7 ms·

Does the US not have a Press Complaint Authority? In Denmark, we have Pressenævnet[0] which handles complaints against media outlets. If an article is found t

by Svip 8y ago

Does the US not have a Press Complaint Authority? In Denmark, we have Pressenævnet[0] which handles complaints against media outlets. If an article is found to be at fault, the publishing outlet will be required to publish a retraction/correction/apology, depending on the offence. During the review, the outlet can make their case against the complaint. Does the US not have something similar? Because these complaints sound like the perfect fit for something like this. [0] https://www.pressenaevnet.dk/ https://www.pressenaevnet.dk/

davidp 8y ago
I certainly hope we don't. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech and the press, including the freedom to make mistakes and even outright lie. There is no godlike authority that can tell truth from fiction without fail, and having government censors telling people what they can say (especially w.r.t. political speech) would invert the relationship between the people and their government, making government the master instead of the servant. Instead, we rely on an educated readership to identify bias and mistakes and call them out, as has been done here. People get the journalism they deserve. To the extent we're failing to teach our children critical thinking skills, we're putting our democracy at risk. The NY Times and other resources currently considered "credible" have earned that credibility from the people not through government permission but by generally providing a useful service to its consumers, despite all the mistakes they make and biases they present. The NY Times in particular has unfortunately been burning through that hard-earned credibility capital at an alarming rate, even long before the current last few years, with the result that there are large portions of the country that no longer trust it like they did, with good reason. More recently they have taken the bait proffered by Trump and his ilk and lowered themselves to his level, spinning most articles I've seen with more political or oppositional bias than in the past. I can only hope this is a cyclical phenomenon, where the citizenry/readership becomes ignorant of the related history and its challenges, simply because we've lived through a period where the battles were won and we could take such things for granted. Just like our predecessors, this generation is going to painfully relearn that everything printed (or typed) should be taken with a grain of salt and cross-checked against multiple sources.
- SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
  >The NY Times and other resources currently considered "credible" Yea, but... >The NY Times in particular has unfortunately been burning through that hard-earned credibility capital at an alarming rate Ah, never mind you got it. >More recently they have taken the bait proffered by Trump How this isn't being observed by more people is stunning. 100% of the time, NYT, CNN, MSNBC, WaPo are running what they think is an effective awareness and information campaign - and is in reality going to cause scandal fatigue and hurt their credibility. Everyone complains about his Twitter... stop airing every single one of his tweets. In another two years, the country won't be on fire, and statistically Trump has a good chance at re-election. All the media pearl clutching, faux-rage, and surface depth "activism" aren't helping... well, it's not helping them anyhow.
  - vosper 8y ago
    > 100% of the time, NYT, CNN, MSNBC, WaPo are running what they think is an effective awareness and information campaign - and is in reality going to cause scandal fatigue and hurt their credibility. Everyone complains about his Twitter... stop airing every single one of his tweets. But right now it's good for those sweet clicks. They have an audience who loves to get worked up about Trump, just as there's an audience that loves to get worked up about the kind of people who get worked up about Trump. They have their own content, too.
    - jrochkind1 8y ago
      You will likely be interested in this recent New Yorker article which considers this topic. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/01/28/does-journalism-have-a-future https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/01/28/does-journalis... And accompanying interview with Jill Abramson. https://www.newyorker.com/news/the-new-yorker-interview/how-journalism-survives-an-interview-with-jill-abramson https://www.newyorker.com/news/the-new-yorker-interview/how-... But, basically... yes, what you said. And newspapers mostly lack any credible business plan ideas that don't rely on this. There is currently no real demonstrated business model to sustainably pay for good journalism. Some are hoping they can at least fund good journalism with clickbait and sponsored content... ugh.
jessriedel 8y ago
> Does the US not have a Press Complaint Authority? This would be part of the executive branch, and run by someone appointed by the President. Do you think that would be net positive or negative?
- nahzgah 8y ago
  It would be positive, since the President is appointed by the citizens.
  - jessriedel 8y ago
    There are lots of restrictions on government that prevent it from directly implementing policies passed by a majority vote, or empowering officials elected by majority vote. And overall these restrictions are considered essential by almost everyone even if many dispute any given restriction. So it's clear that merely being appointed by a majority is not enough to make an official's power net positive.
dekhn 8y ago
it's not clear who would be the decider if the authors were at fault, given that the science around this is not authoritative and won't be for another 30 years.

