7 ms·

There is no way unionized writers/editors are going to be impartial in their political media coverage, given all of their leverage hinges on laws restricting th

There is no way unionized writers/editors are going to be impartial in their political media coverage, given all of their leverage hinges on laws restricting the contracting rights of their employer.

pessimizer 8y ago
There's also no way they'll be impartial about heath care, or the environment, seeing as they require health care, and live in an environment.
- narutosasuke 8y ago
  True and within articles those experiences can serve to inform, which isn't a bad thing. It's actually sort of the point; interpreting the facts and outputting them through your lens of experience
  - trentlott 8y ago
    And generally journalists are aware of their biases and good ones actively work against their impulse to favor one side. The idea that journalists can be biased is not something the profession was somehow unaware of previously. In the same way that scientists understand that they probably can make up data plausibly, they realize that they make their name with their credibility. But of course society is presently at the adolescent phase of realizing you can physically say and do whatever you want...whether bad science and bad journalism are confronted by the social analog of thr prefrontal cortex is uncertain. Maybe repercussions will help (collapse of democracy and global warming being the two most likely)
    - ryanwaggoner 8y ago
      And generally journalists are aware of their biases and good ones actively work against their impulse to favor one side. From what I can tell, virtually none of those work at Slate.
    - briandear 8y ago
      > In the same way that scientists understand that they probably can make up data plausibly, they realize that they make their name with their credibility Unless what they are saying (journalists and scientists) conform to the dominate politics of the day. Plenty of major media outlets run stories with anonymous, non-corroborated sources but since those stories fit the desired narrative of their consumers, they get away with it, credibility intact. A conservative outlet can have corroborated evidence, multiple sources and be chastised strictly on the basis of their conservative angle, while an outlet like The NY Times can publish anonymous op-eds without any corroboration and it doesn’t make a dent in their credibility among the majority of their readers. How many anti-Trump stories feature “anonymous” sources without a single shred of on-the-record corroboration? Yet, since the story confirms the bias of the readership, again, credibility remains intact. The Supermicro story is another example: completely uncorroborated, yet I bet not a single person cancelled their terminal subscription because of it. Credibility only matters if the writer is going against the biases of their readers. As far as global warming, plenty of scandals, such as Climategate, but the credibility of the climate-alarmists hasn’t been affected one bit among those that are predisposed to believe that the sky is, in fact, falling. Climategate was a serious scandal that calls into question the entire premise upon which the climate industry is based, yet that probably changed not a single person’s mind. It’s would be like telling Christians that Jesus never existed. It wouldn’t convince anyone who is already a believer. Global Warming is the modern world’s version of “going to hell if you don’t repent.” Credibility doesn’t matter as long as you affirm fashionable biases. To be completely fair, this isn’t a leftist phenomenon: plenty of anti-Obama news outlets could play loose with the facts and still have “credibility” with those predisposed to have opposed Obama’s policies. Same for the anti-vax crowd, the anti-GMO crowd and every other crowd where any challenge of their reality is tantamount to sacrilege.
- CryptoPunk 8y ago
  Their interests in efficient delivery of healthcare and effective protection of the environment align with the general population's. Not so their interest in laws restricting the contracting rights of employers.
  - jakelazaroff 8y ago
    Given that laborers vastly outnumber employers, their interest in securing collective bargaining rights aligns with the general population's as well.
    - CryptoPunk 8y ago
      It's not in the general population's interest for collections of workers to be able to extract wealth from employers by imposing collective bargaining on them. This is Econ 101. You don't raise the standard of living through expropriation of wealth. In the long run, involuntary transfers of income and other violations of market rights stunt wage growth by reducing the incentive to invest, and to perform well at one's workplace, both of which inhibit growth in productivity.
