5 ms·
If you take the present journalism climate as the norm, these rules are radical. Can you imagine CNN reporting on Trump voters and following rule #6? Or reporti
by macspoofing 7y ago
If you take the present journalism climate as the norm, these rules are radical. Can you imagine CNN reporting on Trump voters and following rule #6? Or reporting on Trump and following rule #5, #11?
- pjc50 7y ago#5 and #7 are a problem - they can be exploited by bad actors. That's how you get the "views on shape of Earth differ" reports.
- proximitysauce 7y agoIt's the job of journalists to vet the stories. No journalist ever has or ever will suggest that the earth is flat. That's a strawman.
- nickloewen 7y agoThe concern as I understand it is not that a journalist would just straight-up defend a conspiracy theory. Rather, the concern is that if you give any airtime to conspiracy theorists, even in the form of a debate, some viewers/readers will conclude that there must be some nugget of legitimacy in the conspiracy (why else would it be on the news?). Indeed, conspiracy theorists have relied on this to gain support, especially before they had the internet, when strategically baiting the media was the only way to get their bullshit noticed.
- proximitysauce 7y agoA far greater concern than conspiracy theorists getting taken seriously are actual conspiracies perpetrated by mainstream media outlets. I gave two examples elsewhere in the thread: Weinstein and Epstein. Those aren't "conspiracy theories", they're know and active conspiracies. There were a multitude of opportunity to report on them but the stories were actively stifled for personal and political gain.
- pjc50 7y agoThat was deliberately a less controversial one than climate change, and newspapers publish denialist claims of basically the same level of substance as flat Earth ones all the time (e.g. James Delingpole)
- macspoofing 7y agoAll the rules are a problem for modern journalism ... that's why they are radical. You can 'yea but' anything. For example, for rule #2: "Do not distort, lie, slant, or hype." ... yeah, but what if the subject is evil. (Also, I have yet to see one mainstream news report on Flat Earth, much less a favourable one ... is that actually a problem you're worried about?)
- rayiner 7y agoBut ignoring it is how you get journalists parroting lines like “the middle class has been stagnant for decades” without reporting on all the contrary views.
- blfr 7y agoVast majority of journalists don't make it past #2. The problems you mention are stretch goals, it would be nice to have them.
- nickloewen 7y agoIt seems to me that #5 (two sides) needs more nuance. It is often the case, as you point out, that one side is just wrong. But even then it is worth considering why they are wrong, and whether that analysis should be included in the story. I agree that we shouldn’t be re-litigating basic historical or scientific facts, but I have learned a lot about other people (how they think, what motivates them, how to communicate with them) from this kind of analytical reporting. And I suspect some preemptive debunking has helped me to avoid some bad takes of my own.
- defterGoose 7y agoMaybe in the universe where CNN is capable of doing these things, Trump wouldn't have become President.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- pbourke 7y agoYes, do mention CNN without the context of Fox News and AM radio. Due to social media, we know more of the unfiltered thoughts of Trump and his supporters that any other president and political movement ever. My opinion of both has been formed by direct exposure to their utterances.