4 ms·

> sometimes those people break completely with journalistic practice. This may be the first real argument I've seen for the difference between blogging and jou

> sometimes those people break completely with journalistic practice. This may be the first real argument I've seen for the difference between blogging and journalism. Blogging is one person's opinion or account of a topic. Journalism is one person's opinion or account of a topic, as filtered, reviewed, revised, challenged, fact-checked, and approved by an organization. It's reasonable to expect an individual to be able to decide whether they trust a handful of news organizations. If the NYT repeatedly breaks my trust, I can remove them from my reading list. But until then, I trust that the NYT to vet their writers. So I trust the authors published on nytimes.com without knowing a thing about them, because I trust the NYT. (Likewise, if I mistrust the org, I'll mistrust the contributors. Hello there, Fox News.) It's not reasonable to expect individuals to be able to decide how much they trust each individual writer. I don't even know how many writers I read on a daily basis. When it's a blogger, I take it with a grain of salt unless it's someone I read so often that I've come to trust them. (Hello, Jason Kottke.) This doesn't make blogging inferior to journalism. I probably get more value from blogs than news sites on the regular. But I do think it's a valid distinction to take into account.

Bartweiss 8y ago
> So I trust the authors published on nytimes.com... because I trust the NYT. Likewise, if I mistrust the org, I'll mistrust the contributors. This is probably the best argument I know of for having journalistic 'institutions'. Gellman Amnesia is a real thing, and very hard to solve for any topic where you're not an expert. But if a source manages to provide a predictable level of quality over many stories, it's suddenly possible to use the topics you know as a way to predict the quality of everything else. Of course, the downside of that is the way it creates confidence that can then be abused, and in particular the risk that everyday accuracy will provide an aegis for misrepresenting topics which people can't fact-check. Functionally, it's something like the SSL chain-of-trust problem; the tradeoff for being able to trust things we can't personally inspect is having a system which propagates any claim that gets past the weakest gatekeeper involved. I don't think it's very common for journalism orgs to go off the rails completely, and when they do people eventually catch up to the loss of quality. Rather, I worry about trusted names being manipulated to spread stories without showing proper evidence. If you're running Theranos and know actual scientists would laugh at your data, or you're promoting the invasion of Iraq and know no one can challenge your "classified evidence", the name of a trusted news source becomes a welcome road to legitimacy. And instead of convincing a bunch of reputable blogs or analysts who each have their own reputation on the line, you can shop a claim until someone bites and then start using their output to convince further voices. (There's an interesting debate hidden in there about source anonymity: keeping sources anonymous from other journalists, even after they're proven dishonest, allows them to try out a lie repeatedly without being caught. It's a tough problem.) As you say, most of my favorite sources are either bloggers or specific writers I trust by name instead of organization. But there's a lot to be said for delinking "knows and writes about a topic" from "has strong verification practices and a reputation to risk"; there are just too many interesting stories to rely on personal reputation for every one of them.
- nickelcitymario 8y ago
  Well said! On a related note, Michael Lewis has an excellent podcast called _Against the Rules_, and one of the episodes focuses on what happens when we can't trust the referee. In this case, the referees in question were scholars entrusted with deciding whether classic works of art were legitimately painted by the artists they claim to have been painted by (like a da Vinci). I won't go on too much about it, other than to say in this discussion of podcasts and trusting journalists, there happens to be a great podcast about the challenge of trust. We have to trust SOMEONE, but so often that trust is abused.
  - Bartweiss 8y ago
    Interesting, thanks very much. I'd never heard of Against the Rules, and it sounds like exactly the sort of thing I'll love! (And a nice touch that we're now full-circle to the topic of podcasts.)

Bartweiss 8y ago

> So I trust the authors published on nytimes.com... because I trust the NYT. Likewise, if I mistrust the org, I'll mistrust the contributors. This is probably the best argument I know of for having journalistic 'institutions'. Gellman Amnesia is a real thing, and very hard to solve for any topic where you're not an expert. But if a source manages to provide a predictable level of quality over many stories, it's suddenly possible to use the topics you know as a way to predict the quality of everything else. Of course, the downside of that is the way it creates confidence that can then be abused, and in particular the risk that everyday accuracy will provide an aegis for misrepresenting topics which people can't fact-check. Functionally, it's something like the SSL chain-of-trust problem; the tradeoff for being able to trust things we can't personally inspect is having a system which propagates any claim that gets past the weakest gatekeeper involved. I don't think it's very common for journalism orgs to go off the rails completely, and when they do people eventually catch up to the loss of quality. Rather, I worry about trusted names being manipulated to spread stories without showing proper evidence. If you're running Theranos and know actual scientists would laugh at your data, or you're promoting the invasion of Iraq and know no one can challenge your "classified evidence", the name of a trusted news source becomes a welcome road to legitimacy. And instead of convincing a bunch of reputable blogs or analysts who each have their own reputation on the line, you can shop a claim until someone bites and then start using their output to convince further voices. (There's an interesting debate hidden in there about source anonymity: keeping sources anonymous from other journalists, even after they're proven dishonest, allows them to try out a lie repeatedly without being caught. It's a tough problem.) As you say, most of my favorite sources are either bloggers or specific writers I trust by name instead of organization. But there's a lot to be said for delinking "knows and writes about a topic" from "has strong verification practices and a reputation to risk"; there are just too many interesting stories to rely on personal reputation for every one of them.

nickelcitymario 8y ago
Well said! On a related note, Michael Lewis has an excellent podcast called _Against the Rules_, and one of the episodes focuses on what happens when we can't trust the referee. In this case, the referees in question were scholars entrusted with deciding whether classic works of art were legitimately painted by the artists they claim to have been painted by (like a da Vinci). I won't go on too much about it, other than to say in this discussion of podcasts and trusting journalists, there happens to be a great podcast about the challenge of trust. We have to trust SOMEONE, but so often that trust is abused.
- Bartweiss 8y ago
  Interesting, thanks very much. I'd never heard of Against the Rules, and it sounds like exactly the sort of thing I'll love! (And a nice touch that we're now full-circle to the topic of podcasts.)