15 ms·

One line from the report jumped out at me as I was skimming it: > About half the journalists here are freelancers, who may lack the institutional support of a

One line from the report jumped out at me as I was skimming it: > About half the journalists here are freelancers, who may lack the institutional support of a newsroom and the financial resources for a potentially expensive legal defense. I hadn't really thought of the value of legal defense from journalism institutions (as opposed to non-institutional platforms like Substack) before.

i_haz_rabies 6y ago
We will look back on the ruination of journalism as a profession as one of the most consequential changes of these last two decades.
- Loughla 6y ago
  I mean, it's a double-edged sword. On one side, the death of traditional journalism really has opened up folks' eyes to bias in reporting. Having one or two main-stream news sources really opens up the possibility for bias becoming truth. On the other side, now that everyone is a reporter, people roll around inside whichever cocoon of bias makes them feel the best. It's very frustrating, and overwhelming.
  - hilbertseries 6y ago
    > On one side, the death of traditional journalism really has opened up folks' eyes to bias in reporting. Having one or two main-stream news sources really opens up the possibility for bias becoming truth. This is not what I see happening. Instead what happens is people see news they disagree with and deem it biased. So they find a news outlet that they agree with and decide that’s the real news.
    - dgritsko 6y ago
      So here's the dilemma I'm faced with. As someone who wishes to consume news that is as factual as reasonably possible, while also being aware that at least some bias is inevitable (no matter how well-intentioned the author may be)... how does one evaluate a news source for its trustworthiness, short of physically observing an event for yourself?
      - oblio 6y ago
        Well, there are some standard ways, just like when you do research: 1. Check out a bunch of their articles on various topics, the more controversial the better. That way you can kind of gauge which way they lean. 2. Find some other source, preferably several, check out their biases they same way. 3. Then compare some articles about the same thing, from all these sources. Look for stuff like references, sources, lack of weasel words or outrage inducing phrasing, aggrandizing vocabulary, etc. The more boring an article sounds, the more likely it is that the reporting is solid. Yes, it's a lot of work, but you don't have to do it for every article, you do it maybe once every few years, to re-evaluate the options.
      - elmomle 6y ago
        I think this philosophical discussion is important, but just want to take a moment to point out that it often buries a pretty obvious lede and gives an out for aggressive bias. For example, last night every major news site had a headline about Biden's electoral college victory, or about Biden's speech, or about the virus. Fox News's huge banner headline was that Joe Biden had "a bit of a cold". This to me indicates an extreme bias. This is not to say other MSM sources aren't rife with bias--for example, all are staunchly pro-corporate, as they are owned by corporations. But bias does come in degrees; we must continually try to be aware of biases in our media, but we shouldn't treat all MSM as "equally biased and equally bad".
      - loudmax 6y ago
        I don't know how to answer your dilemma that all of us face. But to add some nuance... it's pretty rare for a news organization of whatever political persuasion to report outright falsehoods. An individual reporter may stretch the truth more than we're comfortable with, but as a whole, the big news outlets are more likely to make mistakes than commit outright lies that they know are false. Most of the bias is in deciding what stories to cover and what stories to ignore. They can't simply cover everything that happens. An organization needs to decide what stories are worthy of publishing, and how to frame these stories ("All the news that's fit to print"). And then which politicians do they want to ask questions of, and what types of questions, and that's even before deciding what experts, or "experts" or pundits or downright paid shills to comment on these stories. This is where the bias is.
    - vmception 6y ago
      All you had to do was read their entire post
    - secondcoming 6y ago
      What I see happening is people experiencing news being delivered in a way that uses obviously biased language and phrasing and, not impressed with being taken for an idiot, they go elsewhere. There they will probably find the same sort of bias and then conclude that MSM is generally useless.
    - macintux 6y ago
      > So they find a news outlet that they agree with and decide that’s the real news. Watching the phrase "fake news" become coopted to mean "news unfavorable about Trump" instead of literally "false information" was one of the more depressing aspects of the 2016 election.
    - travisoneill1 6y ago
      I don't think it's that. People have always seen things they disagreed with in the news. The bias now is undeniably real. For example, the NYT has lost its credibility with me by firing its editor for running an opinion that I disagree with.
  - ska 6y ago
    I don't think this "balance" framing really works. Absolutely, traditional journalism had some problems with bias, and they were tough to improve. I can't think of a single thing in journalism (NB, journalism, not information access) that hasn't become notably worse due to the collapse.
    - smithza 6y ago
