6 ms·

Why does it seem as of late (meaning the past 20-30 years) that journalism has been morphed into pushing narratives through writing, as opposed to simply report

Why does it seem as of late (meaning the past 20-30 years) that journalism has been morphed into pushing narratives through writing, as opposed to simply reporting facts/viewpoints like in investigative journalism? This washington post journalist seems to think it's their obligation/duty to inform the seemingly "uneducated" people of Alaska of the impending doom of climate change, but I'm pretty sure Alaska knows its permafrost is melting. That all being said - it's a bit disappointing to see such a beautiful landscape change so quickly, however it's just another sign of the times changing and everybody will need to adapt to it.

Clubber 5y ago
They're performing for their audience. They aren't trying to inform Alaska about climate change, they are catering to their readers' fears about climate change; and catering to their egos by reinforcing how stupid and uninformed everyone else is compared to them, the readers. I dunno what you call it, but it certainly isn't journalism; more like infotainment. Big bucks in that.
- scohesc 5y ago
  It's frustrating how close some people are to realizing that their favorite news sources are not news anymore. They're all propaganda pieces bought and paid for by big tech and government subsidies - being used to report on narratives and feelings to control how people react and think on social issues instead of thinking and reacting for themselves. If they truly wanted to be unbiased, you'd write an article like: - Permafrost is melting at faster rates than before in Alaska, showing varied studies and charts. - People are being displaced because their houses were built for permafrost and now that it's gone their houses are falling apart. The journalist seems to have done this from my reading. - We need to look at the future and see how this will affect our planet, our ecosystems around it, and the people directly affected by it. - We're looking at old traditions and cultures to try and come up with new unique ideas to living in the north as 'naturally' as possible. The journalist doesn't need to "tell" you you need to be concerned. They don't need to tell you "possible reasons or speculations in an industry or environment the journalist has next to no experience in, that may or may not directly correlate to the plight of the Alaskan permafrost but it's convenient and helps drive the narrative so we'll put it in". Tell us the facts and let us make our own opinions. I'd read the original washington post article in full, but they want me to pay for it so I'll pass. Pay for biased journalism? Nah, I'm good.
  - jlund-molfese 5y ago
    If you're interested in the original article, it's indexed without the paywall by archive.is [0] [0] - https://archive.is/20210925074935/https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-solutions/2021/09/24/alaska-housing-climate-change/ https://archive.is/20210925074935/https://www.washingtonpost...
  - myfartsarefoul 5y ago
    I think a worse problem is the advertisement-based revenue stream and the analytics enabled by modern technology. They have to keep the audience’s attention, or their revenue dries up. So they try to maximize engagement, which often steers them in a direction that’s more about the feelings of the reader; what’s left is very little room for any serious thought. There’s also the Twitter mob. If you don’t toe the line to some people’s preferred narratives you start losing advertisers and getting death threats.
- teawrecks 5y ago
  Today I learned that up until the 90s, the general populous accepted global warming as scientific fact. At that point, numerous studies dating back to the 50s had confirmed the effect, and there was mostly bipartisan support for environment preserving legislation. So oil companies started media propaganda efforts specifically trying to change the public opinion on the matter, calling it "just a theory": https://www.climatefiles.com/denial-groups/ice-ad-campaign/ https://www.climatefiles.com/denial-groups/ice-ad-campaign/ And now we live in a world where you simply can't talk about climate science without running into spin and having to sink to that level to counter it.
  - twofornone 5y ago
    This is misleading. No one has to this day "confirmed" that anthropogenic global warming is a "scientific fact". We have evidence which suggests that climate is changing and humans may be responsible. But the global climate system is complex, constantly oscillating on periods ranging from days to eons, and our data is sparse, especially going back 20+ years. The certainty behind this consensus has been drastically overstated by ideologues who have taken it upon themselves to prioritize action over accurate reporting. There fundamentally is no proof that the changing climate will be catastrophic or result in runaway, especially when our historic temperature data is not fine grained enough to measure abrupt changes on the scale of 100 years. Though it is taboo to discuss, there is in fact evidence that such a rapid change is not unprecedented, that the earth has been hotter than it is now in the past, and that past sudden temperature swings clearly did not result in a venuslike earth. The fact that virtually all major climate change model forecasts published in the last decade or two have significantly overpredicted temperature increases is telling of the bias in mainstream climate science. I similarly take issue with this revisionist history wherein oil companies "knew" of climate change 60 years ago and deliberately ignored the danger. A claim of catastrophic anthropogenic terraforming requires evidence collection and modeling capability that simply did not exist 60 years ago, and given the periodic nature of climate, we simply will not know if this warming will indeed continue and/or become catastrophic without a lens into the future. Our current modeling capabilities are still inadequate.