      - jakelazaroff 8y ago
        Wealth can be expropriated in both directions. Employers by default have more power; collective bargaining is just a check on their ability to exploit laborers. It also doesn't follow that increased incentive to invest in employers translates to higher wages for laborers — why wouldn't employers keep wages stagnant and pocket the money themselves? (In practice, this is often what happens.)
        CryptoPunk 8y ago
        Employers in a market economy have no power in the general sense to expropriate wealth. Their only power is in offering employment terms better than the next better offer. Offering the market rate for a unit of labor is not wealth expropriation. It's compensating people for exactly what their labor is worth. Force people to pay any more than the market rate for labor, and you're artificially under-valuing investment capital, and thus disincentivizing delayed-consumption/long-term-investment. In other words, you'll be incentivizing people to save/invest less of their income than is optimal for maximum economic development, and it is economic development that is responsible for virtually all reductions in poverty and improvements in quality of life for the general population. >>It also doesn't follow that increased incentive to invest in employers translates to higher wages for laborers — why wouldn't employers keep wages stagnant and pocket the money themselves? Employers have to compete with each other for employees. Why else do you think wages would ever increase? I really recommend you study standard economic theories on wage growth, or the economic history of any major country, to better understand the interplay between per capita production and wages. Look at China over the last 20 years, where wages have tripled. There is no force that increases wages as much as economic growth, which hinges almost entirely on investment capital.
RickJWagner 8y ago
Totally agree.
detcader 8y ago
For years the NY Times refused to use the word "torture" when talking about the War on Terror in favor of "enhanced interrogation"... what journalist is impartial?
- bitxbitxbitcoin 8y ago
  An independent one.
  - cwyers 8y ago
    Independent of what? There is no living outside of things. Everybody has to live somewhere, they have to eat, they have to get medical care when they get sick, they have friends, they have family. It's impossible to just show up to things without preconceptions. Being a human doesn't work that way.
    - bitxbitxbitcoin 8y ago
      Great point. Independent of an organization paying them for their work. It's impossible for a writer to not let their own preconceptions seep through but it is possible for writers to not let their editors' or institutions' preconceptions seep through. Hope that helps clear that up.
      - detcader 8y ago
        I made the mistake of choosing an example involving strictly formal barriers. A self-employed journalist can still feel the incentives offered by governments and huge multinational media conglomerates, if not also less powerful companies and organizations. And then there exist organizations explicitly and singularly devoted to rewarding and training young writers in producing propaganda, like Hasbara Fellowships.
mc32 8y ago
It's interesting to see the management more aligned with the Trump admin's take on unionization and the union members more aligned with traditional union stances. This has many interesting implications. At the moment many industrial unions like Trump's policies, so I bet there is some equivocation in some pockets. The other thing I'm interested to see is if this strike will deal a final blow to Slate (basically see if they will go down due to principles, but at the same time risk weakening their company)
- Latteland 8y ago
  What industrial unions like Trump? Some random blue collar workers might like him but he's been terrible for them once you get away from the rhetoric.
  - SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
    So rhetoric aside, what has Trump’s admin done to them?
    - Latteland 8y ago
      Hurt their economic interests by taxing them via tariffs and hurt their manufacturing companies by making raw materials and steel etc more expensive. That why Harley moved production OUT of the us to where it wouldn't be affected by retaliatory tariffs against Trump's tariffs.
      - SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
        Ok, so all rhetoric then. Got it.
        Latteland 8y ago
