3 ms·

News outlets and so-called journalists only ever had “credibility” insofar as there wasn’t another information medium by which their claims could be (in)validat

by maxaf 7y ago

News outlets and so-called journalists only ever had “credibility” insofar as there wasn’t another information medium by which their claims could be (in)validated. Now that this medium exists (you know, the internet) “journalist” is no longer someone we need to trust, believe, or finance.

xxxtentachyon 7y ago
I think I can take it as an axiom that in order for a democracy to function well, the people in it need to know what's going on both domestically and abroad. Who do you suppose should go out and find and publish needed information? If your answer isn't "journalists", then what separates those people from journalists?
- maxaf 7y ago
  As it turns out, journalists aren’t immune to subconscious bias, incompetence, and plain old bribes. So what’s the difference between journalists and me? I agree that it’s a dirty job and someone’s gotta do it, but journalists aren’t the answer.
- ken 7y ago
  In this case, the complete and correct information was provided by some random people on Reddit, not "journalists". And one answer to your second question could be: money. Professionals need to generate (exactly) 60 minutes of news every night (minus time for commercials), and have it be entertaining enough to get people to watch (so they can sell more commercials). Amateurs providing random facts on the internet are not dependent on other corporations to generate income, or daily TV/newspaper deadlines. Thought experiment: if we didn't have a profession called "journalism" today, and free worldwide publishing already existed (i.e., the internet), would we wish that they existed? Would people be saying "For the sake of our democracy, we need to pay these random Reddit fact checkers a good salary"?
  - IfOnlyYouKnew 7y ago
    So because "some guy on reddit" was right once, that means "some guy on reddit" is trustworthy, and the media is not? Boy, talk about diminishing standards of critical reasoning skills.
- beerandt 7y ago
  Semantics aside, I'm off the opinion that competition and oversight from the internet in the news arena is an overall good thing. Of course we need journalists, but it's just as good that we have some independent fact checkers that also have a platform to stand on. And it's not like the network journalists have done anything to earn our trust recently.
youareostriches 7y ago
"Hey, this steak house's hamburger tastes terrible. Therefore, all other steak houses can be ignored and we can all just eat McDonald's instead, because who needs quality?"

by maxaf 7y ago

xxxtentachyon 7y ago

I think I can take it as an axiom that in order for a democracy to function well, the people in it need to know what's going on both domestically and abroad. Who do you suppose should go out and find and publish needed information? If your answer isn't "journalists", then what separates those people from journalists?

maxaf 7y ago
As it turns out, journalists aren’t immune to subconscious bias, incompetence, and plain old bribes. So what’s the difference between journalists and me? I agree that it’s a dirty job and someone’s gotta do it, but journalists aren’t the answer.
ken 7y ago
In this case, the complete and correct information was provided by some random people on Reddit, not "journalists". And one answer to your second question could be: money. Professionals need to generate (exactly) 60 minutes of news every night (minus time for commercials), and have it be entertaining enough to get people to watch (so they can sell more commercials). Amateurs providing random facts on the internet are not dependent on other corporations to generate income, or daily TV/newspaper deadlines. Thought experiment: if we didn't have a profession called "journalism" today, and free worldwide publishing already existed (i.e., the internet), would we wish that they existed? Would people be saying "For the sake of our democracy, we need to pay these random Reddit fact checkers a good salary"?
- IfOnlyYouKnew 7y ago
  So because "some guy on reddit" was right once, that means "some guy on reddit" is trustworthy, and the media is not? Boy, talk about diminishing standards of critical reasoning skills.
beerandt 7y ago
Semantics aside, I'm off the opinion that competition and oversight from the internet in the news arena is an overall good thing. Of course we need journalists, but it's just as good that we have some independent fact checkers that also have a platform to stand on. And it's not like the network journalists have done anything to earn our trust recently.

youareostriches 7y ago

"Hey, this steak house's hamburger tastes terrible. Therefore, all other steak houses can be ignored and we can all just eat McDonald's instead, because who needs quality?"