6 ms·

I am under the impression that it is rare for journalists in America to be murdered for their stories, is that not the case? None of your examples are journali

I am under the impression that it is rare for journalists in America to be murdered for their stories, is that not the case? None of your examples are journalists being penalized for lack of due diligence or for being misleading. I think your instinct to protect journalists given their importance and the threats they face is a healthy and important one, and I share it, but I don’t think they’re above reproach. Ensuring the independence and safety of journalists is of paramount importance; ensuring journalists are appropriately incentivized to report accurate stories with healthy skepticism is of secondary importance after that (since most will innately desire that anyway), but it is still also important.

lifeisstillgood 8y ago
Imagine if the phrase was "Software developers are not murdered for missing estimates in this country". I am pretty sure I would hit my estimates even in London. Yes Journalists need high standards of professional integrity and the legal air cover to maintain that. But really the ultimate defence is us - to reject the mountains of crap out there and seek out and subscribe to the worthwhile news sources. As ever, it's down to us.
- grigjd3 8y ago
  Why hold yourself responsible for your actions when you can just say everything is corrupt and imagine that is an excuse? ;)
- nojvek 8y ago
  Can anyone give me a list of respectable independent media that I should be subscribing to? The economist comes to mind. Any others HN recommends?
  - oliveshell 8y ago
    For general news, I find NPR.org [1] to be pretty good. I can tell they make an effort to avoid bias and sensationalism. It’s not perfect, but I have yet to find another online source that I prefer. I also listen to my local station (WUNC) and if you’re in a decently populated area of the U.S., your local NPR affiliate is also likely high quality (plus it’s easy to listen online if you’re not into terrestrial radio.) [1]: https://npr.org https://npr.org
- laughinghan 8y ago
  But journalists aren't murdered in those other countries for inaccuracy, at least not as far as I understand, and not in any of the examples brought up by GP. They're murdered for reporting awful truths more accurately than someone powerful and evil wanted. I don't see how that obviates the need for journalists to be properly incentivized to report accurately and with healthy skepticism.
stult 8y ago
>None of your examples are journalists being penalized for lack of due diligence or for being misleading Rolling Stone after the lacrosse rape case is one example. But more importantly, I think the point above is that journalism is in a vulnerable position where the carrot is more appropriate than the stick. Laws are crude tools for the most part, with lots of potential for collateral damage. It's like chemotherapy: you just hope the treatment kills the good cells slower than the bad. Punishing bad journalism will have a chilling effect on all journalism, bad or good. It'll increase the costs of doing business by increasing liability insurance premiums. If the industry were thriving, maybe that would be acceptable overhead. But it's not thriving. It's teetering on the edge of collapse. So maybe we should find ways to identify and reward good journalism. Cultivate the flowers in the garden so they overshadow the weeds, rather than dousing the whole shebang in herbicide and hoping you kill what you intend to.
- laughinghan 8y ago
  What undeserved penalty did Rolling Stone suffer for the lacrosse rape case? Great-grandparent didn't suggest that laws are the only possible option to penalize misleading journalism, you're jumping to conclusions. Elsewhere in this thread, I even suggest: > [Disincentivizing misleading journalism] doesn’t necessarily require an oppressive Orwellian governmental body to dictate truth and punish journalists who veer from the party line. It could be as simple as, after the fact now that we know how fraudulent it was, naming prominent journalists and outlets and pointing out red flags that they should have but failed to highlight, and other similar ways they should have expressed a healthy skepticism but didn’t.

lifeisstillgood 8y ago

Imagine if the phrase was "Software developers are not murdered for missing estimates in this country". I am pretty sure I would hit my estimates even in London. Yes Journalists need high standards of professional integrity and the legal air cover to maintain that. But really the ultimate defence is us - to reject the mountains of crap out there and seek out and subscribe to the worthwhile news sources. As ever, it's down to us.

grigjd3 8y ago
Why hold yourself responsible for your actions when you can just say everything is corrupt and imagine that is an excuse? ;)
nojvek 8y ago
Can anyone give me a list of respectable independent media that I should be subscribing to? The economist comes to mind. Any others HN recommends?
- oliveshell 8y ago
  For general news, I find NPR.org [1] to be pretty good. I can tell they make an effort to avoid bias and sensationalism. It’s not perfect, but I have yet to find another online source that I prefer. I also listen to my local station (WUNC) and if you’re in a decently populated area of the U.S., your local NPR affiliate is also likely high quality (plus it’s easy to listen online if you’re not into terrestrial radio.) [1]: https://npr.org https://npr.org
laughinghan 8y ago
But journalists aren't murdered in those other countries for inaccuracy, at least not as far as I understand, and not in any of the examples brought up by GP. They're murdered for reporting awful truths more accurately than someone powerful and evil wanted. I don't see how that obviates the need for journalists to be properly incentivized to report accurately and with healthy skepticism.

stult 8y ago

>None of your examples are journalists being penalized for lack of due diligence or for being misleading Rolling Stone after the lacrosse rape case is one example. But more importantly, I think the point above is that journalism is in a vulnerable position where the carrot is more appropriate than the stick. Laws are crude tools for the most part, with lots of potential for collateral damage. It's like chemotherapy: you just hope the treatment kills the good cells slower than the bad. Punishing bad journalism will have a chilling effect on all journalism, bad or good. It'll increase the costs of doing business by increasing liability insurance premiums. If the industry were thriving, maybe that would be acceptable overhead. But it's not thriving. It's teetering on the edge of collapse. So maybe we should find ways to identify and reward good journalism. Cultivate the flowers in the garden so they overshadow the weeds, rather than dousing the whole shebang in herbicide and hoping you kill what you intend to.

laughinghan 8y ago
What undeserved penalty did Rolling Stone suffer for the lacrosse rape case? Great-grandparent didn't suggest that laws are the only possible option to penalize misleading journalism, you're jumping to conclusions. Elsewhere in this thread, I even suggest: > [Disincentivizing misleading journalism] doesn’t necessarily require an oppressive Orwellian governmental body to dictate truth and punish journalists who veer from the party line. It could be as simple as, after the fact now that we know how fraudulent it was, naming prominent journalists and outlets and pointing out red flags that they should have but failed to highlight, and other similar ways they should have expressed a healthy skepticism but didn’t.