        Loss of heavy manufacturing jobs because of higher steel prices because of tarrifs leading to higher prices to end users, thus manufacturing companies move production overseas to produce them without tariff priced steel and keeping prices lower is just what has happened. The secondary cause was retailatory tariffs on us exports causing prices to go higher on exports twice (once to tariff imported steel before manufacturing, second tariff when importing into xhina). So how is this political rhetoric? Remove tariffs on both ends and we are better off.
everdev 8y ago
"Impartial" is an admirable aim, but ultimately unreachable and undefinable. We all bring our unique upbringing and view of the world to our creative efforts. I think most media outlets like Slate gave up chasing this goal. Unfortunately, the consumers have rewarded them for doing so.
- dagw 8y ago
  We all bring our unique upbringing and view of the world to our creative efforts. I don't even think that "impartial" is necessarily even worth striving for. No one is impartial and I'd much rather journalists be open and honest about their world view and assumptions rather than trying to hide them behind some thin veneer of "impartiality". As long as you're not being underhand or deceptive in your reporting there is nothing wrong in saying "This thing happened and I think it's great/terrible for these reasons".
  - everdev 8y ago
    Very fair point. I think most media (and consumers) would agree with you as they've found success with opinion-based programming and editorials. I usually get frustrated with opinion-based content though because it seems to me that it's more about posturing, being the loudest/funniest, looks/appearance, etc. and less about trying to uncover good solutions to real problems. However, as you mentioned, no one is impartial, so that leaves me with very little content I enjoy consuming which is not that great either in terms of staying informed or engaged.
    - dagw 8y ago
      I get where you're coming from, and if all you want is a chronological list of things that happened there always Reuters. But let's say Congress passes a bill. One story could be "Today the bill passes X votes to Y, all Republicans and 47 Democrats voted for. Here's a link to the complete text to the bill" But that's not really what I want. What I want is for someone to tell me the potential implications of the bill, and that cannot be done in a truly unbiased way since you're essentially speculating. Then it is better to have two 'biased' people putting forward their best, honest and good faith arguments for and against the potential impact of the bill. Ideally with both of them being willing to concede the relative merits of the others argument.
rexpop 8y ago
None of their leverage hinges on laws. Laws are a caching layer for rights, which are inalienable. Their leverage hinges on a capacity to organize one another and express their interests.
- CryptoPunk 8y ago
  Laws are most certainly not always manifestations of inalienable rights. They often violate inalienable rights, and are based on manipulating public opinion with propaganda and ideology. Their position as the lens through which the public perceives the wider world gives them an extraordinary opportunity to manipulate public opinion to support social narratives and laws that benefit people in their circumstances.
- umanwizard 8y ago
  > rights, which are inalienable Says who?
  - briandear 8y ago
    John Locke.
    - pmyteh 8y ago
      His argument for why they're inalienable is completely dependent on the existence of (a particular conception of) God. I found reading the Second Treatise of Government an eye-opening experience for this reason. If we want an argument for the inalienability of natural/human rights that works in a society with religious pluralism, I fear we'll need to look again.
      - User23 8y ago
        This is a fundamental ethical problem. Science and logic can't demonstrate that rape and murder, just to give a couple examples, are wrong. In fact science tells us that rape and murder are hunky-dory if they increase biological fitness. Any meaningful system of ethics is characteristically normative, which means it rests on authority; divine authority is the highest form of authority that can be thought of.
dbt00 8y ago
Funny how this isn’t seen to be an issue when big money cable news reporters cover tax breaks that affect them personally.
- CryptoPunk 8y ago
  It's not an issue when the benefit that biases them doesn't hinge on a law limiting someone's elses rights, the way their leverage as unionized workers does.
patmcc 8y ago
As opposed to the billionaire owners of large media empires, who are of course impartial.

