3 ms·
I can kind of see the difference possibly being that Politics is slow moving. Journalists will call out bad behavior and other journalists will call out bad jou
by alkonaut 6y ago
I can kind of see the difference possibly being that Politics is slow moving. Journalists will call out bad behavior and other journalists will call out bad journalism.
With some events - such as the pandemic, or the aftermath of the US election, information doesn’t have time to pass through the normal cycle. The damage is already done if a lie gets viral the wrong way. It’s better to suppress one truth and one lie (overreact) then.
The key differentiator isn’t “how bad is this” but “how damaging is it if this information reaches X million people in 48 hours?”.
- luckylion 6y agoFollowing that line of thought, the best option for journalists is to only tell the truth if it coincides with "what's best to tell the public" and lie otherwise. I believe that centrally planning "public opinion" is similar to centrally planning the economy. It's alluring because it'd solve so many problems, it takes a gigantic ego to think one was able to, and it usually doesn't end well.
- alkonaut 6y ago> Following that line of thought, the best option for journalists is to only tell the truth if it coincides with "what's best to tell the public" and lie otherwise. Journalists wouldn’t remain credible (and thus relevant) that way. This isn’t about states centrally planning opinion. This is about everyone’s duty to not do harm by relaying bad information. That includes journalists who should properly vet information - but not resort so self-censorship, as well as social media that shouldn’t let “a lie travel half way around the globe before the truth can get its boots on”.