3 ms·

> Journalists have been serving the interests of moneyed elites since well over a hundred years. It's good that they finally have some competition, even if it m

by zriha 5y ago

> Journalists have been serving the interests of moneyed elites since well over a hundred years. It's good that they finally have some competition, even if it means that flat earthers also get a voice. Well, I wouldn't agree with you, as journalists (and here I mean real journalists) are often members of professional organisation and they have code of conduct. Random people on Facebook or influencers doesn't have that. Thanks to investigative journalists, you have things like Pandora papers. You have to ask yourself where is the line for critical thinking, for example flat earthers - where do we draw the line and when it become apsurd? What we have is that people will now believe in anything, something that we proved and live with for centuries. What we will have, oxygen deniers? They don't recognize oxygen?

yunohn 5y ago
> members of professional organisation and they have code of conduct Laws exist, so there are no crimes? > Thanks to investigative journalists, you have things like Pandora papers. Yes, but that’s their point - not everyone is exposing things, because the elites control the media. Do remember that the Panama Papers whistleblower got mysteriously car-bombed. Here’s a viral modern-day example: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/4/2/17189302/sinclair-broadcast-fake-news-biased-trump-viral-video https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/4/2/17189302/si...
- tapland 5y ago
  Just a week or so ago in Sweden public service hadn't published any articles on the government having lied about the existence of meeting protocols and memos from covid meetings. It was out of the ordinary seeing them report only after that decision itself became a topic. Not publishing is a very powerful tool, and no journalist is forced by the code of conduct to publish what their employer doesn't want.
- meheleventyone 5y ago
  > Laws exist, so there are no crimes? More if you don’t trust journalists to be honest when they at least try to establish norms of behaviour you should trust some random person even less. Both are amenable to corruption.
  - jcbrand 5y ago
    The choice is not between journalist and "some random person". There are many non-journalists, experts in their fields and who have a long history of credibility who publish information that one can read.
    - meheleventyone 5y ago
      I was using the comparison to random people and influencers mentioned by zriha that spawned this thread of conversation. There are of course credible experts. However I’d argue many/most popular alternative sources chosen over journalism are not credible experts.
  - nosianu 5y ago
    > some random person A journalist is some random person too. Only a handful of people know the person to any degree. You are asking to trust some brand. A brand that is controlled by few rich centralized media owners (in the "free" countries, government, directly or indirectly, in others). The main incentive of a journalist is the same as for any other employee. To Keep ones employment and to make money. The idealism, if it ever exists, diminishes over time as experience grows and the need for stable income too (family).
    - meheleventyone 5y ago
      > A journalist is some random person too. The rest of my post you didn’t quote included the specific difference I was talking about that I note you don’t address.
- chalst 5y ago
  > Do remember that the Panama Papers whistleblower got mysteriously car-bombed. Remember? As far as I am aware the whistleblower is still anonymous. Where did you get your information? People who believe the elite control the media seem to often be very credulous towards claims that don't come from elites.
  - jcbrand 5y ago
