4 ms·
That's a rather bleak, mechanistic view of society. Journalism provides information, without which voters are unable to make decisions any better than random c
by IAmEveryone 7y ago
That's a rather bleak, mechanistic view of society.
Journalism provides information, without which voters are unable to make decisions any better than random chance. Democracy cannot function in the absence of information.
Here, specifically, the NYT is contributing to the public's knowledge of the effects of the tax cut: people were promised expanding businesses investments as an outcome of letting them keep all those billions. This not happening should inform peoples' willingness to try that strategy again.
- adamrezich 7y ago30 years ago this article would have never been published in the paper, or it would be a tiny article tucked deep in the financial section or whatever. But nowadays they have to do anything to get clicks/ad views/subscriptions/attention, because that's the game now. They'll write a headline like the FedEx one because they naively think they can do so without repercussion because they're stuck in the old mindset of being the unassailable trusted authoritative arbiters of truth. No, as it turns out, when a company does a thing that can potentially harm another company financially, the other company can now publicly fight back for all to see online. "Journalists," as well as many in this thread, still struggle to acclimate to the reality of this relatively newly leveled playing field. You can't just publish whatever anymore from an ivory tower of "journalism" and expect someone, individual or corporation, to not fight back online.