4 ms·

I voted for it because it describes a real problem with journalism as it is practiced today. Journalists focus on the most attention grabbing tidbit that comes

by btilly 7y ago

I voted for it because it describes a real problem with journalism as it is practiced today. Journalists focus on the most attention grabbing tidbit that comes to mind from recent events. They do not attempt to get context on it. And do not attempt to inform. Then when it becomes clear that they have screwed up, they double down on their position because they are important people. They are journalists, and therefore they are right. At least in their own mind. But I have never seen journalists report accurately on any story that I knew well. And their failure to even attempt it causes great harm to the American public. Now about the subject in question, as an atheist I oppose the LDS and all it stands for. However this was a man who made a tremendous impact within the Church and around the world. While conservative by today's standards, he was relatively progressive compared to society for most of his life. Even while I dislike his work against gay marriage, I still applaud his work in rooting racism out of Mormon theology. And hearing about his real life accomplishments has left me more informed.

kick 7y ago
But I have never seen journalists report accurately on any story that I knew well. And their failure to even attempt it causes great harm to the American public. What publications do you read? For a random example off the top of my head, I've found that Glenn Greenwald's reporting is exceptional on topics I know well.
- btilly 7y ago
  You are right, I overstated the case. My impression is that Glenn Greenwald's reporting is indeed excellent. However my knowledge of secret surveillance is from the writings of people like him - it is not a subject that I have independent knowledge that I can verify anything from. Furthermore at this point I would consider him more of a subject matter expert than a general journalist. Reporting on the same topics in CNN or the NYT tends to be pretty shoddy. That said, there are some publications, such as Propublica and The Economist that seem to consistently do a good job of reporting. So it is not all. But it is a lot. That said, I was basing my comments on my personal expertise on programming, math, physics and a handful of celebrities that I happen to know personally. Reporting on all of those is pretty uniformly terrible.
  - thomasmeeks 7y ago
    I agree though I think blaming journalists is a red herring. Ultimately most journalists are just trying to make ends meet and are in no better position to change the rules of the game than any other average person (the ad-revenue game). Or, to use a Bezos quote: “Good intentions never work, you need good mechanisms to make anything happen.” There are outliers, of course, but that’s the nature of large groups of people. If we as a society want deep, accurate, journalism we have to figure out a way to make it more profitable than clickbait.
- malandrew 7y ago
  His reporting on anything related to Brazilian politics certainly suffers from his own ideological biases that leftyted pointed out in another reply to the comment you’re replying too.
- dahfizz 7y ago
  To play devils advocate, how much do you personally know about the Snowden leaks that you didn't read from news articles? There are (exceedingly rare) examples where journalist do get it right, but your example is a journalist reporting on classified material. Unless you're a higher-up in the NSA, you would have no clue if he got details wrong.
  - kick 7y ago
    To spray holy water on your Devil's advocacy, there have been multiple occasions where documents from NSA have been released to all. Greenwald's reporting has held up when cross-referencing the documents.
    - lern_too_spel 7y ago
      Greenwald's reporting doesn't even match the documents he released himself.
- rayiner 7y ago
  Literally the first Greenwald article I came across in a Google search was propaganda: https://theintercept.com/2019/12/16/evo-morales-interview-glenn-greenwald https://theintercept.com/2019/12/16/evo-morales-interview-gl.... Greenwald heaps praise on Evo Morales, calling his ouster from the Presidency a “coup.” The story of Morales’ ouster is as follows: 1) In his first term, Morales pushes through a new constitution, which among other things dissolves the Bolivian Supreme Court. In its place, it creates a high court comprising judges elected from a slate of candidates appointed by the legislature controlled by his party. This constitution has a two term limit. 2) Morales runs for a third term, after getting the high court to rule that his first term didn’t count since it started before the new constitution. 3) In his third term, he solicits a public referendum asking whether the term limit should be waived to allow him to run for a fourth term. In a vote that had very good turn out, the people vote “no.” 4) Morales ignores the referendum. Instead, he goes back to the high court, which rules that the term limits violate Morales’ “human rights.” The court allows him to run for a fourth term. 5) Morales wins the election, but the Organization of American States releases a report finding “overwhelming evidence of vote rigging.” Massive protests start in response to the report. 6) Morales slowly loses the support of key institutions, including the police. Many members of his own party resigned. A major labor union called for him to resign. 7) The account is disputed at this point. Morales supporters contend that the military then withdrew its support and encouraged him to resign. Morales opponents say that he ordered the military to crack down on protestors, and they refused. Even taking Morales’ supporters at face value, at most what happened is that the military encouraged him to resign after he lost the support of key institutions and many members of his own party. 8) Claiming that he was deposed in a coup, Morales flees to Mexico. 9) Subsequently, Morales’ party basically told him not to come back. Aside from hunting at the term limits, Greenwald mentions none of the real story.
