziness than any attempt at objectivity). It means they dig into political scandals for both parties in an evenhanded manner. If as a consumer of news I can't trust them to report the facts, they are entirely unfit for purpose.

snowwrestler 10y ago

Taibbi is responding to what he calls a disgusting anonymous smear job against fellow journalists, by perpetrating a disgusting anonymous smear job against fellow journalists. Neither of the stories he links to in that paragraph actually says what he claims they do. One is his own story, which does not name a single name or include a single quote from a journalist going into the tank for Clinton. The other is a NYTimes opinion writer exploring how the media's dedication to "balance" and merely reporting what politicians say might be played by a politician who repeatedly and blatantly lies about everything. This is true! Rutenberg nailed the challenge, the media failed it, and the results are plain for everyone to see.