    - 5y ago
teawrecks 5y ago
People don't invest time and resources to dig for information if they don't think will have any impact on anything. Investigative journalism is inherently "agenda" based in the same way that science is hypothesis based. I wouldn't even say they're "like" each other, they're the same thing. The problem is when journalists/scientists cherry pick the information that helps their agenda/hypothesis and downplay the rest. That's unscientific. But that's why we need multiple journalists working the same topic, i.e. replication. And we need a general population/peer review who is intelligent enough to spot biases. But historically humans are just bad at spotting their own biases, and more often than not, "A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
- scohesc 5y ago
  So the problem is no accountability in an industry that has little or no accountability to the public. This seems like a tough nut to crack - not sure how we'd hold people accountable for their journalistic malpractice.
  - Clubber 5y ago
    So when Fox and MSNBC gets sued for slander, they claim that it isn't news, it's entertainment. If we simply restrict the freedom of the press from any corporation that claims their news department is entertainment and not news (and therefore not press), that might solve some problems. Of course that won't happen, most of these corporations are just mouth pieces for politicians, and they like to keep them around. https://greenwald.substack.com/p/a-court-ruled-rachel-maddows-viewers https://greenwald.substack.com/p/a-court-ruled-rachel-maddow... https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/917747123/you-literally-cant-believe-the-facts-tucker-carlson-tells-you-so-say-fox-s-lawye https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/917747123/you-literally-cant-...
    - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
      Freedom of the press applies to entertainment, too. And "simply restrict the freedom of the press" is a terrible solution to almost everything.
sergiotapia 5y ago
It's no longer about reporting facts but about virtuous people calling out non-virtuous people.
beebmam 5y ago
Investigative journalism has always, always, always pushed narratives. In fact, you can't avoid it. There will always be information that is included and information that is discarded in any piece of journalism. Both the information that is included and the information that is discarded are critical for pushing a narrative, telling a story. Responsible journalism asks questions like these: "What perspectives on this issue am I leaving out? Is it justified to do so?". There's a near endless supply of perspectives on virtually any issue. Of course representing all of them in a journalistic piece would be impossible, so a journalist needs to make a decision about which perspectives should be included and which should be left out. Is it fair for journalists writing about climate change to leave out climate change denialist perspectives? Perhaps, especially when climate change denialists engage in deceptive arguments, which is extremely common. But often, some amount of skepticism is totally warranted, as there is even quantified uncertainty in the IPCC reports. Often journalists can cross into propagandist territory by not including some of that skepticism, and it makes their presented narratives a bit less credible, especially to people who have been inoculated by hardcore climate change denialist propaganda. We really don't know exactly how bad things will get by 2100 (or later), there are several different models based on many different parameters, and humans can significantly alter those outcomes based on decisions we make. There are a few facts which are undeniable, and can be verified by virtually anyone: atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are rising, mean global temperatures are rising yoy. Based on many models, the rate these changes are occurring at will very likely cause significant systemic problems to the ease at which we, and most other species, survive on this planet.
- Clubber 5y ago
  Yes, but for me, at this point, it has gone from being informative to just peddling fear. We've been fear mongered for at least 15 years now about climate change. Everyone knows it's an issue, enough with the fear mongering. They're just doing it to sell papers at this point I feel. Just think, a group of 5 year olds will have a career as journalists writing the exact same articles about climate change in 20 years, just like a group of now 40 year olds did when they were 25, 15 years ago.
  - reedjosh 5y ago
dillondoyle 5y ago
To be fair though this is a journalist's blog, which is more like backstory context or addendum to the actual article in WaPo which to me doesn't feel biased or to push a 'narrative.' Is there something in the actual article that you feel pushes an unfair narrative? To me it reports facts, which are scary. I don't think the article uses much hyperbole, but even if one concedes your point there IS impending doom to the people he interviewed. Their houses are sinking and rotten and becoming not livable because of climate change. I really liked the Newsroom show; there's a great quote about narratives and bias. Sometimes giving equal weight to arguments just for the sake of 'fairness' is inherently unfair on settled topics like basic fundamental climate change facts. As others have pointed out this type of journalism has some inherent bias simply from the choice of the journalist to do research & write on the topic. Quackenbush writes in this blog how the hot moldy house piqued an urgency in himself, which he (rightly) feels is important to report on. It's fundamentally a human interest piece, just like interviewing people who's houses were destroyed after a hurricane. IMHO this is the most important & pressing issue today and should be #1 news and Quackenbush is right in trying to report more stories that give real human emotional consequences to the reality of destruction.

