4 ms·

If you say journalists were justified in blocking Disney from awards consideration over Disney blocking a newspaper who reported on their actions during the Ana

If you say journalists were justified in blocking Disney from awards consideration over Disney blocking a newspaper who reported on their actions during the Anaheim City Council elections, then you kinda disproved your theory that there isn't any high ground.

zaroth 9y ago
"Arguably" as in -- the argument could be made. It's not an argument I would personally make, I was trying to identify with epistasis' position. IMO the high ground is fairly simple; You report on the fact that Disney is retaliating for a story they don't like and allow the Streisand effect to carry you to swift and decisive victory, without having to resort to extortion yourself.
- bgun 9y ago
  Public opinion should never be used as a weapon, least of all by journalists. That's not to say that it doesn't happen, or that the feeling of schadenfreude when it does isn't justfied, but what you are suggesting amounts to an expectation that the public will do your job for you.
  - zaroth 9y ago
    I think in a round about way that "the public doing your job for you" is actually the fucking definition of journalism! I don't know if I need to explain that further or if it makes sense on its own. But I'm thinking along the lines of -- Journalists report the story, they don't make the story. The public, by reading their story, does the "job" of turning hard-hitting reporting into justice. Not the news organization itself.
- mattmanser 9y ago
  The newspapers can criticise Disney's business actions while simultaneously praising their artistic output. It's different parts of the newspaper, different aims on informing the public. That's fair and unbiased and the job of a journalist. While Disney attempts to punish the commercial arm of a newspaper by attacking their entertainment division, because of the actions of investigative journalists in a different field. Disney is resorting to extortion, the newspaper is simply doing their job.
  - zaroth 9y ago
    I agree Disney absolutely resorted to extortion, and I agree the newspaper absolutely was simply doing it's job. Now tell me... what happened next? If you consider it deeply, does it make you feel at all uncomfortable? Or because the "good guys won" are we just supposed to be giddy that Disney got rightly put in their place by the MSM?
    - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
      > Or because the "good guys won" are we just supposed to be giddy that Disney got rightly put in their place by the MSM? Newspapers blocking Disney from a private function, from which Disney benefits but does not depend, is an asymmetric response to Disney blocking a newspaper's film screeners from screening its films, access on which the screeners depend. When we add in that Disney moved first and in response to truthful reporting to its detriment and in the public interest, it's pretty clear that this private dispute is perfectly appropriate.
      - zaroth 9y ago
        I appreciate the well written response, and you have my upvote. I remain suspicious when powerful interests act in ways that appear to be morally justified but which just-so-happen to be strongly in their own financial interest. Perhaps it was all just a happy coincidence.

zaroth 9y ago

"Arguably" as in -- the argument could be made. It's not an argument I would personally make, I was trying to identify with epistasis' position. IMO the high ground is fairly simple; You report on the fact that Disney is retaliating for a story they don't like and allow the Streisand effect to carry you to swift and decisive victory, without having to resort to extortion yourself.

bgun 9y ago
Public opinion should never be used as a weapon, least of all by journalists. That's not to say that it doesn't happen, or that the feeling of schadenfreude when it does isn't justfied, but what you are suggesting amounts to an expectation that the public will do your job for you.
- zaroth 9y ago
  I think in a round about way that "the public doing your job for you" is actually the fucking definition of journalism! I don't know if I need to explain that further or if it makes sense on its own. But I'm thinking along the lines of -- Journalists report the story, they don't make the story. The public, by reading their story, does the "job" of turning hard-hitting reporting into justice. Not the news organization itself.
mattmanser 9y ago
The newspapers can criticise Disney's business actions while simultaneously praising their artistic output. It's different parts of the newspaper, different aims on informing the public. That's fair and unbiased and the job of a journalist. While Disney attempts to punish the commercial arm of a newspaper by attacking their entertainment division, because of the actions of investigative journalists in a different field. Disney is resorting to extortion, the newspaper is simply doing their job.
- zaroth 9y ago
  I agree Disney absolutely resorted to extortion, and I agree the newspaper absolutely was simply doing it's job. Now tell me... what happened next? If you consider it deeply, does it make you feel at all uncomfortable? Or because the "good guys won" are we just supposed to be giddy that Disney got rightly put in their place by the MSM?
  - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
    > Or because the "good guys won" are we just supposed to be giddy that Disney got rightly put in their place by the MSM? Newspapers blocking Disney from a private function, from which Disney benefits but does not depend, is an asymmetric response to Disney blocking a newspaper's film screeners from screening its films, access on which the screeners depend. When we add in that Disney moved first and in response to truthful reporting to its detriment and in the public interest, it's pretty clear that this private dispute is perfectly appropriate.
    - zaroth 9y ago
      I appreciate the well written response, and you have my upvote. I remain suspicious when powerful interests act in ways that appear to be morally justified but which just-so-happen to be strongly in their own financial interest. Perhaps it was all just a happy coincidence.