2 ms·
Even if the media adopted a "just the facts" approach, there's still the question of which facts. Most misleading news stories aren't outright lies, but a caref
by Veen 5y ago
Even if the media adopted a "just the facts" approach, there's still the question of which facts. Most misleading news stories aren't outright lies, but a careful selection of truths and ommissions that creates a narrative the journalist (and their reader) finds desirable. I don't think it's possible to overcome that and still create a product most people will watch or read: I strongly doubt the average reader will wade through "collections of consensus" in place of partial news stories. People read the New York Times or the Daily Mail because they like them, not because they lack an alternative that tells them the real truth.
Another problem, one tech people tend to ignore, is that journalism is as much about values as facts. And so long as we disagree on values, collections of consensus will quickly turn into competing consensuses, each motivated by values that aren't recognized by the others, which is exactly what we have now.
- atoav 5y ago> Another problem, one tech people tend to ignore, is that journalism is as much about values as facts. And so long as we disagree on values, collections of consensus will quickly turn into competing consensuses, each motivated by values that aren't recognized by the others, which is exactly what we have now. A classic example here would be the widespread believe that "all politicians are corrupt", good journalism would A.) point out that the corruption is not equally distributed and B.) There is no other option than condeming those who get corrupt and electing non-corrupt representatives. That means instead of seeing journalism as a pure source of information, it needs to be recognized that journalism performs crucial functions within free democratic societies, that go beyond pure distribution of facts.