4 ms·

> "the media" is a bunch of opinion bloggers fabricating sources to drive "an agenda". In reality, the effort for producing a deep investigative story can be e

> "the media" is a bunch of opinion bloggers fabricating sources to drive "an agenda". In reality, the effort for producing a deep investigative story can be equivalent to an a mid-size software engineering project in terms of person hours and expertise. Three senior reporters working on a Pulitzer-level story can take years, numerous support staff, and legal fees. You are suggesting these are mutually exclusive.

nr2x 6y ago
Per my final point, I'm suggesting adtech has given us more of the former to the detriment of the latter.
- kbutler 6y ago
  I don't think there is any evidence to suggest deep, unbiased, evidence-based journalism ever dominated the field, or that the "crass commercial" interests didn't drive the news rooms. See the "yellow journalism" of Joseph Pulitzer's era, for example. Further, "expensive, pulitzer level" work may also be agenda-driven. Walter Duranty's bias and agenda, for example, aren't really in doubt anymore.
  - farias0 6y ago
    I thought it was widely understood that bias-less journalism is impossible in practice, and that this doesn't diminish its value.
    - mdiesel 6y ago
      Maybe, but just because it's impossible doesn't mean there shouldn't be an effort to try or that we shouldn't appreciate better journalism. Biased isn't a boolean, it's a scale. Something that is a little bit biased is more useful for trying to understand all the issues at hand. Something that's very biased is still useful, but only for telling you what the author (and their readership) thinks.
    - notsureaboutpg 6y ago
      Sure, then why are people upset when others rightfully point out that so much of "the media" has a specific bias and that that's affecting us in negative ways as a society?
  - ardy42 6y ago
    > I don't think there is any evidence to suggest deep, unbiased, evidence-based journalism ever dominated the field, or that the "crass commercial" interests didn't drive the news rooms. > See the "yellow journalism" of Joseph Pulitzer's era, for example. > Further, "expensive, pulitzer level" work may also be agenda-driven. Walter Duranty's bias and agenda, for example, aren't really in doubt anymore. Those examples are stale. It's like saying there's no evidence that English language literature was ever common in any library, and citing the contents of some British library circa 1100AD as proof. Pulitzer's yellow journalism phase spanned from the late 1800s to about 1900. In the last decade of his life, he rejected it an apparently turned his paper into a respectable publication [1]. Duranty's reporting occurred in the early 1930s, and has since been scathingly criticized and rejected by the paper he published it in [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism#After_the_war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism#After_the_wa... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Duranty#Calls_for_revocation_of_Pulitzer_Prize,_1990%E2%80%932003 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Duranty#Calls_for_revoc...
    - kbutler 6y ago
      I chose historic examples specifically because they are now universally recognized as biased, and to show that problems of sensationalism and bias in journalism are not new. More recent examples of bias tend to be still politically controversial, like the years of coverage of Trump-Russian collusion in the 2016 election, which resulted in 2 Pulitzers: For deeply sourced, relentlessly reported coverage in the public interest that dramatically furthered the nation’s understanding of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and its connections to the Trump campaign, the President-elect’s transition team and his eventual administration. But the Mueller investigation, which had to stick to what could be proven, in spite of any personal agenda, concluded: Ultimately, the investigation did not establish that the Campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities. You could also look at 2020 Pulitzers for Nikole Hannah-Jones' "factually challenged" but agenda-compliant 1619 project (https://reason.com/2020/09/21/1619-project-author-nikole-hannah-jones-america-founding-1776/ https://reason.com/2020/09/21/1619-project-author-nikole-han...) or Greg Grandin's prize (https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/05/spirit_of_walter_duranty_pulitzer_goes_to_bigtime_hugo_chavez_apologist.html https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/05/spirit_of_walte...), to an author whose praise of Hugo Chavez echoes Duranty nicely. Bias is basically universal, but claiming neutrality while exercising obvious bias destroys credibility.

nr2x 6y ago

Per my final point, I'm suggesting adtech has given us more of the former to the detriment of the latter.

kbutler 6y ago
I don't think there is any evidence to suggest deep, unbiased, evidence-based journalism ever dominated the field, or that the "crass commercial" interests didn't drive the news rooms. See the "yellow journalism" of Joseph Pulitzer's era, for example. Further, "expensive, pulitzer level" work may also be agenda-driven. Walter Duranty's bias and agenda, for example, aren't really in doubt anymore.
- farias0 6y ago
  I thought it was widely understood that bias-less journalism is impossible in practice, and that this doesn't diminish its value.
  - mdiesel 6y ago
    Maybe, but just because it's impossible doesn't mean there shouldn't be an effort to try or that we shouldn't appreciate better journalism. Biased isn't a boolean, it's a scale. Something that is a little bit biased is more useful for trying to understand all the issues at hand. Something that's very biased is still useful, but only for telling you what the author (and their readership) thinks.
  - notsureaboutpg 6y ago
    Sure, then why are people upset when others rightfully point out that so much of "the media" has a specific bias and that that's affecting us in negative ways as a society?
- ardy42 6y ago
  > I don't think there is any evidence to suggest deep, unbiased, evidence-based journalism ever dominated the field, or that the "crass commercial" interests didn't drive the news rooms. > See the "yellow journalism" of Joseph Pulitzer's era, for example. > Further, "expensive, pulitzer level" work may also be agenda-driven. Walter Duranty's bias and agenda, for example, aren't really in doubt anymore. Those examples are stale. It's like saying there's no evidence that English language literature was ever common in any library, and citing the contents of some British library circa 1100AD as proof. Pulitzer's yellow journalism phase spanned from the late 1800s to about 1900. In the last decade of his life, he rejected it an apparently turned his paper into a respectable publication [1]. Duranty's reporting occurred in the early 1930s, and has since been scathingly criticized and rejected by the paper he published it in [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism#After_the_war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism#After_the_wa... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Duranty#Calls_for_revocation_of_Pulitzer_Prize,_1990%E2%80%932003 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Duranty#Calls_for_revoc...
  - kbutler 6y ago
    I chose historic examples specifically because they are now universally recognized as biased, and to show that problems of sensationalism and bias in journalism are not new. More recent examples of bias tend to be still politically controversial, like the years of coverage of Trump-Russian collusion in the 2016 election, which resulted in 2 Pulitzers: For deeply sourced, relentlessly reported coverage in the public interest that dramatically furthered the nation’s understanding of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and its connections to the Trump campaign, the President-elect’s transition team and his eventual administration. But the Mueller investigation, which had to stick to what could be proven, in spite of any personal agenda, concluded: Ultimately, the investigation did not establish that the Campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities. You could also look at 2020 Pulitzers for Nikole Hannah-Jones' "factually challenged" but agenda-compliant 1619 project (https://reason.com/2020/09/21/1619-project-author-nikole-hannah-jones-america-founding-1776/ https://reason.com/2020/09/21/1619-project-author-nikole-han...) or Greg Grandin's prize (https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/05/spirit_of_walter_duranty_pulitzer_goes_to_bigtime_hugo_chavez_apologist.html https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/05/spirit_of_walte...), to an author whose praise of Hugo Chavez echoes Duranty nicely. Bias is basically universal, but claiming neutrality while exercising obvious bias destroys credibility.