  - kick 7y ago
    Morales's oust was a coup by any real definition of the word, and your story is ignoring reality.
    - rayiner 7y ago
      A military coup is where the military overthrows a legally elected government and seizes power for itself. Morales was illegally and corruptly elected, and the military did not seize control: https://thehill.com/opinion/international/472356-dispelling-myths-about-the-battle-for-democracy-in-bolivia https://thehill.com/opinion/international/472356-dispelling-.... It’s not a coup for the military to withdraw its support for a head of state that’s taking illegal action. (Consider a similar situation. Trump packs the Supreme Court and runs for a third term in violation of the term limit. He wins, but in an election where UN election monitors find “overwhelming evidence” of fraud. Military officials, who take an oath to defend the constitution, would have a duty to refuse to accept his authority.) More to the point, Greenwald omits all the background information necessary for the reader to decide whether there was a coup. The military didn’t just one day decide to stop supporting Morales after 14 years. It happened only after a series of events—illegal actions by Morales and key institutions abandoning him.
- noparity 7y ago
  Greenwald has a very clear agenda, so his reporting is exceptional only if you agree with his anti-US stance on almost everything...
- lern_too_spel 7y ago
  I know the topic of Internet communication reasonably well, and in that domain, Greenwald's reporting (PRISM and related stories) is so abysmal that people who read his articles are less informed than people who don't.
dddddaviddddd 7y ago
The NYT could have sourced most points mentioned by the author from their own archives. Focusing on recent tidbits seems like the result of perverse incentives for quickly readable, attention-grabbing stories.
mindslight 7y ago
Expecting "journalism" to ever mean something noble or impartial is likely unreasonable. Even bare facts can succumb to a political bias of which ones are emphasized and which are held back. As soon as a story is stitched together with an interpreting narrative, any hope for impartiality is gone. I doubt this is a framing the original author would appreciate, but it strikes me that the NYT is really just another competing religion, delivering a sermon that condemns an outgroup as has been done for ages. I can put on my empathy hat and appreciate the original linked post, just like in isolation I can respect the good values of the Times. And with so much of society being steeped in the religion of the Times, it is important to do the work of being exposed to the others. But ultimately being anti-religion, I'm not interested in actually drinking either pitcher of kool-aid. Why things used to seem "impartial" was likely a function of a more uniform society. People would consider things like national origin or religious sect to be supremely divisive, but all be on the same page of perhaps we might today call "the conservative agenda". What appeared "impartial" was really just carrying a shared societal bias rather than actually considering different points of view.
TomMckenny 7y ago
> Journalists focus on the most attention grabbing tidbit In this case, the NYT's title was "Thomas Monson, President of the Mormon Church, Dies at 90" But the blog's title is "Do Not Trust Journalism" >they double down on their position But what the reported on Monson is true! They did not add flattering points the way the church wanted because this is how a free-press in a non-theocracy works!
- compiler-guy 7y ago
  Except the criticism the article levels isn’t a lack of positivity. Rather it claims that the article ignores the most salient points of a fifty year career in favor of two comparatively recent developments. It even points out the losing battle with the Boy Scouts that serves similar political ends as the points it mentioned. Whether or not any of this is accurate, I have no idea. But he wasn’t arguing for hagiography.
  - nraynaud 7y ago
    Plus I don’t think spreading a crazy sect in places that had mostly gotten rid of religion was really to be put on the credit of the person.
    - rayiner 7y ago
      Religion was an important force in defeating communism: https://opencommons.uconn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1244&context=srhonors_theses https://opencommons.uconn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=12.... The beachheads established by people like Monson are a huge credit to them.
      - TomMckenny 7y ago
        I think his followers maybe (accidentally?) dissembling: He only became president of the Quorum six years _after_ the iron curtain fell. And Mormons account for well less than 0.1% of Eastern Europeans. So to say he had something to do with it is another reason to be suspicious of those saying wanting to change his obituary.