    Is the Guardian elite enough for you? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/16/malta-car-bomb-kills-panama-papers-journalist https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/16/malta-car-bomb... Not the whistleblower, but the journalist who investigated it. Now, before you say this is proof that journalists are impartial and not beholden to elites... this is proof that journalists who act against the interests of the powerful and wealthy get terminated. Other "journalists" see this and take note. That's the stick. Then there are also the carrots.
    - chalst 5y ago
      Daphne Caruana Galizia was not the Panama Papers whistleblower. She was a whistleblower who used the revelations of the Panama Papers to join up the dots in her own enquiries into corruption in Malta. It's worth noting her killers got caught and the senior figures in the government who she accused of creating "a culture of impunity" were removed from power. There's a lot of things I don't like about elitist journalism, but there's a whole class of investigative journalism that got done better in the old model than today. Cf. Evgeny Morozov.
- kavalg 5y ago
  This is scary.
jcbrand 5y ago
> You have to ask yourself where is the line for critical thinking, for example flat earthers There is no line. Everything and anything can be questioned. There is nothing wrong with questioning the shape of the earth and then devising experiments to figure it out for yourself (as some flat earthers have done). What the flat earthers do wrong however, is to then not trust the results of the experiments they themselves have devised (since these experiments invariably show the earth is not flat). This documentary is really fascinating in that regard: https://www.netflix.com/de-en/title/81015076 https://www.netflix.com/de-en/title/81015076
marcus_holmes 5y ago
> Well, I wouldn't agree with you, as journalists (and here I mean real journalists) are often members of professional organisation and they have code of conduct This is a "no true Scotsman" fallacy. Clearly there are professional journalists who are not adhering to the code of conduct. So clearly you will claim that they are not "real" journalists, and that journalists are only "real" journalists if they adhere to the code of conduct. But this doesn't stop anyone from claiming to be a journalist, getting paid to be a journalist, or being part of the professional organisation while completely ignoring the code of conduct (as so many do). > What we will have, oxygen deniers? They don't recognize oxygen? We need the wacky thinkers. Yes, having someone champion a Flat Earth is a good thing. Groupthink is a very real danger. Remember the story of Plate Tectonics (someone saw how S America and Africa fit together, put together a theory that continents moved, was derided as a crackpot from all corners of Academia, turned out to be right [0]). Having an Oxygen Denier around would be a good thing, not a bad thing. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics#History_of_the_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics#History_of_the...
- chii 5y ago
  > Yes, having someone champion a Flat Earth is a good thing. Groupthink is a very real danger. Just because someone thinks of absurd stuff, doesn't mean this fixes groupthink. To combat groupthink requires critical analysis, and safety - that is, the group must allow for people who make different (but still logical) points that go against the grain. However, flat earthers do not fall into this category, because they are denying evidence, rather than imagining an alternative theory. Plate tectonics is different, since there's no evidence denying that theory! I think the populous, in general, really just need to learn the scientific method, and how one discerns truths using evidence (and not fall prey to confirmation bias etc). This requires work, and i feel many do not get taught nor learn themselves.
  - kavalg 5y ago
    > I think the populous, in general, really just need to learn the scientific method, and how one discerns truths using evidence (and not fall prey to confirmation bias etc) Good luck with that. Even at the university where I teach this looks like an uphill battle.

