4 ms·

Is there a dictum in journalism to "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable"? That seems to be antithetical to what journalism's original mission of r

Is there a dictum in journalism to "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable"? That seems to be antithetical to what journalism's original mission of reporting facts and letting the public decide (yes, I know this bares little resemblance to most modern journalistic styles). That style of reporting seems motivated towards a specific narrative, which is less than impartial. I might be wrong on what journalism's mission is and would like to hear opinions.

SiempreViernes 8y ago
I'd say the "original mission" depends on what you pick as the start of journalism, with the first written collections of news published by the state as a way of spreading its views on current affairs.
icebraining 8y ago
There are more facts in a day than would fit in a million newspapers. You have to make choices. Which news will you report? Who will you interview, and which sources will you consult? Which ones do you even have access to? Which ones will you still have once you publish this week's story? Impartiality in journalism is a myth invented by those propping up the status quo. The most you can be is honest.
- beaconstudios 8y ago
  Impartiality is a scale, not an absolute. You can be more or less impartial even if you can't be perfect at it. Saying its not possible to be (more) impartial is propping up the divisive partisan journalism we have today.
  - icebraining 8y ago
    Do you consider The Economist to be part of the divisive partisan journalism we have today? Because they are explicitly partial in their approach to journalism, promoting specific values and viewpoints: https://www.economist.com/help/about-us https://www.economist.com/help/about-us Partiality is not the same as partisanship or sectarianism.
    - beaconstudios 8y ago
      I couldn't say, I'm not familiar enough with their work to have an opinion. When I read the news, I want to know what happened in the world - I don't want to read it through the lens of the journalist. If there was a skirmish between Israel and Hamas, tell me that. Explain the events as we understand them, without spinning them to fit into a political narrative. What I dislike is when the Guardian reports it as Israel oppressing innocent Palestinians and Fox News reports it as a terrorist attack on unsuspecting checkpoint guards. People in the left-leaning tech industry tend to interpret this as "Fox News always lies" but from what I've seen it's more like both sides lie and the truth is somewhere in the middle. The real world is murky and complicated and political issues are very rarely black-and-white (if they were, there wouldn't be 2 sides). When journalists simplify a story to pander to bias, it promotes black-and-white thinking and I believe that's extremely harmful to meaningful political engagement. [edit] > Partiality is not the same as partisanship or sectarianism. OK sure, I'll grant you that. The latter is what I take issue with. Reporting from a perspective is to be expected, a social commentary journal would focus on different facts from an economics or a culture journal and you'll have other differences. My issue is basically how political reporters spin stories.
rjf72 8y ago
Just found what seems to be a solid source [1] on the origin of the phrase. And it delivers. It was a sarcastic condemnation of the media pointing out the hypocrisy, misinformation, and so forth regularly printed in papers. It comes from one of his writings of Finley Peter Dunne. The whole book ("Observations by Mr. Dooley") is available here. [2] "Th' newspaper does ivrything f'r us. It runs th' polis foorce an' th' banks, commands th' milishy, conthrols th' ligislachure, baptizes th' young, marries th' foolish, comforts th' afflicted, afflicts th' comfortable, buries th' dead an' roasts thim aftherward. They ain't annything it don't turn its hand to fr'm explaining th' docthrine iv thransubstantiation to composin' saleratus biskit. Ye can get anny kind iv information ye want to in ye'er fav'rite newspaper about ye'ersilf or annywan else. What th' Czar whispered to th' Imp'ror Willum whin they were alone, how to make a silk hat out iv a wire matthress, how to settle th' coal sthrike, who to marry, how to get on with ye'er wife whin ye're married, what to feed th' babies, what doctor to call whin ye've fed thim as directed,--all iv that ye'll find in th' pa-apers." Dated 1893. It's so interesting that our problems with media feel so new and even seem attributable to the digital era, yet they are literally centuries old. The digital era just brought everything to an extreme since there's more media than ever before and more people consuming it than ever before. That somebody would take a self contradictory piece of rhetoric and state it as genuine advice... well, who needs critical thinking when you have critical theory. [1] - https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2014/today-in-media-history-mr-dooley-the-job-of-the-newspaper-is-to-comfort-the-afflicted-and-afflict-the-comfortable/ https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2014/today-in-medi... [2] - https://ia802302.us.archive.org/24/items/observationsbymr04729gut/omdoo10.txt https://ia802302.us.archive.org/24/items/observationsbymr047...

