4 ms·

"Der Spiegel's purportedly high-performing fact-checking operation." I am not trolling. But seriously, I doubt that the Spiegel has any "fact checking" that de

"Der Spiegel's purportedly high-performing fact-checking operation." I am not trolling. But seriously, I doubt that the Spiegel has any "fact checking" that deserves the name. On the other hand, I am pretty sure that the Spiegel has some serious "opinion policing". It was once a news magazine run by journalists. Now it is more or less a political voice for the guy who inherited the majority of the shares. I would not call it a news magazine anymore, nor would I call it serious journalism. The guy delivered just what he was supposed to deliver. His messages fitted so undeliverable well in what they wanted to hear and communicate. See this article form 1973: http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-41955159.html http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-41955159.html Today Spiegel would call this "hate speech". The declining sales numbers are not surprising. In history, propaganda was free. You pay for journalism but who is going to pay for propaganda?

tptacek 8y ago
I don't have any reason to doubt you about the direction Spiegel has taken and based on other stories in the past few years I'm not a fan. But this story you've cited --- maybe it loses something in the Google translation? --- is pretty gross.
- weinzierl 8y ago
  > --- maybe it loses something in the Google translation? --- is pretty gross. The translation is not to blame - the story is pretty gross. At least that is my opinion as a German native speaker.
- coolso 8y ago
  > gross Can I ask what exactly is gross about it? I didn't read the article in full, but did skim through it for a few minutes, and it seems to me its only "crime" is not being politically correct by the modern standards of today. But I question whether or not that's truly a bad thing. Are journalists only allowed to write positively about immigrants and refugees or any other group that is considered "underprivileged", while hiding anything remotely negative? It could be argued that that in itself is gross. Is that the standard of freedom of speech and freedom of the press that we should be striving for?
  - tptacek 8y ago
    You can write a story about the pitfalls of immigration --- though, recall, this story was written in 1973, and the ensuing years were not exactly a calamity for Germany. But you can't write a non-gross story about the proclivity of immigrants to "multiply" once arrived. Nor is "look at all these Turkish immigrants with all their Turkish ways" a real look at the impact of immigration. I'm curious, now, where did 'jayalpha even find this nasty piece of writing?
    - jayalpha 8y ago
      "I'm curious, now, where did 'jayalpha even find this nasty piece of writing?" I looked for another one from Spiegel. "X Million Turkish people are already here, X Million more want to come" but could not find it anymore. This was the first google hit that showed up for my search.
  - jayalpha 8y ago
    "Are journalists only allowed to write positively about immigrants and refugees or any other group that is considered "underprivileged", while hiding anything remotely negative?" If you work for "Der Spiegel", the answer is defiantly yes.

tptacek 8y ago

I don't have any reason to doubt you about the direction Spiegel has taken and based on other stories in the past few years I'm not a fan. But this story you've cited --- maybe it loses something in the Google translation? --- is pretty gross.

weinzierl 8y ago
> --- maybe it loses something in the Google translation? --- is pretty gross. The translation is not to blame - the story is pretty gross. At least that is my opinion as a German native speaker.
coolso 8y ago
> gross Can I ask what exactly is gross about it? I didn't read the article in full, but did skim through it for a few minutes, and it seems to me its only "crime" is not being politically correct by the modern standards of today. But I question whether or not that's truly a bad thing. Are journalists only allowed to write positively about immigrants and refugees or any other group that is considered "underprivileged", while hiding anything remotely negative? It could be argued that that in itself is gross. Is that the standard of freedom of speech and freedom of the press that we should be striving for?
- tptacek 8y ago
  You can write a story about the pitfalls of immigration --- though, recall, this story was written in 1973, and the ensuing years were not exactly a calamity for Germany. But you can't write a non-gross story about the proclivity of immigrants to "multiply" once arrived. Nor is "look at all these Turkish immigrants with all their Turkish ways" a real look at the impact of immigration. I'm curious, now, where did 'jayalpha even find this nasty piece of writing?
  - jayalpha 8y ago
    "I'm curious, now, where did 'jayalpha even find this nasty piece of writing?" I looked for another one from Spiegel. "X Million Turkish people are already here, X Million more want to come" but could not find it anymore. This was the first google hit that showed up for my search.
- jayalpha 8y ago
  "Are journalists only allowed to write positively about immigrants and refugees or any other group that is considered "underprivileged", while hiding anything remotely negative?" If you work for "Der Spiegel", the answer is defiantly yes.