by zriha 5y ago

yunohn 5y ago

> members of professional organisation and they have code of conduct Laws exist, so there are no crimes? > Thanks to investigative journalists, you have things like Pandora papers. Yes, but that’s their point - not everyone is exposing things, because the elites control the media. Do remember that the Panama Papers whistleblower got mysteriously car-bombed. Here’s a viral modern-day example: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/4/2/17189302/sinclair-broadcast-fake-news-biased-trump-viral-video https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/4/2/17189302/si...

tapland 5y ago
Just a week or so ago in Sweden public service hadn't published any articles on the government having lied about the existence of meeting protocols and memos from covid meetings. It was out of the ordinary seeing them report only after that decision itself became a topic. Not publishing is a very powerful tool, and no journalist is forced by the code of conduct to publish what their employer doesn't want.
meheleventyone 5y ago
> Laws exist, so there are no crimes? More if you don’t trust journalists to be honest when they at least try to establish norms of behaviour you should trust some random person even less. Both are amenable to corruption.
- jcbrand 5y ago
  The choice is not between journalist and "some random person". There are many non-journalists, experts in their fields and who have a long history of credibility who publish information that one can read.
  - meheleventyone 5y ago
    I was using the comparison to random people and influencers mentioned by zriha that spawned this thread of conversation. There are of course credible experts. However I’d argue many/most popular alternative sources chosen over journalism are not credible experts.
- nosianu 5y ago
  > some random person A journalist is some random person too. Only a handful of people know the person to any degree. You are asking to trust some brand. A brand that is controlled by few rich centralized media owners (in the "free" countries, government, directly or indirectly, in others). The main incentive of a journalist is the same as for any other employee. To Keep ones employment and to make money. The idealism, if it ever exists, diminishes over time as experience grows and the need for stable income too (family).
  - meheleventyone 5y ago
    > A journalist is some random person too. The rest of my post you didn’t quote included the specific difference I was talking about that I note you don’t address.
chalst 5y ago
> Do remember that the Panama Papers whistleblower got mysteriously car-bombed. Remember? As far as I am aware the whistleblower is still anonymous. Where did you get your information? People who believe the elite control the media seem to often be very credulous towards claims that don't come from elites.
- jcbrand 5y ago
  Is the Guardian elite enough for you? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/16/malta-car-bomb-kills-panama-papers-journalist https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/16/malta-car-bomb... Not the whistleblower, but the journalist who investigated it. Now, before you say this is proof that journalists are impartial and not beholden to elites... this is proof that journalists who act against the interests of the powerful and wealthy get terminated. Other "journalists" see this and take note. That's the stick. Then there are also the carrots.
  - chalst 5y ago
    Daphne Caruana Galizia was not the Panama Papers whistleblower. She was a whistleblower who used the revelations of the Panama Papers to join up the dots in her own enquiries into corruption in Malta. It's worth noting her killers got caught and the senior figures in the government who she accused of creating "a culture of impunity" were removed from power. There's a lot of things I don't like about elitist journalism, but there's a whole class of investigative journalism that got done better in the old model than today. Cf. Evgeny Morozov.
kavalg 5y ago
This is scary.

jcbrand 5y ago

> You have to ask yourself where is the line for critical thinking, for example flat earthers There is no line. Everything and anything can be questioned. There is nothing wrong with questioning the shape of the earth and then devising experiments to figure it out for yourself (as some flat earthers have done). What the flat earthers do wrong however, is to then not trust the results of the experiments they themselves have devised (since these experiments invariably show the earth is not flat). This documentary is really fascinating in that regard: https://www.netflix.com/de-en/title/81015076 https://www.netflix.com/de-en/title/81015076

marcus_holmes 5y ago

> Well, I wouldn't agree with you, as journalists (and here I mean real journalists) are often members of professional organisation and they have code of conduct This is a "no true Scotsman" fallacy. Clearly there are professional journalists who are not adhering to the code of conduct. So clearly you will claim that they are not "real" journalists, and that journalists are only "real" journalists if they adhere to the code of conduct. But this doesn't stop anyone from claiming to be a journalist, getting paid to be a journalist, or being part of the professional organisation while completely ignoring the code of conduct (as so many do). > What we will have, oxygen deniers? They don't recognize oxygen? We need the wacky thinkers. Yes, having someone champion a Flat Earth is a good thing. Groupthink is a very real danger. Remember the story of Plate Tectonics (someone saw how S America and Africa fit together, put together a theory that continents moved, was derided as a crackpot from all corners of Academia, turned out to be right [0]). Having an Oxygen Denier around would be a good thing, not a bad thing. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics#History_of_the_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics#History_of_the...

chii 5y ago
> Yes, having someone champion a Flat Earth is a good thing. Groupthink is a very real danger. Just because someone thinks of absurd stuff, doesn't mean this fixes groupthink. To combat groupthink requires critical analysis, and safety - that is, the group must allow for people who make different (but still logical) points that go against the grain. However, flat earthers do not fall into this category, because they are denying evidence, rather than imagining an alternative theory. Plate tectonics is different, since there's no evidence denying that theory! I think the populous, in general, really just need to learn the scientific method, and how one discerns truths using evidence (and not fall prey to confirmation bias etc). This requires work, and i feel many do not get taught nor learn themselves.
- kavalg 5y ago
  > I think the populous, in general, really just need to learn the scientific method, and how one discerns truths using evidence (and not fall prey to confirmation bias etc) Good luck with that. Even at the university where I teach this looks like an uphill battle.