      Sometimes it helps knowing a source is biased. Reading National Review, for example, allows you to assume the opinions held are relatively conservative. Reading the Bulwark, you know there is a progressive bent. Proceed with your own thoughtfulness therefore in comparing the two. We as consumers/readers never read an article without bias either.
      - ska 6y ago
        Sure, but that hasn't changed in recent years.
        esyir 6y ago
        What seems to have changed, to me at least, is that journalists have shed whatever veil of balance and impartiality they used to wear and have gone full fledged activist, even on the job. As such, their image is no longer of the semi-neutral third party, but just the foot soldier of the enemy's side of the culture war. Once you're there, there's no room for balance, or "tempering bias"; concession to the "enemy" is now disloyalty to your side.
- 0xbadcafebee 6y ago
  It's the most consequential change in the past 244 years, as a free press is the cornerstone of democracy. The death of journalism is the opening of the door to autocracy.
- busterarm 6y ago
  Yellow journalism has always been a thing and has been problematic lots of times in our history. This is really just the prolonged conclusion of 24 hour news cycles that have been with us since cable television. What's the quote about newspapers bringing all of the horrors of the world to your doorstep? Television brought them into your living room. Now with online media you carry them around with you.
  - daveslash 6y ago
    Now with online media you carry it into the bathroom. (Low quality comment, I know. I'll see myself out.)
    - LordDragonfang 6y ago
      Actually, that's a really good continuation of the analogy. Doorstep > living room > bathroom is a pretty succinct continuum of personal privacy or intimacy in your your living area.
      - busterarm 6y ago
        Chilling, honestly. The way news is presented and consumed now means it's all horrors that we can't escape from. It's all intensely personal and polarizing.
- lawnchair_larry 6y ago
  We almost certainly won’t. If anything is ruining journalism, it’s themselves, not this.
- bigbubba 6y ago
  If you've ever taken a course on American history, you'll recall that in the late 19th century some American newspapers started a bullshit war with Spain. The journalism industry has never been clean. Even Benjamin Franklin was using newspapers as a vehicle for overt propaganda. He created the first foreign language newspaper in America to propagandize to Germans in Pennsylvania. Journalism and propaganda have always been close siblings.
imglorp 6y ago
There are organizations filling this gap. I can think of several that probably need a donation this year: https://aclu.org https://freedom.press https://eff.org
nickff 6y ago
How many 'journals' actually resort to legal action (or even threats thereof) against law enforcement organizations? I would guess the press usually use negative coverage as a sort of retaliation when they feel wronged. I have nothing against either lawsuits or journalistic retaliation, but I think the latter may be ineffective in this polarized environment, when websites and papers have taken hard stances.
riazrizvi 6y ago
Isn't it common knowledge that Gawker was a media company that irreverently covered silicon valley until it was bankrupted through litigation? The law courts are the main way that journalism is attacked in non-autocratic countries. Strong freedom of the press laws are celebrated, because they are constantly under siege by powerful people, who once targeted, would rather not have them.
- nickff 6y ago
  Gawker is a bad example... Nick Denton was known for being happy to gossip and libel; he always said his victims loved the attention, and that if they hated it so much, they could always sue him. Eventually, some did.
  - bigbubba 6y ago
    The very name of the publication says everything I ever needed to know about them. Gawk: to stare or gape stupidly. Their articles invariably lived up to the name. This was not an organization anybody should have been taking seriously.
- oh_sigh 6y ago
  Gawker was bankrupted because they really wanted to display Hulk Hogan's penis, filmed on a hidden camera in a private room, on their website. edit: removed reference to violating a court order, even though they did before having it overturned.
  - ceejayoz 6y ago
    That's entirely incorrect. Gawker objected to that court order, and won (https://www.leagle.com/decision/inflco20140117151 https://www.leagle.com/decision/inflco20140117151). > The circuit court's order granting Mr. Bollea's motion for temporary injunction is reversed because it acts as an unconstitutional prior restraint under the First Amendment. There's clear Supreme Court precedent from cases like New York Times Co. v. United States (the Pentagon Papers case) that prior restraint is unconstitutional. They lost the overall case on other grounds.
giantg2 6y ago
I was also thinking it could be a contributing factor on the causal side too. I hate how this works, but it happens in many other parts of life too - if you look official, like wearing a uniform or having professional equipment, then you are treated better or given the benefit of the doubt.
nsandell123 6y ago
What do you mean by "non-institutional platforms"
secfirstmd 6y ago
It goes further than that. Risk transfer is increasingly happening. For example take security. Freelancers don't have proper backup the way a big org does but are becoming more and more at risk.

i_haz_rabies 6y ago

We will look back on the ruination of journalism as a profession as one of the most consequential changes of these last two decades.

