4 ms·

I agree mostly, but which newspaper is still objective? In any story I'm familiar with, the only newspapers that do unbiased reporting are the Financial Times

by throw12091827 7y ago

I agree mostly, but which newspaper is still objective? In any story I'm familiar with, the only newspapers that do unbiased reporting are the Financial Times and the Neue Zuercher Zeitung. Especially in SJW stories these are the only ones that do not misquote the targets.

V_Terranova_Jr 7y ago
I think a far deeper issue is lack of domain expertise on the part of most journalists, and the field of journalism implying this is fine or that journalists build expertise just through reporting. How many times has there been an unrigorous attempt to "show both sides", or oversimplification, or de facto adoption of charged language like "War on Terror"? The core observation/criticism underlying the "Gell-Mann amnesia effect" to me is what detracts the most from the value of most journalism. This is not to criticize those journalists that really do justice to their subjects, for which we should definitely be thankful.
X6S1x6Okd1st 7y ago
Few media sources have ever been objective. They are useful even if they have a bias.
danso 7y ago
Objectivity isn't a mandatory requirement for journalism.
- DuskStar 7y ago
  Objectivity is what separates Journalism from Propaganda.
  - jacquesm 7y ago
    Not really. Propaganda is news generated with the express purpose of changing people's minds, usually in direct contradiction with the facts. Journalism can - and usually will - have some kind of bias but it will be fact based and any errors of fact will likely not be on purpose but will be accidents. The worst you'd be able to charge journalists with is to have an agenda and to select from the facts. That's bad enough, but not nearly as bad as propaganda.
    - DuskStar 7y ago
      Why on Earth would propaganda always need to be false? The best lies contain a kernel of truth, after all. Yes, if you define propaganda as "intentional lies" then the media doesn't put out much of it. But that category also excludes things like "look at our wonderful town of Pripyat, the future of our glorious union!" and other such classic propaganda. (Would you describe a WW2 era poster of a Japanese soldier with a bayonetted baby as propaganda? After all, that kinda happened, and quite a few times) But I fail to see much difference between "news generated with the express purpose of changing people's minds" and "have an agenda and to select from the facts”.
      - jacquesm 7y ago
        Propaganda wraps a large lie in a small kernel of truth. The wonderful town of Pripyat can be ignored easily, the demonization of another country's inhabitants less so. Propaganda: The press is lying to you. Journalism: All news organizations have an agenda and will bias their writing to suit that agenda.
        DuskStar 7y ago
        Still seems like you're describing a spectrum and not two distinct things. Both journalism and propaganda - as you've described them - twist the truth to make you believe something else. Which is why I say everything on that spectrum is some variety of propaganda, and the difference between journalism and propaganda is objectivity.
        jacquesm 7y ago
        It is a spectrum, but the extremes of that spectrum are easily labelled. In the middle, much less so. There are some orthogonal components as well though: for instance, one form of propaganda could simply be labelled as distraction, a bunch of feel-good happy-go-lucky stuff that serves to take your attention away from the stuff that actually matters. It can all be totally objective and still be propaganda, just like trolls that stir up the pot can be part of a propaganda machine, even if some of the stuff they write is true. In the end, in propaganda the ends are what matters, much less the facts. In journalism the facts are what matters, and the ends - if there are any - much less so.
  - danso 7y ago
    I know differences in the semantics of "objectivity" come to play here, so I'll stick to the straightforward assertion that there are Pulitzer Prizes for editorial writing [0], editorial cartooning [1], commentary [2], and criticism [3]. Op-ed writers, such as Jamil Khashoggi, are considered to be journalists. [0] https://www.pulitzer.org/prize-winners-by-category/214 https://www.pulitzer.org/prize-winners-by-category/214 [1] https://www.pulitzer.org/prize-winners-by-category/215 https://www.pulitzer.org/prize-winners-by-category/215 [2] https://www.pulitzer.org/prize-winners-by-category/212 https://www.pulitzer.org/prize-winners-by-category/212 [3] https://www.pulitzer.org/prize-winners-by-category/213 https://www.pulitzer.org/prize-winners-by-category/213
    - jacquesm 7y ago
      In the case of Jamal Khashoggi he was considered to be a journalist, and it is very likely that it was his profession that got him murdered.

