3 ms·

After having read the obituary, I fail to see anything wrong with it. The blog post does not give any factual errors, and the alleged omissions about the lifeti

by fsh 7y ago

After having read the obituary, I fail to see anything wrong with it. The blog post does not give any factual errors, and the alleged omissions about the lifetime achievements of the deceased are actually in the NYT article. The article is also well sourced and the editorial shows a solid research and writing process. The blog post follows a dangerous trend, where people try to discredit the whole concept of journalism whenever they read something they don't like.

TomMckenny 7y ago
Exactly. The other force at work is rising religious-nationalism which makes it increasingly difficult for the press to speak ill of powerful people.
beatgammit 7y ago
IDK, I think we really need to have a discussion on what "journalism" means. Articles are becoming increasingly clickbait, and news agencies seem to be more biased than in the past. Perhaps the bias is just becoming more obvious and clickbait is just a natural consequence of increasing competition, but I'm finding it difficult to find news agencies that I can trust to report in an unbiased manner. I just want to subscribe to a few news organizations that have high journalistic standards so I can get a reasonably complete overview of a variety of current events. But I feel like I instead have to seek out news agencies with opposing biases and hope that I didn't miss a bias (e.g. have a conservative and liberal publication, but what about libertarian, green, etc?). Why can't I just subscribe to comprehensive journalism? I want to know all of the good and bad things about all sides of an issue, not just the side the author/news agency prefers. Don't tell me how was Monson is without telling me how good he is. Give me as many competing details and viewpoints as will fit in the space available and leave the subjectivity to the editorial section.
- fsh 7y ago
  I don't think that discussing about nebulous concepts such as "liberal bias" is any helpful. Do you have some examples where you felt that for example a NYT article was missing important information? Which details or viewpoints are missing from the obituary in your opinion?

by fsh 7y ago

TomMckenny 7y ago

Exactly. The other force at work is rising religious-nationalism which makes it increasingly difficult for the press to speak ill of powerful people.

beatgammit 7y ago

IDK, I think we really need to have a discussion on what "journalism" means. Articles are becoming increasingly clickbait, and news agencies seem to be more biased than in the past. Perhaps the bias is just becoming more obvious and clickbait is just a natural consequence of increasing competition, but I'm finding it difficult to find news agencies that I can trust to report in an unbiased manner. I just want to subscribe to a few news organizations that have high journalistic standards so I can get a reasonably complete overview of a variety of current events. But I feel like I instead have to seek out news agencies with opposing biases and hope that I didn't miss a bias (e.g. have a conservative and liberal publication, but what about libertarian, green, etc?). Why can't I just subscribe to comprehensive journalism? I want to know all of the good and bad things about all sides of an issue, not just the side the author/news agency prefers. Don't tell me how was Monson is without telling me how good he is. Give me as many competing details and viewpoints as will fit in the space available and leave the subjectivity to the editorial section.

fsh 7y ago
I don't think that discussing about nebulous concepts such as "liberal bias" is any helpful. Do you have some examples where you felt that for example a NYT article was missing important information? Which details or viewpoints are missing from the obituary in your opinion?