by btilly 7y ago

kick 7y ago

But I have never seen journalists report accurately on any story that I knew well. And their failure to even attempt it causes great harm to the American public. What publications do you read? For a random example off the top of my head, I've found that Glenn Greenwald's reporting is exceptional on topics I know well.

btilly 7y ago
You are right, I overstated the case. My impression is that Glenn Greenwald's reporting is indeed excellent. However my knowledge of secret surveillance is from the writings of people like him - it is not a subject that I have independent knowledge that I can verify anything from. Furthermore at this point I would consider him more of a subject matter expert than a general journalist. Reporting on the same topics in CNN or the NYT tends to be pretty shoddy. That said, there are some publications, such as Propublica and The Economist that seem to consistently do a good job of reporting. So it is not all. But it is a lot. That said, I was basing my comments on my personal expertise on programming, math, physics and a handful of celebrities that I happen to know personally. Reporting on all of those is pretty uniformly terrible.
- thomasmeeks 7y ago
  I agree though I think blaming journalists is a red herring. Ultimately most journalists are just trying to make ends meet and are in no better position to change the rules of the game than any other average person (the ad-revenue game). Or, to use a Bezos quote: “Good intentions never work, you need good mechanisms to make anything happen.” There are outliers, of course, but that’s the nature of large groups of people. If we as a society want deep, accurate, journalism we have to figure out a way to make it more profitable than clickbait.
malandrew 7y ago
His reporting on anything related to Brazilian politics certainly suffers from his own ideological biases that leftyted pointed out in another reply to the comment you’re replying too.
dahfizz 7y ago
To play devils advocate, how much do you personally know about the Snowden leaks that you didn't read from news articles? There are (exceedingly rare) examples where journalist do get it right, but your example is a journalist reporting on classified material. Unless you're a higher-up in the NSA, you would have no clue if he got details wrong.
- kick 7y ago
  To spray holy water on your Devil's advocacy, there have been multiple occasions where documents from NSA have been released to all. Greenwald's reporting has held up when cross-referencing the documents.
  - lern_too_spel 7y ago
    Greenwald's reporting doesn't even match the documents he released himself.
rayiner 7y ago
Literally the first Greenwald article I came across in a Google search was propaganda: https://theintercept.com/2019/12/16/evo-morales-interview-glenn-greenwald https://theintercept.com/2019/12/16/evo-morales-interview-gl.... Greenwald heaps praise on Evo Morales, calling his ouster from the Presidency a “coup.” The story of Morales’ ouster is as follows: 1) In his first term, Morales pushes through a new constitution, which among other things dissolves the Bolivian Supreme Court. In its place, it creates a high court comprising judges elected from a slate of candidates appointed by the legislature controlled by his party. This constitution has a two term limit. 2) Morales runs for a third term, after getting the high court to rule that his first term didn’t count since it started before the new constitution. 3) In his third term, he solicits a public referendum asking whether the term limit should be waived to allow him to run for a fourth term. In a vote that had very good turn out, the people vote “no.” 4) Morales ignores the referendum. Instead, he goes back to the high court, which rules that the term limits violate Morales’ “human rights.” The court allows him to run for a fourth term. 5) Morales wins the election, but the Organization of American States releases a report finding “overwhelming evidence of vote rigging.” Massive protests start in response to the report. 6) Morales slowly loses the support of key institutions, including the police. Many members of his own party resigned. A major labor union called for him to resign. 7) The account is disputed at this point. Morales supporters contend that the military then withdrew its support and encouraged him to resign. Morales opponents say that he ordered the military to crack down on protestors, and they refused. Even taking Morales’ supporters at face value, at most what happened is that the military encouraged him to resign after he lost the support of key institutions and many members of his own party. 8) Claiming that he was deposed in a coup, Morales flees to Mexico. 9) Subsequently, Morales’ party basically told him not to come back. Aside from hunting at the term limits, Greenwald mentions none of the real story.
- kick 7y ago
  Morales's oust was a coup by any real definition of the word, and your story is ignoring reality.
  - rayiner 7y ago
    A military coup is where the military overthrows a legally elected government and seizes power for itself. Morales was illegally and corruptly elected, and the military did not seize control: https://thehill.com/opinion/international/472356-dispelling-myths-about-the-battle-for-democracy-in-bolivia https://thehill.com/opinion/international/472356-dispelling-.... It’s not a coup for the military to withdraw its support for a head of state that’s taking illegal action. (Consider a similar situation. Trump packs the Supreme Court and runs for a third term in violation of the term limit. He wins, but in an election where UN election monitors find “overwhelming evidence” of fraud. Military officials, who take an oath to defend the constitution, would have a duty to refuse to accept his authority.) More to the point, Greenwald omits all the background information necessary for the reader to decide whether there was a coup. The military didn’t just one day decide to stop supporting Morales after 14 years. It happened only after a series of events—illegal actions by Morales and key institutions abandoning him.
noparity 7y ago
Greenwald has a very clear agenda, so his reporting is exceptional only if you agree with his anti-US stance on almost everything...
lern_too_spel 7y ago
I know the topic of Internet communication reasonably well, and in that domain, Greenwald's reporting (PRISM and related stories) is so abysmal that people who read his articles are less informed than people who don't.