Clubber 5y ago

They're performing for their audience. They aren't trying to inform Alaska about climate change, they are catering to their readers' fears about climate change; and catering to their egos by reinforcing how stupid and uninformed everyone else is compared to them, the readers. I dunno what you call it, but it certainly isn't journalism; more like infotainment. Big bucks in that.

scohesc 5y ago
It's frustrating how close some people are to realizing that their favorite news sources are not news anymore. They're all propaganda pieces bought and paid for by big tech and government subsidies - being used to report on narratives and feelings to control how people react and think on social issues instead of thinking and reacting for themselves. If they truly wanted to be unbiased, you'd write an article like: - Permafrost is melting at faster rates than before in Alaska, showing varied studies and charts. - People are being displaced because their houses were built for permafrost and now that it's gone their houses are falling apart. The journalist seems to have done this from my reading. - We need to look at the future and see how this will affect our planet, our ecosystems around it, and the people directly affected by it. - We're looking at old traditions and cultures to try and come up with new unique ideas to living in the north as 'naturally' as possible. The journalist doesn't need to "tell" you you need to be concerned. They don't need to tell you "possible reasons or speculations in an industry or environment the journalist has next to no experience in, that may or may not directly correlate to the plight of the Alaskan permafrost but it's convenient and helps drive the narrative so we'll put it in". Tell us the facts and let us make our own opinions. I'd read the original washington post article in full, but they want me to pay for it so I'll pass. Pay for biased journalism? Nah, I'm good.
- jlund-molfese 5y ago
  If you're interested in the original article, it's indexed without the paywall by archive.is [0] [0] - https://archive.is/20210925074935/https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-solutions/2021/09/24/alaska-housing-climate-change/ https://archive.is/20210925074935/https://www.washingtonpost...
- myfartsarefoul 5y ago
  I think a worse problem is the advertisement-based revenue stream and the analytics enabled by modern technology. They have to keep the audience’s attention, or their revenue dries up. So they try to maximize engagement, which often steers them in a direction that’s more about the feelings of the reader; what’s left is very little room for any serious thought. There’s also the Twitter mob. If you don’t toe the line to some people’s preferred narratives you start losing advertisers and getting death threats.
teawrecks 5y ago
Today I learned that up until the 90s, the general populous accepted global warming as scientific fact. At that point, numerous studies dating back to the 50s had confirmed the effect, and there was mostly bipartisan support for environment preserving legislation. So oil companies started media propaganda efforts specifically trying to change the public opinion on the matter, calling it "just a theory": https://www.climatefiles.com/denial-groups/ice-ad-campaign/ https://www.climatefiles.com/denial-groups/ice-ad-campaign/ And now we live in a world where you simply can't talk about climate science without running into spin and having to sink to that level to counter it.
- twofornone 5y ago
  This is misleading. No one has to this day "confirmed" that anthropogenic global warming is a "scientific fact". We have evidence which suggests that climate is changing and humans may be responsible. But the global climate system is complex, constantly oscillating on periods ranging from days to eons, and our data is sparse, especially going back 20+ years. The certainty behind this consensus has been drastically overstated by ideologues who have taken it upon themselves to prioritize action over accurate reporting. There fundamentally is no proof that the changing climate will be catastrophic or result in runaway, especially when our historic temperature data is not fine grained enough to measure abrupt changes on the scale of 100 years. Though it is taboo to discuss, there is in fact evidence that such a rapid change is not unprecedented, that the earth has been hotter than it is now in the past, and that past sudden temperature swings clearly did not result in a venuslike earth. The fact that virtually all major climate change model forecasts published in the last decade or two have significantly overpredicted temperature increases is telling of the bias in mainstream climate science. I similarly take issue with this revisionist history wherein oil companies "knew" of climate change 60 years ago and deliberately ignored the danger. A claim of catastrophic anthropogenic terraforming requires evidence collection and modeling capability that simply did not exist 60 years ago, and given the periodic nature of climate, we simply will not know if this warming will indeed continue and/or become catastrophic without a lens into the future. Our current modeling capabilities are still inadequate.
  - 5y ago