by Svip 8y ago

davidp 8y ago

I certainly hope we don't. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech and the press, including the freedom to make mistakes and even outright lie. There is no godlike authority that can tell truth from fiction without fail, and having government censors telling people what they can say (especially w.r.t. political speech) would invert the relationship between the people and their government, making government the master instead of the servant. Instead, we rely on an educated readership to identify bias and mistakes and call them out, as has been done here. People get the journalism they deserve. To the extent we're failing to teach our children critical thinking skills, we're putting our democracy at risk. The NY Times and other resources currently considered "credible" have earned that credibility from the people not through government permission but by generally providing a useful service to its consumers, despite all the mistakes they make and biases they present. The NY Times in particular has unfortunately been burning through that hard-earned credibility capital at an alarming rate, even long before the current last few years, with the result that there are large portions of the country that no longer trust it like they did, with good reason. More recently they have taken the bait proffered by Trump and his ilk and lowered themselves to his level, spinning most articles I've seen with more political or oppositional bias than in the past. I can only hope this is a cyclical phenomenon, where the citizenry/readership becomes ignorant of the related history and its challenges, simply because we've lived through a period where the battles were won and we could take such things for granted. Just like our predecessors, this generation is going to painfully relearn that everything printed (or typed) should be taken with a grain of salt and cross-checked against multiple sources.

SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
>The NY Times and other resources currently considered "credible" Yea, but... >The NY Times in particular has unfortunately been burning through that hard-earned credibility capital at an alarming rate Ah, never mind you got it. >More recently they have taken the bait proffered by Trump How this isn't being observed by more people is stunning. 100% of the time, NYT, CNN, MSNBC, WaPo are running what they think is an effective awareness and information campaign - and is in reality going to cause scandal fatigue and hurt their credibility. Everyone complains about his Twitter... stop airing every single one of his tweets. In another two years, the country won't be on fire, and statistically Trump has a good chance at re-election. All the media pearl clutching, faux-rage, and surface depth "activism" aren't helping... well, it's not helping them anyhow.
- vosper 8y ago
  > 100% of the time, NYT, CNN, MSNBC, WaPo are running what they think is an effective awareness and information campaign - and is in reality going to cause scandal fatigue and hurt their credibility. Everyone complains about his Twitter... stop airing every single one of his tweets. But right now it's good for those sweet clicks. They have an audience who loves to get worked up about Trump, just as there's an audience that loves to get worked up about the kind of people who get worked up about Trump. They have their own content, too.
  - jrochkind1 8y ago
    You will likely be interested in this recent New Yorker article which considers this topic. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/01/28/does-journalism-have-a-future https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/01/28/does-journalis... And accompanying interview with Jill Abramson. https://www.newyorker.com/news/the-new-yorker-interview/how-journalism-survives-an-interview-with-jill-abramson https://www.newyorker.com/news/the-new-yorker-interview/how-... But, basically... yes, what you said. And newspapers mostly lack any credible business plan ideas that don't rely on this. There is currently no real demonstrated business model to sustainably pay for good journalism. Some are hoping they can at least fund good journalism with clickbait and sponsored content... ugh.

jessriedel 8y ago

> Does the US not have a Press Complaint Authority? This would be part of the executive branch, and run by someone appointed by the President. Do you think that would be net positive or negative?

nahzgah 8y ago
It would be positive, since the President is appointed by the citizens.
- jessriedel 8y ago
  There are lots of restrictions on government that prevent it from directly implementing policies passed by a majority vote, or empowering officials elected by majority vote. And overall these restrictions are considered essential by almost everyone even if many dispute any given restriction. So it's clear that merely being appointed by a majority is not enough to make an official's power net positive.

dekhn 8y ago

it's not clear who would be the decider if the authors were at fault, given that the science around this is not authoritative and won't be for another 30 years.