3 ms·
> 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
by 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 agoThe 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 agoI 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.