4 ms·

An unattainable ideal, sure, but one that noble media organizations can aspire to. Notably through: open editorial processes, balanced sourcing and attribution,

An unattainable ideal, sure, but one that noble media organizations can aspire to. Notably through: open editorial processes, balanced sourcing and attribution, a robust correction policy, a non-combative relationship with readers, use of a neutral styleguide, eschewing advertorial content and NO EDITORIALS/OPINION PIECES.

bmmayer1 8y ago
Could you give an example of a "noble media organization" that comes the closest, in your view, to achieving this goal?
- nkozyra 8y ago
  I don't think any comes that close. Most are stuck in an unfortunate race to the bottom against cheap social/internet/clickbait news and the shackles of archaic old media.
- Mediterraneo10 8y ago
  The Weather Channel?
  - nkozyra 8y ago
    Tongue in cheek, but they have really mastered clickbait
- ars 8y ago
  Reuters
- kristianc 8y ago
  The FT
  - chrisseaton 8y ago
    I think the FT is biased in favour of free markets and globalisation.
    - kristianc 8y ago
      Most of the economics profession is biased in favour of some regulated form of free markets and globalization. That's a bit like saying scientists are biased in favour of anthropic climate change: it's a rational bias based on 200 years of evidence.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - exolymph 8y ago
        Not every value that people hold is economically reducible.
        kristianc 8y ago
        In the FT's case, it is. The FT doesn't 'know a lot', it largely reflects the mainstream consensus of the economics literature and think tanks - which are broadly pro market with regulation, in line with much of the economics profession. The FT has come out and said that if most of the economics literature was in favour of Brexit, they would have been too, but it wasn't, so they weren't. There was a lot of concern with Nikkei's investment in the FT that that would no longer be the case and that it would kowtow to it's corporate owners - if proved not to be the case.
      - pytester 8y ago
        >Most of the economics profession is biased in favour of some regulated form of free markets and globalization. >That's a bit like saying scientists are biased in favour of anthropic climate change: it's a rational bias based on 200 years of evidence. The economics profession is biased in favour of that because the think tank money, sourced from corporate wealth, wants that. It's a pretty irrational bias which has led to, among other things, the mainstream of the profession being completely blindsided by the financial crisis (famously called out by the normally apolitical Queen) as well as the meteoric rise of China via highly managed trade (an anti free market policy treated by most economists in the 90s/early 00s as largely self defeating).
- secabeen 8y ago
  AP/Reuters for basic stories. https://www.adfontesmedia.com/ https://www.adfontesmedia.com/
- SeanLuke 8y ago
  C-SPAN
munk-a 8y ago
I think opinion pieces and editorials can be included as long as they are clearly marked and delineated from the actual news. In fact, I think it's almost impossible to write an unopinionated news story as choosing to write a story is an opinion of itself - the clearer we can isolate these opinions the better.
- nkozyra 8y ago
  The problem is these tend to reinforce opinions people have about an organization or "the media" even when clearly denoted.
  - munk-a 8y ago
    I'd like to imagine there's some way for society to recover to the state of semi-trusted media, maybe we just need to have enough voices that the truth comes out in majority - like industry run newspapers, the cotton lobby's paper is clearly biased on this article about reducing fabric tariff's from mexico but the jeweler's quarterly newspaper doesn't have a vested interest. As I said, it's a hard problem. I like the discussion on trying to find an answer though!
- secabeen 8y ago
  The challenge is that even when clearly marked as opinion, they still accrue to the reputation of the publication. If you look at the Most Read links on WaPo or NYT, the opinion pieces are often more than half.

bmmayer1 8y ago

Could you give an example of a "noble media organization" that comes the closest, in your view, to achieving this goal?

nkozyra 8y ago
I don't think any comes that close. Most are stuck in an unfortunate race to the bottom against cheap social/internet/clickbait news and the shackles of archaic old media.
Mediterraneo10 8y ago
The Weather Channel?
- nkozyra 8y ago
  Tongue in cheek, but they have really mastered clickbait
ars 8y ago
Reuters
kristianc 8y ago
The FT
- chrisseaton 8y ago
  I think the FT is biased in favour of free markets and globalisation.
  - kristianc 8y ago
    Most of the economics profession is biased in favour of some regulated form of free markets and globalization. That's a bit like saying scientists are biased in favour of anthropic climate change: it's a rational bias based on 200 years of evidence.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - exolymph 8y ago
      Not every value that people hold is economically reducible.
      - kristianc 8y ago
        In the FT's case, it is. The FT doesn't 'know a lot', it largely reflects the mainstream consensus of the economics literature and think tanks - which are broadly pro market with regulation, in line with much of the economics profession. The FT has come out and said that if most of the economics literature was in favour of Brexit, they would have been too, but it wasn't, so they weren't. There was a lot of concern with Nikkei's investment in the FT that that would no longer be the case and that it would kowtow to it's corporate owners - if proved not to be the case.
    - pytester 8y ago
      >Most of the economics profession is biased in favour of some regulated form of free markets and globalization. >That's a bit like saying scientists are biased in favour of anthropic climate change: it's a rational bias based on 200 years of evidence. The economics profession is biased in favour of that because the think tank money, sourced from corporate wealth, wants that. It's a pretty irrational bias which has led to, among other things, the mainstream of the profession being completely blindsided by the financial crisis (famously called out by the normally apolitical Queen) as well as the meteoric rise of China via highly managed trade (an anti free market policy treated by most economists in the 90s/early 00s as largely self defeating).
secabeen 8y ago
AP/Reuters for basic stories. https://www.adfontesmedia.com/ https://www.adfontesmedia.com/
SeanLuke 8y ago
C-SPAN

munk-a 8y ago

I think opinion pieces and editorials can be included as long as they are clearly marked and delineated from the actual news. In fact, I think it's almost impossible to write an unopinionated news story as choosing to write a story is an opinion of itself - the clearer we can isolate these opinions the better.

nkozyra 8y ago
The problem is these tend to reinforce opinions people have about an organization or "the media" even when clearly denoted.
- munk-a 8y ago
  I'd like to imagine there's some way for society to recover to the state of semi-trusted media, maybe we just need to have enough voices that the truth comes out in majority - like industry run newspapers, the cotton lobby's paper is clearly biased on this article about reducing fabric tariff's from mexico but the jeweler's quarterly newspaper doesn't have a vested interest. As I said, it's a hard problem. I like the discussion on trying to find an answer though!
secabeen 8y ago
The challenge is that even when clearly marked as opinion, they still accrue to the reputation of the publication. If you look at the Most Read links on WaPo or NYT, the opinion pieces are often more than half.