3 ms·
Historically if one news organization wouldn't cover a story, its competitors might, or you could talk about it yourself. Now the most vocal "journalists" seem
by db48x 6y ago
Historically if one news organization wouldn't cover a story, its competitors might, or you could talk about it yourself. Now the most vocal "journalists" seem to be uniformly in favor of preventing anyone with a dissenting opinion from speaking. That's quite a shift.
- yeuxardents 6y agoMy point is that its not as new as people think it is at all. The internet, however, has reached a point where being able to point it out en masse, has obviated journalists need to do it slyly under the table. If the game is called out and you still hold the cards, why not just be frank about it, like they are doing now.
- throwawaysea 6y agoThe left and the right used to both agree on free speech as a fundamental inalienable principle, even as late as the early 2010s. That has only changed in recent times and I do think the game has changed in journalism as well, as a result of that trend. See http://campaignforfreespeech.org/free-speech-under-dire-threat-polling-finds/ http://campaignforfreespeech.org/free-speech-under-dire-thre...
- yeuxardents 6y agoHas it accelerated in the last ten years? sure. Point still stands it was pretty common the past fifty years at least, just occurred in backrooms and editorial boards. Plenty of examples of this. NYT might as well have had the snowden leak information as far back as 2004 I believe it was, but they withheld it.