dddddaviddddd 7y ago

The NYT could have sourced most points mentioned by the author from their own archives. Focusing on recent tidbits seems like the result of perverse incentives for quickly readable, attention-grabbing stories.

mindslight 7y ago

Expecting "journalism" to ever mean something noble or impartial is likely unreasonable. Even bare facts can succumb to a political bias of which ones are emphasized and which are held back. As soon as a story is stitched together with an interpreting narrative, any hope for impartiality is gone. I doubt this is a framing the original author would appreciate, but it strikes me that the NYT is really just another competing religion, delivering a sermon that condemns an outgroup as has been done for ages. I can put on my empathy hat and appreciate the original linked post, just like in isolation I can respect the good values of the Times. And with so much of society being steeped in the religion of the Times, it is important to do the work of being exposed to the others. But ultimately being anti-religion, I'm not interested in actually drinking either pitcher of kool-aid. Why things used to seem "impartial" was likely a function of a more uniform society. People would consider things like national origin or religious sect to be supremely divisive, but all be on the same page of perhaps we might today call "the conservative agenda". What appeared "impartial" was really just carrying a shared societal bias rather than actually considering different points of view.

TomMckenny 7y ago

> Journalists focus on the most attention grabbing tidbit In this case, the NYT's title was "Thomas Monson, President of the Mormon Church, Dies at 90" But the blog's title is "Do Not Trust Journalism" >they double down on their position But what the reported on Monson is true! They did not add flattering points the way the church wanted because this is how a free-press in a non-theocracy works!

compiler-guy 7y ago
Except the criticism the article levels isn’t a lack of positivity. Rather it claims that the article ignores the most salient points of a fifty year career in favor of two comparatively recent developments. It even points out the losing battle with the Boy Scouts that serves similar political ends as the points it mentioned. Whether or not any of this is accurate, I have no idea. But he wasn’t arguing for hagiography.
- nraynaud 7y ago
  Plus I don’t think spreading a crazy sect in places that had mostly gotten rid of religion was really to be put on the credit of the person.
  - rayiner 7y ago
    Religion was an important force in defeating communism: https://opencommons.uconn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1244&context=srhonors_theses https://opencommons.uconn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=12.... The beachheads established by people like Monson are a huge credit to them.
    - TomMckenny 7y ago
      I think his followers maybe (accidentally?) dissembling: He only became president of the Quorum six years _after_ the iron curtain fell. And Mormons account for well less than 0.1% of Eastern Europeans. So to say he had something to do with it is another reason to be suspicious of those saying wanting to change his obituary.