4 ms·

> To use that logic, we should also not have judges or a legal system Nobody wants or needs the media - even less social media - as proxy-judges of the informa

> To use that logic, we should also not have judges or a legal system Nobody wants or needs the media - even less social media - as proxy-judges of the information. Everbody just wants the information and judge it for themselves. That is because most of the time, fact-control becomes opinion-control and we see exactly this happening just before our eyes. Thus people on either side of the political spectrum will support the suppressing of the opinion of their political opposition. At the moment this is happening with the evidently unholy coalition between the left and big tech as well as big media. Another unholy coalition is big pharma + governance and big media where anything slightly critical of certain vaccines will get insta-banned on Youtube for example. May I suggest that you only support this behaviour as it currently happens to align with your views?

slg 5y ago
>Nobody wants or needs the media - even less social media - as proxy-judges of the information. Everbody just wants the information and judge it for themselves. This seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the basics of journalism. The primary job of journalists is to filter through the events and facts of the day and tell you what is important. Judgement of information is inherent to the job. The top story on the front page of the newspaper is chosen by editors not by random draw. They put it there because they think it is the most important bit of news in the entire paper. There is no way to make that kind of qualitative judgements on the relative importance of different pieces of news without inserting potential bias.
Hermitian909 5y ago
> Everbody just wants the information and judge it for themselves People may say they want this, but manifestly do not. There is too much information. To illustrate: many people I know cared a great deal about whether the country was lied to about WMDs when we went to Iraq. As far as I know, zero of them have read the report by the Senate Intelligence Committee[0] but all were very glad to have the report summarized for them by the news media. That act of summarizing, of picking out which information is and is not important, is itself an act of journalism. It is the curation of the set of shared facts, shared reality, in the public discourse. [0]https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/publications/109331.pdf https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/publ...
- concordDance 5y ago
  Note that some citizens genuinely do read at least parts of those reports and we would quite appreciate them being cited (with section headings etc) in news reports.
- jdthedisciple 5y ago
  > That act of summarizing, of picking out which information is and is not important, is itself an act of journalism. Exactly, I'm totally with you. That is the essence of journalism I would even say. But that is where the job of the journalist ends, no sprinkling in of their own presuppositions.
  - raziel2p 5y ago
    It's not as clear-cut as you make it out to be. Sometimes, summarizing will change the whole meaning of the text. Journalists are not always equipped to determine what is important and what isn't (because they're not always subject matter experts, and don't have the budget to consult with one every time), and sometimes what's important to summarize will change based on your pre-disposed opinion. It's impossible for presuppositions not to seep into journalism, especially in a capitalist system where clickbait, outrage news etc. sells better than plain retelling of facts.
    - WalterBright 5y ago
      > especially in a capitalist system where clickbait, outrage news etc. sells better than plain retelling of facts. Government run news organizations with no profit motive have a very sorry record.
    - concordDance 5y ago
      It's hard or maybe impossible to do a perfect job here, but it often seems like the vast majority don't even try! A huge proportion of news stories are horribly and deliberately misleading on everything from the local to national level and on every topic from science to celebrities. I'd like to be more specific than "a huge proportion" but it's hard because I've mostly read the more widely shared and thus sensationalist stories, which will have much bigger distortions on average.

slg 5y ago

>Nobody wants or needs the media - even less social media - as proxy-judges of the information. Everbody just wants the information and judge it for themselves. This seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the basics of journalism. The primary job of journalists is to filter through the events and facts of the day and tell you what is important. Judgement of information is inherent to the job. The top story on the front page of the newspaper is chosen by editors not by random draw. They put it there because they think it is the most important bit of news in the entire paper. There is no way to make that kind of qualitative judgements on the relative importance of different pieces of news without inserting potential bias.

Hermitian909 5y ago

> Everbody just wants the information and judge it for themselves People may say they want this, but manifestly do not. There is too much information. To illustrate: many people I know cared a great deal about whether the country was lied to about WMDs when we went to Iraq. As far as I know, zero of them have read the report by the Senate Intelligence Committee[0] but all were very glad to have the report summarized for them by the news media. That act of summarizing, of picking out which information is and is not important, is itself an act of journalism. It is the curation of the set of shared facts, shared reality, in the public discourse. [0]https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/publications/109331.pdf https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/publ...

concordDance 5y ago
Note that some citizens genuinely do read at least parts of those reports and we would quite appreciate them being cited (with section headings etc) in news reports.
jdthedisciple 5y ago
> That act of summarizing, of picking out which information is and is not important, is itself an act of journalism. Exactly, I'm totally with you. That is the essence of journalism I would even say. But that is where the job of the journalist ends, no sprinkling in of their own presuppositions.
- raziel2p 5y ago
  It's not as clear-cut as you make it out to be. Sometimes, summarizing will change the whole meaning of the text. Journalists are not always equipped to determine what is important and what isn't (because they're not always subject matter experts, and don't have the budget to consult with one every time), and sometimes what's important to summarize will change based on your pre-disposed opinion. It's impossible for presuppositions not to seep into journalism, especially in a capitalist system where clickbait, outrage news etc. sells better than plain retelling of facts.
  - WalterBright 5y ago
    > especially in a capitalist system where clickbait, outrage news etc. sells better than plain retelling of facts. Government run news organizations with no profit motive have a very sorry record.
  - concordDance 5y ago
    It's hard or maybe impossible to do a perfect job here, but it often seems like the vast majority don't even try! A huge proportion of news stories are horribly and deliberately misleading on everything from the local to national level and on every topic from science to celebrities. I'd like to be more specific than "a huge proportion" but it's hard because I've mostly read the more widely shared and thus sensationalist stories, which will have much bigger distortions on average.