teawrecks 5y ago

People don't invest time and resources to dig for information if they don't think will have any impact on anything. Investigative journalism is inherently "agenda" based in the same way that science is hypothesis based. I wouldn't even say they're "like" each other, they're the same thing. The problem is when journalists/scientists cherry pick the information that helps their agenda/hypothesis and downplay the rest. That's unscientific. But that's why we need multiple journalists working the same topic, i.e. replication. And we need a general population/peer review who is intelligent enough to spot biases. But historically humans are just bad at spotting their own biases, and more often than not, "A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

scohesc 5y ago
So the problem is no accountability in an industry that has little or no accountability to the public. This seems like a tough nut to crack - not sure how we'd hold people accountable for their journalistic malpractice.
- Clubber 5y ago
  So when Fox and MSNBC gets sued for slander, they claim that it isn't news, it's entertainment. If we simply restrict the freedom of the press from any corporation that claims their news department is entertainment and not news (and therefore not press), that might solve some problems. Of course that won't happen, most of these corporations are just mouth pieces for politicians, and they like to keep them around. https://greenwald.substack.com/p/a-court-ruled-rachel-maddows-viewers https://greenwald.substack.com/p/a-court-ruled-rachel-maddow... https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/917747123/you-literally-cant-believe-the-facts-tucker-carlson-tells-you-so-say-fox-s-lawye https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/917747123/you-literally-cant-...
  - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
    Freedom of the press applies to entertainment, too. And "simply restrict the freedom of the press" is a terrible solution to almost everything.

sergiotapia 5y ago

It's no longer about reporting facts but about virtuous people calling out non-virtuous people.

beebmam 5y ago

Investigative journalism has always, always, always pushed narratives. In fact, you can't avoid it. There will always be information that is included and information that is discarded in any piece of journalism. Both the information that is included and the information that is discarded are critical for pushing a narrative, telling a story. Responsible journalism asks questions like these: "What perspectives on this issue am I leaving out? Is it justified to do so?". There's a near endless supply of perspectives on virtually any issue. Of course representing all of them in a journalistic piece would be impossible, so a journalist needs to make a decision about which perspectives should be included and which should be left out. Is it fair for journalists writing about climate change to leave out climate change denialist perspectives? Perhaps, especially when climate change denialists engage in deceptive arguments, which is extremely common. But often, some amount of skepticism is totally warranted, as there is even quantified uncertainty in the IPCC reports. Often journalists can cross into propagandist territory by not including some of that skepticism, and it makes their presented narratives a bit less credible, especially to people who have been inoculated by hardcore climate change denialist propaganda. We really don't know exactly how bad things will get by 2100 (or later), there are several different models based on many different parameters, and humans can significantly alter those outcomes based on decisions we make. There are a few facts which are undeniable, and can be verified by virtually anyone: atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are rising, mean global temperatures are rising yoy. Based on many models, the rate these changes are occurring at will very likely cause significant systemic problems to the ease at which we, and most other species, survive on this planet.

Clubber 5y ago
Yes, but for me, at this point, it has gone from being informative to just peddling fear. We've been fear mongered for at least 15 years now about climate change. Everyone knows it's an issue, enough with the fear mongering. They're just doing it to sell papers at this point I feel. Just think, a group of 5 year olds will have a career as journalists writing the exact same articles about climate change in 20 years, just like a group of now 40 year olds did when they were 25, 15 years ago.
- reedjosh 5y ago

dillondoyle 5y ago

To be fair though this is a journalist's blog, which is more like backstory context or addendum to the actual article in WaPo which to me doesn't feel biased or to push a 'narrative.' Is there something in the actual article that you feel pushes an unfair narrative? To me it reports facts, which are scary. I don't think the article uses much hyperbole, but even if one concedes your point there IS impending doom to the people he interviewed. Their houses are sinking and rotten and becoming not livable because of climate change. I really liked the Newsroom show; there's a great quote about narratives and bias. Sometimes giving equal weight to arguments just for the sake of 'fairness' is inherently unfair on settled topics like basic fundamental climate change facts. As others have pointed out this type of journalism has some inherent bias simply from the choice of the journalist to do research & write on the topic. Quackenbush writes in this blog how the hot moldy house piqued an urgency in himself, which he (rightly) feels is important to report on. It's fundamentally a human interest piece, just like interviewing people who's houses were destroyed after a hurricane. IMHO this is the most important & pressing issue today and should be #1 news and Quackenbush is right in trying to report more stories that give real human emotional consequences to the reality of destruction.