Loughla 6y ago
I mean, it's a double-edged sword. On one side, the death of traditional journalism really has opened up folks' eyes to bias in reporting. Having one or two main-stream news sources really opens up the possibility for bias becoming truth. On the other side, now that everyone is a reporter, people roll around inside whichever cocoon of bias makes them feel the best. It's very frustrating, and overwhelming.
- hilbertseries 6y ago
  > On one side, the death of traditional journalism really has opened up folks' eyes to bias in reporting. Having one or two main-stream news sources really opens up the possibility for bias becoming truth. This is not what I see happening. Instead what happens is people see news they disagree with and deem it biased. So they find a news outlet that they agree with and decide that’s the real news.
  - dgritsko 6y ago
    So here's the dilemma I'm faced with. As someone who wishes to consume news that is as factual as reasonably possible, while also being aware that at least some bias is inevitable (no matter how well-intentioned the author may be)... how does one evaluate a news source for its trustworthiness, short of physically observing an event for yourself?
    - oblio 6y ago
      Well, there are some standard ways, just like when you do research: 1. Check out a bunch of their articles on various topics, the more controversial the better. That way you can kind of gauge which way they lean. 2. Find some other source, preferably several, check out their biases they same way. 3. Then compare some articles about the same thing, from all these sources. Look for stuff like references, sources, lack of weasel words or outrage inducing phrasing, aggrandizing vocabulary, etc. The more boring an article sounds, the more likely it is that the reporting is solid. Yes, it's a lot of work, but you don't have to do it for every article, you do it maybe once every few years, to re-evaluate the options.
    - elmomle 6y ago
      I think this philosophical discussion is important, but just want to take a moment to point out that it often buries a pretty obvious lede and gives an out for aggressive bias. For example, last night every major news site had a headline about Biden's electoral college victory, or about Biden's speech, or about the virus. Fox News's huge banner headline was that Joe Biden had "a bit of a cold". This to me indicates an extreme bias. This is not to say other MSM sources aren't rife with bias--for example, all are staunchly pro-corporate, as they are owned by corporations. But bias does come in degrees; we must continually try to be aware of biases in our media, but we shouldn't treat all MSM as "equally biased and equally bad".
    - loudmax 6y ago
      I don't know how to answer your dilemma that all of us face. But to add some nuance... it's pretty rare for a news organization of whatever political persuasion to report outright falsehoods. An individual reporter may stretch the truth more than we're comfortable with, but as a whole, the big news outlets are more likely to make mistakes than commit outright lies that they know are false. Most of the bias is in deciding what stories to cover and what stories to ignore. They can't simply cover everything that happens. An organization needs to decide what stories are worthy of publishing, and how to frame these stories ("All the news that's fit to print"). And then which politicians do they want to ask questions of, and what types of questions, and that's even before deciding what experts, or "experts" or pundits or downright paid shills to comment on these stories. This is where the bias is.
  - vmception 6y ago
    All you had to do was read their entire post
  - secondcoming 6y ago
    What I see happening is people experiencing news being delivered in a way that uses obviously biased language and phrasing and, not impressed with being taken for an idiot, they go elsewhere. There they will probably find the same sort of bias and then conclude that MSM is generally useless.
  - macintux 6y ago
    > So they find a news outlet that they agree with and decide that’s the real news. Watching the phrase "fake news" become coopted to mean "news unfavorable about Trump" instead of literally "false information" was one of the more depressing aspects of the 2016 election.
  - travisoneill1 6y ago
    I don't think it's that. People have always seen things they disagreed with in the news. The bias now is undeniably real. For example, the NYT has lost its credibility with me by firing its editor for running an opinion that I disagree with.
- ska 6y ago
  I don't think this "balance" framing really works. Absolutely, traditional journalism had some problems with bias, and they were tough to improve. I can't think of a single thing in journalism (NB, journalism, not information access) that hasn't become notably worse due to the collapse.
  - smithza 6y ago
    Sometimes it helps knowing a source is biased. Reading National Review, for example, allows you to assume the opinions held are relatively conservative. Reading the Bulwark, you know there is a progressive bent. Proceed with your own thoughtfulness therefore in comparing the two. We as consumers/readers never read an article without bias either.
    - ska 6y ago
      Sure, but that hasn't changed in recent years.
      - esyir 6y ago
        What seems to have changed, to me at least, is that journalists have shed whatever veil of balance and impartiality they used to wear and have gone full fledged activist, even on the job. As such, their image is no longer of the semi-neutral third party, but just the foot soldier of the enemy's side of the culture war. Once you're there, there's no room for balance, or "tempering bias"; concession to the "enemy" is now disloyalty to your side.
0xbadcafebee 6y ago
It's the most consequential change in the past 244 years, as a free press is the cornerstone of democracy. The death of journalism is the opening of the door to autocracy.
busterarm 6y ago
Yellow journalism has always been a thing and has been problematic lots of times in our history. This is really just the prolonged conclusion of 24 hour news cycles that have been with us since cable television. What's the quote about newspapers bringing all of the horrors of the world to your doorstep? Television brought them into your living room. Now with online media you carry them around with you.
- daveslash 6y ago
  Now with online media you carry it into the bathroom. (Low quality comment, I know. I'll see myself out.)
  - LordDragonfang 6y ago
    Actually, that's a really good continuation of the analogy. Doorstep > living room > bathroom is a pretty succinct continuum of personal privacy or intimacy in your your living area.
    - busterarm 6y ago
      Chilling, honestly. The way news is presented and consumed now means it's all horrors that we can't escape from. It's all intensely personal and polarizing.
lawnchair_larry 6y ago
We almost certainly won’t. If anything is ruining journalism, it’s themselves, not this.
bigbubba 6y ago
If you've ever taken a course on American history, you'll recall that in the late 19th century some American newspapers started a bullshit war with Spain. The journalism industry has never been clean. Even Benjamin Franklin was using newspapers as a vehicle for overt propaganda. He created the first foreign language newspaper in America to propagandize to Germans in Pennsylvania. Journalism and propaganda have always been close siblings.

