4 ms·

I agree corporate journalism is a pathetic shell of its former self that can only race bait to get clicks. But I do think there is some good journalism going on

I agree corporate journalism is a pathetic shell of its former self that can only race bait to get clicks. But I do think there is some good journalism going on in the independent scene. For example, Glenn Greenwald still puts out good investigative journalism, and there is a lot of good content on substack as well. I think this is the future, it just makes sense. In the past, journalists had to group into big organizations as you needed a lot of infrastructure to get the message out - printing presses, delivery workers, etc. Now with the internet all you really need is a single person.

coldtea 5y ago
That true, because they use a different model (directly supported by people via subscriptions/donations). This model can produce good journalism in some cases (when the people have taste and the journalist doesn't try to optimize his way to placating larger masses) but can also produce bad journalism (say, subscriptions are what sustain all kinds of crap content creators via things like Patreon to Twitch, and hell, OnlyFans).
dragonwriter 5y ago
> Glenn Greenwald still puts out good investigative journalism Everything I’ve seen from Glenn (to be fair, that's filtered by what his fans make popular on other platforms, because I’m not actively following him) since he shed traditional journalistic standards enforced by editorial oversight at the outlet he founded has been fairly naked ideological hackery that demonstrates why he was wise to establish traditional journalistic standards and editorial oversight when he founded the outlet he left for substack. Previously his ideological bias was pretty clear, but his journalism was nevertheless, if not flawless, at least recognizable as such. Now he's just throwing red meat to an ideologically-allied fan club
- uejfiweun 5y ago
  Yeah, I don't actively follow him either, and I am aware that he has aligned himself more with the right lately. I do think though that his work on the Snowden case was really courageous - whether or not you agree or disagree with what he did, it certainly takes balls to go up against the NatSec apparatus.
  - lern_too_spel 5y ago
    It might have been courageous to take on that story, but Greenwald was also hilariously wrong. If he had bothered to talk to any subject matter expert, he wouldn't have gotten PRISM so incredibly wrong. The New York Times, CNET, etc. were able to get the story right just by being the slightest bit competent.
  - speeder 5y ago
    I think it is hilarious people think Greenwald is aligned to the right just because he is upset with Democrat party making mistakes. He votes Democraft (despite being upset at them), is gay, and married to a (male) politician of the Brazillian far-left. (not just "left", his party has "socialist" in the name but has people with strong ties to the communist party and several members openly defend communism).
    - uejfiweun 5y ago
      The Democratic party has become dominated by illiberal authoritarians, as I'm sure you've noticed. If you criticize these people, you are the enemy. Just look at Joe Manchin or Kyrsten Sinema.
- tonguez 5y ago
  He left The Intercept because The Intercept wouldn't publish Glenn's story about Hunter Biden because you're not allowed to criticize Biden because TLAs want Biden. Greenwald obviously is mostly known for exposing the crimes of TLAs.
  - boppo1 5y ago
    TLAs?
    - coldtea 5y ago
      Three letter agencies
- coldtea 5y ago
  This reads more like "he left the Orange-man-bad-echo-bubble/party-line-therefore-he-is-bad". There are however plenty of journalists to carry the established, tired, party line for mock rage and cheap partisanship. You'd be fine with WP, NYT, the Guardian, and many others, there's no shortage of my-party-right-or-wrong types.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > This reads more like "he left the Orange-man-bad-echo-bubble/party-line-therefore-he-is-bad". Er, no he was very far outside of that (with very much the same ideological bent he has now) even when he was at the Intercept
8note 5y ago
The point of journalism is still to make money, not to get the message out. You're only going to get "good" reporting if it pays well to do so, and pays poorly to do "bad" reporting

coldtea 5y ago

That true, because they use a different model (directly supported by people via subscriptions/donations). This model can produce good journalism in some cases (when the people have taste and the journalist doesn't try to optimize his way to placating larger masses) but can also produce bad journalism (say, subscriptions are what sustain all kinds of crap content creators via things like Patreon to Twitch, and hell, OnlyFans).

dragonwriter 5y ago

> Glenn Greenwald still puts out good investigative journalism Everything I’ve seen from Glenn (to be fair, that's filtered by what his fans make popular on other platforms, because I’m not actively following him) since he shed traditional journalistic standards enforced by editorial oversight at the outlet he founded has been fairly naked ideological hackery that demonstrates why he was wise to establish traditional journalistic standards and editorial oversight when he founded the outlet he left for substack. Previously his ideological bias was pretty clear, but his journalism was nevertheless, if not flawless, at least recognizable as such. Now he's just throwing red meat to an ideologically-allied fan club

uejfiweun 5y ago
Yeah, I don't actively follow him either, and I am aware that he has aligned himself more with the right lately. I do think though that his work on the Snowden case was really courageous - whether or not you agree or disagree with what he did, it certainly takes balls to go up against the NatSec apparatus.
- lern_too_spel 5y ago
  It might have been courageous to take on that story, but Greenwald was also hilariously wrong. If he had bothered to talk to any subject matter expert, he wouldn't have gotten PRISM so incredibly wrong. The New York Times, CNET, etc. were able to get the story right just by being the slightest bit competent.
- speeder 5y ago
  I think it is hilarious people think Greenwald is aligned to the right just because he is upset with Democrat party making mistakes. He votes Democraft (despite being upset at them), is gay, and married to a (male) politician of the Brazillian far-left. (not just "left", his party has "socialist" in the name but has people with strong ties to the communist party and several members openly defend communism).
  - uejfiweun 5y ago
    The Democratic party has become dominated by illiberal authoritarians, as I'm sure you've noticed. If you criticize these people, you are the enemy. Just look at Joe Manchin or Kyrsten Sinema.
tonguez 5y ago
He left The Intercept because The Intercept wouldn't publish Glenn's story about Hunter Biden because you're not allowed to criticize Biden because TLAs want Biden. Greenwald obviously is mostly known for exposing the crimes of TLAs.
- boppo1 5y ago
  TLAs?
  - coldtea 5y ago
    Three letter agencies
coldtea 5y ago
This reads more like "he left the Orange-man-bad-echo-bubble/party-line-therefore-he-is-bad". There are however plenty of journalists to carry the established, tired, party line for mock rage and cheap partisanship. You'd be fine with WP, NYT, the Guardian, and many others, there's no shortage of my-party-right-or-wrong types.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > This reads more like "he left the Orange-man-bad-echo-bubble/party-line-therefore-he-is-bad". Er, no he was very far outside of that (with very much the same ideological bent he has now) even when he was at the Intercept

8note 5y ago

The point of journalism is still to make money, not to get the message out. You're only going to get "good" reporting if it pays well to do so, and pays poorly to do "bad" reporting