There is no way unionized writers/editors are going to be impartial in their political media coverage, given all of their leverage hinges on laws restricting the contracting rights of their employer.

pessimizer 8y ago

There's also no way they'll be impartial about heath care, or the environment, seeing as they require health care, and live in an environment.

narutosasuke 8y ago
True and within articles those experiences can serve to inform, which isn't a bad thing. It's actually sort of the point; interpreting the facts and outputting them through your lens of experience
- trentlott 8y ago
  And generally journalists are aware of their biases and good ones actively work against their impulse to favor one side. The idea that journalists can be biased is not something the profession was somehow unaware of previously. In the same way that scientists understand that they probably can make up data plausibly, they realize that they make their name with their credibility. But of course society is presently at the adolescent phase of realizing you can physically say and do whatever you want...whether bad science and bad journalism are confronted by the social analog of thr prefrontal cortex is uncertain. Maybe repercussions will help (collapse of democracy and global warming being the two most likely)
  - ryanwaggoner 8y ago
    And generally journalists are aware of their biases and good ones actively work against their impulse to favor one side. From what I can tell, virtually none of those work at Slate.
  - briandear 8y ago
    > In the same way that scientists understand that they probably can make up data plausibly, they realize that they make their name with their credibility Unless what they are saying (journalists and scientists) conform to the dominate politics of the day. Plenty of major media outlets run stories with anonymous, non-corroborated sources but since those stories fit the desired narrative of their consumers, they get away with it, credibility intact. A conservative outlet can have corroborated evidence, multiple sources and be chastised strictly on the basis of their conservative angle, while an outlet like The NY Times can publish anonymous op-eds without any corroboration and it doesn’t make a dent in their credibility among the majority of their readers. How many anti-Trump stories feature “anonymous” sources without a single shred of on-the-record corroboration? Yet, since the story confirms the bias of the readership, again, credibility remains intact. The Supermicro story is another example: completely uncorroborated, yet I bet not a single person cancelled their terminal subscription because of it. Credibility only matters if the writer is going against the biases of their readers. As far as global warming, plenty of scandals, such as Climategate, but the credibility of the climate-alarmists hasn’t been affected one bit among those that are predisposed to believe that the sky is, in fact, falling. Climategate was a serious scandal that calls into question the entire premise upon which the climate industry is based, yet that probably changed not a single person’s mind. It’s would be like telling Christians that Jesus never existed. It wouldn’t convince anyone who is already a believer. Global Warming is the modern world’s version of “going to hell if you don’t repent.” Credibility doesn’t matter as long as you affirm fashionable biases. To be completely fair, this isn’t a leftist phenomenon: plenty of anti-Obama news outlets could play loose with the facts and still have “credibility” with those predisposed to have opposed Obama’s policies. Same for the anti-vax crowd, the anti-GMO crowd and every other crowd where any challenge of their reality is tantamount to sacrilege.
CryptoPunk 8y ago
Their interests in efficient delivery of healthcare and effective protection of the environment align with the general population's. Not so their interest in laws restricting the contracting rights of employers.
- jakelazaroff 8y ago
  Given that laborers vastly outnumber employers, their interest in securing collective bargaining rights aligns with the general population's as well.
  - CryptoPunk 8y ago
    It's not in the general population's interest for collections of workers to be able to extract wealth from employers by imposing collective bargaining on them. This is Econ 101. You don't raise the standard of living through expropriation of wealth. In the long run, involuntary transfers of income and other violations of market rights stunt wage growth by reducing the incentive to invest, and to perform well at one's workplace, both of which inhibit growth in productivity.
    - jakelazaroff 8y ago
      Wealth can be expropriated in both directions. Employers by default have more power; collective bargaining is just a check on their ability to exploit laborers. It also doesn't follow that increased incentive to invest in employers translates to higher wages for laborers — why wouldn't employers keep wages stagnant and pocket the money themselves? (In practice, this is often what happens.)
      - CryptoPunk 8y ago
        Employers in a market economy have no power in the general sense to expropriate wealth. Their only power is in offering employment terms better than the next better offer. Offering the market rate for a unit of labor is not wealth expropriation. It's compensating people for exactly what their labor is worth. Force people to pay any more than the market rate for labor, and you're artificially under-valuing investment capital, and thus disincentivizing delayed-consumption/long-term-investment. In other words, you'll be incentivizing people to save/invest less of their income than is optimal for maximum economic development, and it is economic development that is responsible for virtually all reductions in poverty and improvements in quality of life for the general population. >>It also doesn't follow that increased incentive to invest in employers translates to higher wages for laborers — why wouldn't employers keep wages stagnant and pocket the money themselves? Employers have to compete with each other for employees. Why else do you think wages would ever increase? I really recommend you study standard economic theories on wage growth, or the economic history of any major country, to better understand the interplay between per capita production and wages. Look at China over the last 20 years, where wages have tripled. There is no force that increases wages as much as economic growth, which hinges almost entirely on investment capital.

RickJWagner 8y ago

Totally agree.

detcader 8y ago

For years the NY Times refused to use the word "torture" when talking about the War on Terror in favor of "enhanced interrogation"... what journalist is impartial?

bitxbitxbitcoin 8y ago
An independent one.
- cwyers 8y ago
  Independent of what? There is no living outside of things. Everybody has to live somewhere, they have to eat, they have to get medical care when they get sick, they have friends, they have family. It's impossible to just show up to things without preconceptions. Being a human doesn't work that way.
  - bitxbitxbitcoin 8y ago
    Great point. Independent of an organization paying them for their work. It's impossible for a writer to not let their own preconceptions seep through but it is possible for writers to not let their editors' or institutions' preconceptions seep through. Hope that helps clear that up.
    - detcader 8y ago
      I made the mistake of choosing an example involving strictly formal barriers. A self-employed journalist can still feel the incentives offered by governments and huge multinational media conglomerates, if not also less powerful companies and organizations. And then there exist organizations explicitly and singularly devoted to rewarding and training young writers in producing propaganda, like Hasbara Fellowships.

mc32 8y ago

It's interesting to see the management more aligned with the Trump admin's take on unionization and the union members more aligned with traditional union stances. This has many interesting implications. At the moment many industrial unions like Trump's policies, so I bet there is some equivocation in some pockets. The other thing I'm interested to see is if this strike will deal a final blow to Slate (basically see if they will go down due to principles, but at the same time risk weakening their company)

