3 ms·

I have to disagree. People who are passionate about a subject will report on it whether they're paid to or not. I would argue that being motivated by profit onl

I have to disagree. People who are passionate about a subject will report on it whether they're paid to or not. I would argue that being motivated by profit only makes you more susceptible to bias.

exelius 9y ago
There is a difference between news and opinion. Something like Stratechery is pure opinion; but it's opinion that I value because I feel it provides a lot of good insights. It's fine to crowdsource opinion. It's not ok to crowdsource news -- trust is a fundamental part of the equation.
JumpCrisscross 9y ago
> People who are passionate about a subject will report on it whether they're paid to or not The Theranos story is an example of why we need institutions like the Wall Street Journal. You had a passionate reporter. But there was so much more needed to bring the story to light. "When the Journal confronted [Theranos] with its findings based on the reporting thus far and sought its input, Theranos waged an aggressive campaign to discredit Mr. Carreyrou and his sources. Sunny Balwani, Theranos’s president, flew to the Phoenix area, where Theranos was offering its blood tests in Walgreens stores. There, some doctors who had talked with Carreyrou said Mr. Balwani pressured them to recant their statements. The famed litigator David Boies came twice to the Journal’s newsroom in midtown Manhattan to discuss the issues and tried to get the story killed. The Journal’s top editors and lawyers, who had closely monitored Mr. Carreyrou’s reporting from an early stage, unflinchingly stood by him" [1]. Switching to a model where news is done philanthropically means turning off public oversight on anyone who can file a federal lawsuit. [1] http://businessjournalism.org/2016/11/testing-theranos-how-they-did-it/ http://businessjournalism.org/2016/11/testing-theranos-how-t...
arjie 9y ago
Now you optimize for getting your information from the guy who cares the most about it. How is this supposed to free you of bias?
- Cakez0r 9y ago
  I'm not convinced it's possible for anyone to be free of bias and I don't claim that unpaid reporters are unbiased reporters. The onus will always be on the reader to draw their own conclusions and verify the integrity of the news they consume.
  - arjie 9y ago
    All right, why is someone who cares passionately about something less susceptible to bias than someone who's just reporting for a living? I would be inclined to believe the opposite.
actuallyalys 9y ago
I don't see why reporting the news is different from other jobs that people have a passion for and provide value to society. Should scientists not be paid because there are people who are curious about that natural world who would do it for free?
- Cakez0r 9y ago
  > Should scientists not be paid because there are people who are curious about that natural world who would do it for free? I guess I'll come to the rescue of that strawman you're torching... Scientists are free to work for money or passion, as people are free to fund research or not. Whatever the balance of pay vs passion, science will continue to happen.
  - actuallyalys 9y ago
    I might have been too hasty. The first couple times I read it, I thought your original comment was saying that paying for news wasn't worth it because journalists who are willing to work for free are less biased. Rereading it, it sounds like your point was more along the lines of paying for news in of itself doesn't lead to less biased coverage.
golergka 9y ago
People who are passionate about a subject are usually passionate about a certain view on a subject. Do you really think political activists make good reporters?

I have to disagree. People who are passionate about a subject will report on it whether they're paid to or not. I would argue that being motivated by profit only makes you more susceptible to bias.

exelius 9y ago

There is a difference between news and opinion. Something like Stratechery is pure opinion; but it's opinion that I value because I feel it provides a lot of good insights. It's fine to crowdsource opinion. It's not ok to crowdsource news -- trust is a fundamental part of the equation.

JumpCrisscross 9y ago

> People who are passionate about a subject will report on it whether they're paid to or not The Theranos story is an example of why we need institutions like the Wall Street Journal. You had a passionate reporter. But there was so much more needed to bring the story to light. "When the Journal confronted [Theranos] with its findings based on the reporting thus far and sought its input, Theranos waged an aggressive campaign to discredit Mr. Carreyrou and his sources. Sunny Balwani, Theranos’s president, flew to the Phoenix area, where Theranos was offering its blood tests in Walgreens stores. There, some doctors who had talked with Carreyrou said Mr. Balwani pressured them to recant their statements. The famed litigator David Boies came twice to the Journal’s newsroom in midtown Manhattan to discuss the issues and tried to get the story killed. The Journal’s top editors and lawyers, who had closely monitored Mr. Carreyrou’s reporting from an early stage, unflinchingly stood by him" [1]. Switching to a model where news is done philanthropically means turning off public oversight on anyone who can file a federal lawsuit. [1] http://businessjournalism.org/2016/11/testing-theranos-how-they-did-it/ http://businessjournalism.org/2016/11/testing-theranos-how-t...

arjie 9y ago

Now you optimize for getting your information from the guy who cares the most about it. How is this supposed to free you of bias?

Cakez0r 9y ago
I'm not convinced it's possible for anyone to be free of bias and I don't claim that unpaid reporters are unbiased reporters. The onus will always be on the reader to draw their own conclusions and verify the integrity of the news they consume.
- arjie 9y ago
  All right, why is someone who cares passionately about something less susceptible to bias than someone who's just reporting for a living? I would be inclined to believe the opposite.

actuallyalys 9y ago

I don't see why reporting the news is different from other jobs that people have a passion for and provide value to society. Should scientists not be paid because there are people who are curious about that natural world who would do it for free?

Cakez0r 9y ago
> Should scientists not be paid because there are people who are curious about that natural world who would do it for free? I guess I'll come to the rescue of that strawman you're torching... Scientists are free to work for money or passion, as people are free to fund research or not. Whatever the balance of pay vs passion, science will continue to happen.
- actuallyalys 9y ago
  I might have been too hasty. The first couple times I read it, I thought your original comment was saying that paying for news wasn't worth it because journalists who are willing to work for free are less biased. Rereading it, it sounds like your point was more along the lines of paying for news in of itself doesn't lead to less biased coverage.

golergka 9y ago

People who are passionate about a subject are usually passionate about a certain view on a subject. Do you really think political activists make good reporters?