SiempreViernes 8y ago

I'd say the "original mission" depends on what you pick as the start of journalism, with the first written collections of news published by the state as a way of spreading its views on current affairs.

icebraining 8y ago

There are more facts in a day than would fit in a million newspapers. You have to make choices. Which news will you report? Who will you interview, and which sources will you consult? Which ones do you even have access to? Which ones will you still have once you publish this week's story? Impartiality in journalism is a myth invented by those propping up the status quo. The most you can be is honest.

beaconstudios 8y ago
Impartiality is a scale, not an absolute. You can be more or less impartial even if you can't be perfect at it. Saying its not possible to be (more) impartial is propping up the divisive partisan journalism we have today.
- icebraining 8y ago
  Do you consider The Economist to be part of the divisive partisan journalism we have today? Because they are explicitly partial in their approach to journalism, promoting specific values and viewpoints: https://www.economist.com/help/about-us https://www.economist.com/help/about-us Partiality is not the same as partisanship or sectarianism.
  - beaconstudios 8y ago
    I couldn't say, I'm not familiar enough with their work to have an opinion. When I read the news, I want to know what happened in the world - I don't want to read it through the lens of the journalist. If there was a skirmish between Israel and Hamas, tell me that. Explain the events as we understand them, without spinning them to fit into a political narrative. What I dislike is when the Guardian reports it as Israel oppressing innocent Palestinians and Fox News reports it as a terrorist attack on unsuspecting checkpoint guards. People in the left-leaning tech industry tend to interpret this as "Fox News always lies" but from what I've seen it's more like both sides lie and the truth is somewhere in the middle. The real world is murky and complicated and political issues are very rarely black-and-white (if they were, there wouldn't be 2 sides). When journalists simplify a story to pander to bias, it promotes black-and-white thinking and I believe that's extremely harmful to meaningful political engagement. [edit] > Partiality is not the same as partisanship or sectarianism. OK sure, I'll grant you that. The latter is what I take issue with. Reporting from a perspective is to be expected, a social commentary journal would focus on different facts from an economics or a culture journal and you'll have other differences. My issue is basically how political reporters spin stories.

rjf72 8y ago

Just found what seems to be a solid source [1] on the origin of the phrase. And it delivers. It was a sarcastic condemnation of the media pointing out the hypocrisy, misinformation, and so forth regularly printed in papers. It comes from one of his writings of Finley Peter Dunne. The whole book ("Observations by Mr. Dooley") is available here. [2] "Th' newspaper does ivrything f'r us. It runs th' polis foorce an' th' banks, commands th' milishy, conthrols th' ligislachure, baptizes th' young, marries th' foolish, comforts th' afflicted, afflicts th' comfortable, buries th' dead an' roasts thim aftherward. They ain't annything it don't turn its hand to fr'm explaining th' docthrine iv thransubstantiation to composin' saleratus biskit. Ye can get anny kind iv information ye want to in ye'er fav'rite newspaper about ye'ersilf or annywan else. What th' Czar whispered to th' Imp'ror Willum whin they were alone, how to make a silk hat out iv a wire matthress, how to settle th' coal sthrike, who to marry, how to get on with ye'er wife whin ye're married, what to feed th' babies, what doctor to call whin ye've fed thim as directed,--all iv that ye'll find in th' pa-apers." Dated 1893. It's so interesting that our problems with media feel so new and even seem attributable to the digital era, yet they are literally centuries old. The digital era just brought everything to an extreme since there's more media than ever before and more people consuming it than ever before. That somebody would take a self contradictory piece of rhetoric and state it as genuine advice... well, who needs critical thinking when you have critical theory. [1] - https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2014/today-in-media-history-mr-dooley-the-job-of-the-newspaper-is-to-comfort-the-afflicted-and-afflict-the-comfortable/ https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2014/today-in-medi... [2] - https://ia802302.us.archive.org/24/items/observationsbymr04729gut/omdoo10.txt https://ia802302.us.archive.org/24/items/observationsbymr047...