4 ms·

> The problem is it isn't journalism, it's activism. The two aren't mutually exclusive. Journalists have an ethical responsibility to be honest, but outside of

> The problem is it isn't journalism, it's activism. The two aren't mutually exclusive. Journalists have an ethical responsibility to be honest, but outside of that there's nothing to say that a journalist cannot have a set of beliefs that shape their worldview. In this case you aren't really accusing the NYT of being dishonest, you're saying that their honest opinion isn't ok because you have a different opinion (or that a journalist has to be void of any opinions at all). I'd just suggest you skip either that author's work or the NYT in general then, and find something more aligned to your own worldview. As to the accusation it is "activism?" I mean, yeah, I guess. Arguing that something, anything, is wrong is activism depending on your definitions but since we haven't established that activism is a bad thing or wrong, that's not really problematic in and of itself.

zaroth 7y ago
The difference between the NYT having an opinion and me having an opinion is that only the NYT is protected against lawsuits for libel with a special standard of “actual malice” by the contorted reasoning that anyone they chose to publish an article on must therefore be a public figure. IANAL, but a good example of this is the coverage of the Covington High School students.
- matt4077 7y ago
  The actual malice standard was first defined in a case involving media (the NYT, as it happens), but it applies to anyone, including you.
  - wostusername 7y ago
    I think what the other poster was trying to say is that in the US defamation law treats public figures and non-public figures (and confusingly "limited purpose public figures") differently. The standard of "actual malice" applies to public figures only, the standard is lower for non-public figures. Which invites the question of "Is anyone the NYT writes about automatically a public figure?" Or even a limited purpose public figure? IANAL so I don't know the answer, but I hope the answer is no. Since if the answer is yes it would allow a large media organization to thrust anyone into the spotlight and defame them without recourse as long as "actual malice" can't be established (ie the Covington High kids).
Consultant32452 7y ago
Of course activism isn't bad. I'm even sympathetic to the particular flavor of activism in this article. I welcome the NYT to publicly reclassify itself as an activist organization, instead of marketing itself as news, the paper of record even.
weberc2 7y ago
Journalism aspires to minimize bias, and that's why people trust journalism as an institution (and why, lately, that trust is rapidly eroding). Using "journalism" to give your biases/agenda the air of objectivity is misleading, immoral, and unethical. If a journalist or editor wants to push their personal agenda, they can use the opinion section like everyone else. That's why it exists.

zaroth 7y ago

The difference between the NYT having an opinion and me having an opinion is that only the NYT is protected against lawsuits for libel with a special standard of “actual malice” by the contorted reasoning that anyone they chose to publish an article on must therefore be a public figure. IANAL, but a good example of this is the coverage of the Covington High School students.

matt4077 7y ago
The actual malice standard was first defined in a case involving media (the NYT, as it happens), but it applies to anyone, including you.
- wostusername 7y ago
  I think what the other poster was trying to say is that in the US defamation law treats public figures and non-public figures (and confusingly "limited purpose public figures") differently. The standard of "actual malice" applies to public figures only, the standard is lower for non-public figures. Which invites the question of "Is anyone the NYT writes about automatically a public figure?" Or even a limited purpose public figure? IANAL so I don't know the answer, but I hope the answer is no. Since if the answer is yes it would allow a large media organization to thrust anyone into the spotlight and defame them without recourse as long as "actual malice" can't be established (ie the Covington High kids).

Consultant32452 7y ago

Of course activism isn't bad. I'm even sympathetic to the particular flavor of activism in this article. I welcome the NYT to publicly reclassify itself as an activist organization, instead of marketing itself as news, the paper of record even.

weberc2 7y ago

Journalism aspires to minimize bias, and that's why people trust journalism as an institution (and why, lately, that trust is rapidly eroding). Using "journalism" to give your biases/agenda the air of objectivity is misleading, immoral, and unethical. If a journalist or editor wants to push their personal agenda, they can use the opinion section like everyone else. That's why it exists.