imglorp 6y ago

There are organizations filling this gap. I can think of several that probably need a donation this year: https://aclu.org https://freedom.press https://eff.org

nickff 6y ago

How many 'journals' actually resort to legal action (or even threats thereof) against law enforcement organizations? I would guess the press usually use negative coverage as a sort of retaliation when they feel wronged. I have nothing against either lawsuits or journalistic retaliation, but I think the latter may be ineffective in this polarized environment, when websites and papers have taken hard stances.

riazrizvi 6y ago

Isn't it common knowledge that Gawker was a media company that irreverently covered silicon valley until it was bankrupted through litigation? The law courts are the main way that journalism is attacked in non-autocratic countries. Strong freedom of the press laws are celebrated, because they are constantly under siege by powerful people, who once targeted, would rather not have them.

nickff 6y ago
Gawker is a bad example... Nick Denton was known for being happy to gossip and libel; he always said his victims loved the attention, and that if they hated it so much, they could always sue him. Eventually, some did.
- bigbubba 6y ago
  The very name of the publication says everything I ever needed to know about them. Gawk: to stare or gape stupidly. Their articles invariably lived up to the name. This was not an organization anybody should have been taking seriously.
oh_sigh 6y ago
Gawker was bankrupted because they really wanted to display Hulk Hogan's penis, filmed on a hidden camera in a private room, on their website. edit: removed reference to violating a court order, even though they did before having it overturned.
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  That's entirely incorrect. Gawker objected to that court order, and won (https://www.leagle.com/decision/inflco20140117151 https://www.leagle.com/decision/inflco20140117151). > The circuit court's order granting Mr. Bollea's motion for temporary injunction is reversed because it acts as an unconstitutional prior restraint under the First Amendment. There's clear Supreme Court precedent from cases like New York Times Co. v. United States (the Pentagon Papers case) that prior restraint is unconstitutional. They lost the overall case on other grounds.

giantg2 6y ago

I was also thinking it could be a contributing factor on the causal side too. I hate how this works, but it happens in many other parts of life too - if you look official, like wearing a uniform or having professional equipment, then you are treated better or given the benefit of the doubt.

nsandell123 6y ago

What do you mean by "non-institutional platforms"

secfirstmd 6y ago

It goes further than that. Risk transfer is increasingly happening. For example take security. Freelancers don't have proper backup the way a big org does but are becoming more and more at risk.