15 ms·

For most news organizations in our new world order it's not an error if it's intentional bias. Those are called lies. Lies have a purpose. We need to ask, "Why

For most news organizations in our new world order it's not an error if it's intentional bias. Those are called lies. Lies have a purpose. We need to ask, "Why lie?". And then use the answer to fix the news.

chmod775 6y ago
I don't think it's quite as nefarious as that. Like most humans journalists have opinions, and they are more likely to listen to things that confirm their opinions. Most people are not likely to ask "Is this really true?" of things that align with what they believe is probably true. Professional journalists are supposed to know about these kinds of biases - because if they do not they are professional only in name. Further, if someone was repeatedly making these kinds of mistakes in their job, you'd be right to call them incompetent, because they literally are. For some reason it appears to be taboo to say these journalists are bad at their job. However that isn't very helpful because it doesn't encourage them to change their behavior. Even the article here appears to dance around the bush. So here it is: The NYT and The New Yorker are unprofessional, incompetent, and their reputation is in no way justified. They should be ashamed, apologize, and vow to do better. Where they stand in relation to other outlets doesn't even factor into it. And the above goes for any group of journalists who played their part in the inversion of the profession's reputation in recent years. Anyways, that's my take on the matter. I don't think the vast majority of journalists who make these kinds of errors are intentionally lying - they are just bad at their job.
- jkhdigital 6y ago
  Don’t be too hard on them. The Internet destroyed most reporting, because now all the primary source material is available to anyone. I say “most” because there is still plenty of space for deep investigative work.
  - 6gvONxR4sf7o 6y ago
    Somehow that same effect has made it in many ways harder to find the primary material. A million secondary sources (and search engines that recognize that most people just want secondary sources) means that instead of unavailable, now it’s a needle in a haystack problem. I think a deeper problem the internet created was that you’re just as likely to read the New York Times as your local paper now, hurting your local paper. Or if not NYT, then something else brought to you by the non—local Twitter/fb/Reddit/apple news/HN/etc aggregators. That and the whole expectation of freeness that they have to compete with.

chmod775 6y ago

I don't think it's quite as nefarious as that. Like most humans journalists have opinions, and they are more likely to listen to things that confirm their opinions. Most people are not likely to ask "Is this really true?" of things that align with what they believe is probably true. Professional journalists are supposed to know about these kinds of biases - because if they do not they are professional only in name. Further, if someone was repeatedly making these kinds of mistakes in their job, you'd be right to call them incompetent, because they literally are. For some reason it appears to be taboo to say these journalists are bad at their job. However that isn't very helpful because it doesn't encourage them to change their behavior. Even the article here appears to dance around the bush. So here it is: The NYT and The New Yorker are unprofessional, incompetent, and their reputation is in no way justified. They should be ashamed, apologize, and vow to do better. Where they stand in relation to other outlets doesn't even factor into it. And the above goes for any group of journalists who played their part in the inversion of the profession's reputation in recent years. Anyways, that's my take on the matter. I don't think the vast majority of journalists who make these kinds of errors are intentionally lying - they are just bad at their job.

jkhdigital 6y ago
Don’t be too hard on them. The Internet destroyed most reporting, because now all the primary source material is available to anyone. I say “most” because there is still plenty of space for deep investigative work.
- 6gvONxR4sf7o 6y ago
  Somehow that same effect has made it in many ways harder to find the primary material. A million secondary sources (and search engines that recognize that most people just want secondary sources) means that instead of unavailable, now it’s a needle in a haystack problem. I think a deeper problem the internet created was that you’re just as likely to read the New York Times as your local paper now, hurting your local paper. Or if not NYT, then something else brought to you by the non—local Twitter/fb/Reddit/apple news/HN/etc aggregators. That and the whole expectation of freeness that they have to compete with.