V_Terranova_Jr 7y ago

I think a far deeper issue is lack of domain expertise on the part of most journalists, and the field of journalism implying this is fine or that journalists build expertise just through reporting. How many times has there been an unrigorous attempt to "show both sides", or oversimplification, or de facto adoption of charged language like "War on Terror"? The core observation/criticism underlying the "Gell-Mann amnesia effect" to me is what detracts the most from the value of most journalism. This is not to criticize those journalists that really do justice to their subjects, for which we should definitely be thankful.

X6S1x6Okd1st 7y ago

Few media sources have ever been objective. They are useful even if they have a bias.

danso 7y ago

Objectivity isn't a mandatory requirement for journalism.

DuskStar 7y ago
Objectivity is what separates Journalism from Propaganda.
- jacquesm 7y ago
  Not really. Propaganda is news generated with the express purpose of changing people's minds, usually in direct contradiction with the facts. Journalism can - and usually will - have some kind of bias but it will be fact based and any errors of fact will likely not be on purpose but will be accidents. The worst you'd be able to charge journalists with is to have an agenda and to select from the facts. That's bad enough, but not nearly as bad as propaganda.
  - DuskStar 7y ago
    Why on Earth would propaganda always need to be false? The best lies contain a kernel of truth, after all. Yes, if you define propaganda as "intentional lies" then the media doesn't put out much of it. But that category also excludes things like "look at our wonderful town of Pripyat, the future of our glorious union!" and other such classic propaganda. (Would you describe a WW2 era poster of a Japanese soldier with a bayonetted baby as propaganda? After all, that kinda happened, and quite a few times) But I fail to see much difference between "news generated with the express purpose of changing people's minds" and "have an agenda and to select from the facts”.
    - jacquesm 7y ago
      Propaganda wraps a large lie in a small kernel of truth. The wonderful town of Pripyat can be ignored easily, the demonization of another country's inhabitants less so. Propaganda: The press is lying to you. Journalism: All news organizations have an agenda and will bias their writing to suit that agenda.
      - DuskStar 7y ago
        Still seems like you're describing a spectrum and not two distinct things. Both journalism and propaganda - as you've described them - twist the truth to make you believe something else. Which is why I say everything on that spectrum is some variety of propaganda, and the difference between journalism and propaganda is objectivity.
        jacquesm 7y ago
        It is a spectrum, but the extremes of that spectrum are easily labelled. In the middle, much less so. There are some orthogonal components as well though: for instance, one form of propaganda could simply be labelled as distraction, a bunch of feel-good happy-go-lucky stuff that serves to take your attention away from the stuff that actually matters. It can all be totally objective and still be propaganda, just like trolls that stir up the pot can be part of a propaganda machine, even if some of the stuff they write is true. In the end, in propaganda the ends are what matters, much less the facts. In journalism the facts are what matters, and the ends - if there are any - much less so.
- danso 7y ago
  I know differences in the semantics of "objectivity" come to play here, so I'll stick to the straightforward assertion that there are Pulitzer Prizes for editorial writing [0], editorial cartooning [1], commentary [2], and criticism [3]. Op-ed writers, such as Jamil Khashoggi, are considered to be journalists. [0] https://www.pulitzer.org/prize-winners-by-category/214 https://www.pulitzer.org/prize-winners-by-category/214 [1] https://www.pulitzer.org/prize-winners-by-category/215 https://www.pulitzer.org/prize-winners-by-category/215 [2] https://www.pulitzer.org/prize-winners-by-category/212 https://www.pulitzer.org/prize-winners-by-category/212 [3] https://www.pulitzer.org/prize-winners-by-category/213 https://www.pulitzer.org/prize-winners-by-category/213
  - jacquesm 7y ago
    In the case of Jamal Khashoggi he was considered to be a journalist, and it is very likely that it was his profession that got him murdered.