3 ms·

These are flimsy examples of journalists being punished for not falling in line with groupthink -- and I say this as someone who has worked in several newsrooms

by jawns 7y ago

These are flimsy examples of journalists being punished for not falling in line with groupthink -- and I say this as someone who has worked in several newsrooms with relatively uniform ideological views that did not match my own. The first case describes a columnist who wrote a piece that his colleagues disliked so much that they complained to HR about him. But it doesn't quite add up, and I'll tell you why in a minute. The second case describes what sounds like a case where an intern and a staffer were discussing a political issue and got into a heated argument, and the intern complained about it. But it doesn't sound like he got in trouble with HR for his opinion; he got in trouble for the way he expressed his opinion. So I don't think these two examples are really strong cases of journalists being punished by their employers for not holding a certain ideological view. And I think people need to understand that just because a journalist is reprimanded for expressing their personal views, it doesn't mean their employer has done something wrong. In some cases, keeping your personal views to yourself is part of the job requirement. For instance, if you're a news reporter covering politics, you _shouldn't_ be going around telling people your personal opinions about politics. In fact, doing so can get you quickly kicked off the beat, because you're (ostensibly) supposed to be objective and unbiased. On the other hand, if you're a columnist or writing an op-ed, the whole point is to share your opinion, and I think most writers and editors understand that there are going to be columnists with whom they strongly disagree. And that's why the first story seems so strange to me. If a newsroom staffer were to feel so incensed by a particular colleague's column that they think it shouldn't have been published, I would expect them to go to the section editor who signed off on it, or the managing editor, or the editor in chief, and urge them to take it down or retract it ... not to complain to HR that they feel unsafe.

luckylion 7y ago
> I would expect them to go to the section editor who signed off on it, or the managing editor, or the editor in chief, and urge them to take it down or retract it ... not to complain to HR that they feel unsafe. And nobody would expect people abusing the "report content" feature on Twitter, YouTube, FB etc to silence people they disagree with, yet here we are. HR will probably give less push back than an editor.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
panarky 7y ago
> you're (ostensibly) supposed to be objective and unbiased Nobody is objective and unbiased. If your goal is to report the truth, pretending you're unbiased just makes it more difficult to separate facts from ideology. It's better to acknowledge beliefs and biases, and critically examine how they affect what is reported. So I'd argue that fairness and accuracy in journalism is improved when people talk about their beliefs, not when they hide them.
ddingus 7y ago
>For instance, if you're a news reporter covering politics, you _shouldn't_ be going around telling people your personal opinions about politics. In fact, doing so can get you quickly kicked off the beat, because you're (ostensibly) supposed to be objective and unbiased. This is crazy. I am not saying you are crazy, or anything negative, let us be clear. First, TYT as example. They are unabashedly progressive and they make that extremely clear. Secondly, they do a great job of producing high clarity material with fact and opinion well differentiated. Many similar entities claim low or no bias, objectivity, fairness, and so forth. However, none of this things are actually true! There is always bias. And objective material takes a number of us working over a sustained amount of time to produce. That does not happen on a cable news cycle. As a kid, we received education on these things. Bias, what it is, how to identify it and whether it was honestly and clearly made known. Compare and contrast news written from a labor point of view (very hard to find these days in the US), vs big business POV. Same goes for religion, establishment vs reformers, you get the idea. The single most important aspect in all of this is clarity. Being able to discern facts and opinion is what will inform us as well as speak to bias so we know to get a more inclusive set of sources to draw on in our own thinking. Today, most media is a mess on these fronts, and it can be boiled down thus: 1) Low clarity. 2) Bias not clearly stated, and things like disclosure not part of strong norms. 3) "Always two sides to every story" (no, there are facts, and what people think they mean) here, we see nuts paired with scientists, "to be objective" and it is laughable, if it were not so common and damaging. 4) objectivity conflated with neutrality (major contributor to low clarity and bias ID problems) A reporter covering politics will have political opinions and they should be known and well differentiated from the facts so reported. This idea of a neutral/objective press, coupled with chronic low clarity seen today, is laughable! And it does us all great harm too. As for going to HR... that should be reserved for the how of discussion, not the what of it.
stcredzero 7y ago
In some cases, keeping your personal views to yourself is part of the job requirement. In 2019, it's not uncommon to see shops expressing a political opinion, and refusing to order books for customers on that basis.

by jawns 7y ago

luckylion 7y ago

> I would expect them to go to the section editor who signed off on it, or the managing editor, or the editor in chief, and urge them to take it down or retract it ... not to complain to HR that they feel unsafe. And nobody would expect people abusing the "report content" feature on Twitter, YouTube, FB etc to silence people they disagree with, yet here we are. HR will probably give less push back than an editor.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

panarky 7y ago

> you're (ostensibly) supposed to be objective and unbiased Nobody is objective and unbiased. If your goal is to report the truth, pretending you're unbiased just makes it more difficult to separate facts from ideology. It's better to acknowledge beliefs and biases, and critically examine how they affect what is reported. So I'd argue that fairness and accuracy in journalism is improved when people talk about their beliefs, not when they hide them.

ddingus 7y ago

>For instance, if you're a news reporter covering politics, you _shouldn't_ be going around telling people your personal opinions about politics. In fact, doing so can get you quickly kicked off the beat, because you're (ostensibly) supposed to be objective and unbiased. This is crazy. I am not saying you are crazy, or anything negative, let us be clear. First, TYT as example. They are unabashedly progressive and they make that extremely clear. Secondly, they do a great job of producing high clarity material with fact and opinion well differentiated. Many similar entities claim low or no bias, objectivity, fairness, and so forth. However, none of this things are actually true! There is always bias. And objective material takes a number of us working over a sustained amount of time to produce. That does not happen on a cable news cycle. As a kid, we received education on these things. Bias, what it is, how to identify it and whether it was honestly and clearly made known. Compare and contrast news written from a labor point of view (very hard to find these days in the US), vs big business POV. Same goes for religion, establishment vs reformers, you get the idea. The single most important aspect in all of this is clarity. Being able to discern facts and opinion is what will inform us as well as speak to bias so we know to get a more inclusive set of sources to draw on in our own thinking. Today, most media is a mess on these fronts, and it can be boiled down thus: 1) Low clarity. 2) Bias not clearly stated, and things like disclosure not part of strong norms. 3) "Always two sides to every story" (no, there are facts, and what people think they mean) here, we see nuts paired with scientists, "to be objective" and it is laughable, if it were not so common and damaging. 4) objectivity conflated with neutrality (major contributor to low clarity and bias ID problems) A reporter covering politics will have political opinions and they should be known and well differentiated from the facts so reported. This idea of a neutral/objective press, coupled with chronic low clarity seen today, is laughable! And it does us all great harm too. As for going to HR... that should be reserved for the how of discussion, not the what of it.

stcredzero 7y ago

In some cases, keeping your personal views to yourself is part of the job requirement. In 2019, it's not uncommon to see shops expressing a political opinion, and refusing to order books for customers on that basis.