3 ms·

> 58% think that "most news organizations are more concerned with supporting an ideology or political position than with informing the public." I am confused w

by tqi 6y ago

> 58% think that "most news organizations are more concerned with supporting an ideology or political position than with informing the public." I am confused why this is considered a misconception? A cursory search of twitter users turns up scores of blue check bios that list themselves as both "Journalist" and "Activist[1]. Numerous articles from mainstream sources ([1], [2], [3]) talking about how the line has blurred and why that is ok or even necessary. Are people wrong for thinking that covering stories from a particular lens constitutes being "more concerned with supporting an ideology or political position"? [1] https://twitter.com/search?q=journalist%20activist&src=typed_query&f=user https://twitter.com/search?q=journalist%20activist&src=typed... [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/media/whats-a-journalist-supposed-to-be-now--an-activist-a-stenographer-youre-asking-the-wrong-question/2020/06/06/60fdfb86-a73b-11ea-b619-3f9133bbb482_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/media/whats-a-journ... [3] https://niemanreports.org/articles/where-does-journalism-end-and-activism-begin/ https://niemanreports.org/articles/where-does-journalism-end... [4] https://www.pulitzer.org/article/journalist-activist https://www.pulitzer.org/article/journalist-activist

sthnblllII 6y ago
Most ideologues see promoting their ideology as "informing the public". I think this 58% figure is just measuring the public's disagreement with the ideology of the US news media industry.
Number157 6y ago
> I am confused why this is considered a misconception? I wonder if they really do. Quite a few seem to be well aware of what they are doing. Obviously they will never say what they are doing since it would hurt their credibility.
antientropic 6y ago
The article does not describe it as a misconception.
- tqi 6y ago
  Hm maybe not explicitly, but paired with the question about "purposely trying to mislead people", I interpreted both were being held up as misconceptions. I suppose I could be wrong, but that would be a little weird since the suggested solution was that CEOs should embrace news media, and not "news media should stop misleading"?
gadrev 6y ago
I find 58% to be surprisingly low, still a long road ahead.
MikeUt 6y ago
> Are people wrong for thinking that covering stories from a particular lens And choosing which stories to cover in the first place.
ralusek 6y ago
The problem is that there is no mainstream institution even attempting to be journalistic anymore. There will obviously always be selection bias in the sense that nobody can report on everything, but there is a version of the media which can exist, and has existed, which is far less concerned with its own objectives than what we have today. What we have today is a nation-destroying level of a lack of cohesive vision. Having a conversation with someone typically begins with the realization that we're operating with a completely different set of facts, in addition to employing entirely incompatible frameworks with which to digest them. The only way to have any idea of what's going on is to consume opposing news sources, which then leads to further digging to sort out where the truth lies in seemingly incompatible claims. The process is exhausting, and most people don't have time for it. What's worse is that a non-trivial amount of institutional power is so concerned with preserving their anointed vision of our future, that they are actively trying to remove access to any access of information which destabilizes their monopoly on truth. The amount of vitriol directed at podcasts in the last few years by mainstream institutions is more than a little concerning. https://youtu.be/cu8FHZiAmzM?t=150 https://youtu.be/cu8FHZiAmzM?t=150 Witness the discussion on CNN issuing concern that Facebook and YouTube are hosting conservative news. He then goes on to suggests that ISPs and Cable providers are responsible for not allowing this media on their networks. Not only are we dealing with a complete siloing of truth through narrative, which is sufficient problem on its own, but there is a significant part of journalist activism which is concerned with making sure that no other set of facts be accessible.
godshatter 6y ago
I see it as a trust issue. Do I trust a journalist/activist to give me all the facts about an issue, or just those that support their cause? Do I trust them to give a reasonable inference about the facts they report, or do I expect them to exaggerate? That's a concern irrespective of what cause they support or where they fall politically. Perhaps they are needed more now, I don't know. But if we're looking to increase trust in journalism specifically, we'd be better off just leaving politics out of it as much as possible. In my opinion, of course.

by tqi 6y ago

sthnblllII 6y ago

Most ideologues see promoting their ideology as "informing the public". I think this 58% figure is just measuring the public's disagreement with the ideology of the US news media industry.

Number157 6y ago

> I am confused why this is considered a misconception? I wonder if they really do. Quite a few seem to be well aware of what they are doing. Obviously they will never say what they are doing since it would hurt their credibility.

antientropic 6y ago

The article does not describe it as a misconception.

tqi 6y ago
Hm maybe not explicitly, but paired with the question about "purposely trying to mislead people", I interpreted both were being held up as misconceptions. I suppose I could be wrong, but that would be a little weird since the suggested solution was that CEOs should embrace news media, and not "news media should stop misleading"?

gadrev 6y ago

I find 58% to be surprisingly low, still a long road ahead.

MikeUt 6y ago

> Are people wrong for thinking that covering stories from a particular lens And choosing which stories to cover in the first place.

ralusek 6y ago

The problem is that there is no mainstream institution even attempting to be journalistic anymore. There will obviously always be selection bias in the sense that nobody can report on everything, but there is a version of the media which can exist, and has existed, which is far less concerned with its own objectives than what we have today. What we have today is a nation-destroying level of a lack of cohesive vision. Having a conversation with someone typically begins with the realization that we're operating with a completely different set of facts, in addition to employing entirely incompatible frameworks with which to digest them. The only way to have any idea of what's going on is to consume opposing news sources, which then leads to further digging to sort out where the truth lies in seemingly incompatible claims. The process is exhausting, and most people don't have time for it. What's worse is that a non-trivial amount of institutional power is so concerned with preserving their anointed vision of our future, that they are actively trying to remove access to any access of information which destabilizes their monopoly on truth. The amount of vitriol directed at podcasts in the last few years by mainstream institutions is more than a little concerning. https://youtu.be/cu8FHZiAmzM?t=150 https://youtu.be/cu8FHZiAmzM?t=150 Witness the discussion on CNN issuing concern that Facebook and YouTube are hosting conservative news. He then goes on to suggests that ISPs and Cable providers are responsible for not allowing this media on their networks. Not only are we dealing with a complete siloing of truth through narrative, which is sufficient problem on its own, but there is a significant part of journalist activism which is concerned with making sure that no other set of facts be accessible.

godshatter 6y ago

I see it as a trust issue. Do I trust a journalist/activist to give me all the facts about an issue, or just those that support their cause? Do I trust them to give a reasonable inference about the facts they report, or do I expect them to exaggerate? That's a concern irrespective of what cause they support or where they fall politically. Perhaps they are needed more now, I don't know. But if we're looking to increase trust in journalism specifically, we'd be better off just leaving politics out of it as much as possible. In my opinion, of course.