Latteland 8y ago
What industrial unions like Trump? Some random blue collar workers might like him but he's been terrible for them once you get away from the rhetoric.
- SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
  So rhetoric aside, what has Trump’s admin done to them?
  - Latteland 8y ago
    Hurt their economic interests by taxing them via tariffs and hurt their manufacturing companies by making raw materials and steel etc more expensive. That why Harley moved production OUT of the us to where it wouldn't be affected by retaliatory tariffs against Trump's tariffs.
    - SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
      Ok, so all rhetoric then. Got it.
      - Latteland 8y ago
        Loss of heavy manufacturing jobs because of higher steel prices because of tarrifs leading to higher prices to end users, thus manufacturing companies move production overseas to produce them without tariff priced steel and keeping prices lower is just what has happened. The secondary cause was retailatory tariffs on us exports causing prices to go higher on exports twice (once to tariff imported steel before manufacturing, second tariff when importing into xhina). So how is this political rhetoric? Remove tariffs on both ends and we are better off.

everdev 8y ago

"Impartial" is an admirable aim, but ultimately unreachable and undefinable. We all bring our unique upbringing and view of the world to our creative efforts. I think most media outlets like Slate gave up chasing this goal. Unfortunately, the consumers have rewarded them for doing so.

dagw 8y ago
We all bring our unique upbringing and view of the world to our creative efforts. I don't even think that "impartial" is necessarily even worth striving for. No one is impartial and I'd much rather journalists be open and honest about their world view and assumptions rather than trying to hide them behind some thin veneer of "impartiality". As long as you're not being underhand or deceptive in your reporting there is nothing wrong in saying "This thing happened and I think it's great/terrible for these reasons".
- everdev 8y ago
  Very fair point. I think most media (and consumers) would agree with you as they've found success with opinion-based programming and editorials. I usually get frustrated with opinion-based content though because it seems to me that it's more about posturing, being the loudest/funniest, looks/appearance, etc. and less about trying to uncover good solutions to real problems. However, as you mentioned, no one is impartial, so that leaves me with very little content I enjoy consuming which is not that great either in terms of staying informed or engaged.
  - dagw 8y ago
    I get where you're coming from, and if all you want is a chronological list of things that happened there always Reuters. But let's say Congress passes a bill. One story could be "Today the bill passes X votes to Y, all Republicans and 47 Democrats voted for. Here's a link to the complete text to the bill" But that's not really what I want. What I want is for someone to tell me the potential implications of the bill, and that cannot be done in a truly unbiased way since you're essentially speculating. Then it is better to have two 'biased' people putting forward their best, honest and good faith arguments for and against the potential impact of the bill. Ideally with both of them being willing to concede the relative merits of the others argument.

rexpop 8y ago

None of their leverage hinges on laws. Laws are a caching layer for rights, which are inalienable. Their leverage hinges on a capacity to organize one another and express their interests.

CryptoPunk 8y ago
Laws are most certainly not always manifestations of inalienable rights. They often violate inalienable rights, and are based on manipulating public opinion with propaganda and ideology. Their position as the lens through which the public perceives the wider world gives them an extraordinary opportunity to manipulate public opinion to support social narratives and laws that benefit people in their circumstances.
umanwizard 8y ago
> rights, which are inalienable Says who?
- briandear 8y ago
  John Locke.
  - pmyteh 8y ago
    His argument for why they're inalienable is completely dependent on the existence of (a particular conception of) God. I found reading the Second Treatise of Government an eye-opening experience for this reason. If we want an argument for the inalienability of natural/human rights that works in a society with religious pluralism, I fear we'll need to look again.
    - User23 8y ago
      This is a fundamental ethical problem. Science and logic can't demonstrate that rape and murder, just to give a couple examples, are wrong. In fact science tells us that rape and murder are hunky-dory if they increase biological fitness. Any meaningful system of ethics is characteristically normative, which means it rests on authority; divine authority is the highest form of authority that can be thought of.

dbt00 8y ago

Funny how this isn’t seen to be an issue when big money cable news reporters cover tax breaks that affect them personally.

CryptoPunk 8y ago
It's not an issue when the benefit that biases them doesn't hinge on a law limiting someone's elses rights, the way their leverage as unionized workers does.

patmcc 8y ago

As opposed to the billionaire owners of large media empires, who are of course impartial.