5 ms·

But if you as a journalist are talking about AOC's proposal, your main job is to communicate her proposal to the masses, your secondary job is to talk about why

But if you as a journalist are talking about AOC's proposal, your main job is to communicate her proposal to the masses, your secondary job is to talk about why it may or may not work. Journalists don't believe it's their job to talk about why something may or may not work, but they really want to. They have a couple of ways to do that. One is to select "experts" to comment on a story who agrees with the journalist. For any topic of enough importance you can usually find people who will present things your way, even if others would disagree. Another is to use a library of common phrases that create an impression in the mind of the reader without actually committing to anything concrete. For instance: • Mr Smith was under fire last night after proposing <X> • A new idea from Mr Smith has been creating excitement after he launched <X> last night • According to experts, <Y> • <Z>, according to analysts etc etc. It'd be more honest if journalists wrote "X said Y and I think he's a douchebag because Z" but that'd make them, in their eyes, mere bloggers, so they rely on more subtle manipulations instead.

losvedir 7y ago
This sounds related to the whole "Republicans pounce" [0] thing. [0] https://www.commentarymagazine.com/politics-ideas/when-republicans-pounce-media-bias/ https://www.commentarymagazine.com/politics-ideas/when-repub...
themacguffinman 7y ago
It's absolutely a journalist's job to talk about why something may or may not work. News without context or analysis isn't journalism. Journalists have a duty to inform, and a basic retelling of facts is about as informative to the public as a basic retelling of statistics to non-statisticians. Framing this analysis as "subtle manipulations" is disingenuous regardless of how flawed/biased news analysis may be, which is about as flawed/biased as any analysis can be.
- rayiner 7y ago
  > Framing this analysis as "subtle manipulations" is disingenuous regardless of how flawed/biased news analysis may be, which is about as flawed/biased as any analysis can be. But it is subtle manipulation. How many articles have you read about failing schools or school funding challenges, and how often have they mentioned that the U.S. spends among the most in the world per student for K-12 education? As you say, presenting news without context or analysis isn't journalism. But the minute you start picking facts for context, or analyzing the facts, you're inherently incorporating your personal views.
  - themacguffinman 7y ago
    > But the minute you start picking facts for context, or analyzing the facts, you're inherently incorporating your personal views. That's not "subtle manipulation", that's bias. Calling it "subtle manipulation" disingenuously implies that journalists unscrupulously distort or change the news. Context & analysis is inherently biased, no surprises there, but you're approaching substance-free cynicism when you say stuff like "Journalists don't believe it's their job to talk about why something may or may not work, but they really want to."
- repolfx 7y ago
  Journalists are qualified in nothing and can't possibly have any weight on the question of whether something will or will not work. That's why they always speak through experts. Why would anyone care what a journalist thinks? Their job is to journal, not tell people what to do.
  - themacguffinman 7y ago
    They don't tell people what to do. Even your example doesn't show journalists telling people what to do or show them sharing their personal thoughts on the matter. Journalists are qualified in reporting, which includes collecting, analyzing/contextualizing, and presenting relevant new facts, which is exactly what they are correctly doing when using your common library of phrases. Naturally, such reporting is prone to bias, and you may not agree with what is presented, but that isn't the same as "subtle manipulation", and it isn't the same as telling people what to do or think.

losvedir 7y ago

This sounds related to the whole "Republicans pounce" [0] thing. [0] https://www.commentarymagazine.com/politics-ideas/when-republicans-pounce-media-bias/ https://www.commentarymagazine.com/politics-ideas/when-repub...

themacguffinman 7y ago

It's absolutely a journalist's job to talk about why something may or may not work. News without context or analysis isn't journalism. Journalists have a duty to inform, and a basic retelling of facts is about as informative to the public as a basic retelling of statistics to non-statisticians. Framing this analysis as "subtle manipulations" is disingenuous regardless of how flawed/biased news analysis may be, which is about as flawed/biased as any analysis can be.

rayiner 7y ago
> Framing this analysis as "subtle manipulations" is disingenuous regardless of how flawed/biased news analysis may be, which is about as flawed/biased as any analysis can be. But it is subtle manipulation. How many articles have you read about failing schools or school funding challenges, and how often have they mentioned that the U.S. spends among the most in the world per student for K-12 education? As you say, presenting news without context or analysis isn't journalism. But the minute you start picking facts for context, or analyzing the facts, you're inherently incorporating your personal views.
- themacguffinman 7y ago
  > But the minute you start picking facts for context, or analyzing the facts, you're inherently incorporating your personal views. That's not "subtle manipulation", that's bias. Calling it "subtle manipulation" disingenuously implies that journalists unscrupulously distort or change the news. Context & analysis is inherently biased, no surprises there, but you're approaching substance-free cynicism when you say stuff like "Journalists don't believe it's their job to talk about why something may or may not work, but they really want to."
repolfx 7y ago
Journalists are qualified in nothing and can't possibly have any weight on the question of whether something will or will not work. That's why they always speak through experts. Why would anyone care what a journalist thinks? Their job is to journal, not tell people what to do.
- themacguffinman 7y ago
  They don't tell people what to do. Even your example doesn't show journalists telling people what to do or show them sharing their personal thoughts on the matter. Journalists are qualified in reporting, which includes collecting, analyzing/contextualizing, and presenting relevant new facts, which is exactly what they are correctly doing when using your common library of phrases. Naturally, such reporting is prone to bias, and you may not agree with what is presented, but that isn't the same as "subtle manipulation", and it isn't the same as telling people what to do or think.