3 ms·

So, provovactive but still sincere question, are we still holding media and journalists to standards of integrity, or is this just the pretense we're all agreei

So, provovactive but still sincere question, are we still holding media and journalists to standards of integrity, or is this just the pretense we're all agreeing to as the set of rules where we know the game is to break them without conseqeuences? It's unsatisfying to score points on Vice (or anyone really), but as a sample, I'd wonder if this larger question would benefit from being aired. Are we post-integrity?

causi 5y ago
People consider Vice Media journalists? These are the guys that tour North Korea and hunt pigs in Chernobyl. Taking money from Saudi royalty is one hundred percent on-brand for them. You watch Vice because they'll tell you about crazy stuff nobody else will, not because you need an unbiased news source.
- cf141q5325 5y ago
  Vice news has (or had?) some actual journalists. They hired Ben Anderson whos Afghanistan and Iraq reporting was really impressive. Especially "This is what winning looks like". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ja5Q75hf6QI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ja5Q75hf6QI If i recall correctly he made the footage when embedded via the BBC and (re)published it on vice? Still incredibly impressed of the footage he managed to shoot as an embedded journalists. I would guess in no small parts due to the integrity of Major Bill Steuber. Unfortunately that seems to have cost him his military career. He is now a security guard in Manhattan. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3y8fqJt2cU&t=1360s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3y8fqJt2cU&t=1360s Afterwards Anderson mentioned the required style of reporting at Vice negatively (the camera focusing on his reactions) but he stayed with them for a while. Not sure if he is still associated with them. edit: Fixed timestamp & He left vice last year https://twitter.com/benjohnanderson/status/1427313721043521540?s=20 https://twitter.com/benjohnanderson/status/14273137210435215...
adamrezich 5y ago
"journalism" is a weird word in 2022 because it can mean everything from "blogger" to "talking head teevee news presenter" and we're supposed to give respect to & assume integrity from everyone who self-identifies with this term. once "journalists" started "reporting on" what's happening on social media instead of doing shit out in the field, the term lost all credibility for me personally, and many others, but there's still this societal expectation that "journalism" is an inherently noble profession, regardless of what form it takes.
- openknot 5y ago
  This reminds me of a paper, which I can't find but can summarize (a less-in-depth version of the argument is advanced in quotes by a journalism professor here [0]). The argument, as I remember it, asserted that journalism is a semi-profession because journalists are expected to adhere to ethical principles widely practiced by reporters (e.g. fairness, accuracy, ethics). However, it's not a profession on the same level as physicians or lawyers because they don't require licenses or credentials (whether this is a good or bad aspect is up for debate, but it's a description of the way the field currently works). Since the code of ethics aren't widely agreed upon (different unions of journalists and different newspaper publications have slightly different codes of ethics), there is a loss of professionalism in an academic sense (versus lawyers and physicians where the ethical codes are more standardized and may have legal or at least stronger moral binding). However, this does elevate journalism above a non-profession, as there are still ethical principles widely agreed with among credible journalists (e.g. if a source tells you information off-the-record, you protect their identity, even if threatened with imprisonment or personal harm). [0] https://j-source.ca/can-journalism-be-a-profession/ https://j-source.ca/can-journalism-be-a-profession/
vanattab 5y ago
>are we still holding media and journalists to standards of integrity? As far as I can tell only if the journalist/activist is a member of an opposing political ideology. If they are on "our side" we tolerate almost anything because you know the other side is nazis or communists.
droopyEyelids 5y ago
To me it feels like the opposite. They're expected to be team players. An example were David Sirota's International Business Times articles Clinton[1] and Trump[2]. While head of the state department (which runs weapons deals), Clinton approved arms deals to controversial countries after they donated to the Clinton Foundation. This reporting was widely attacked online, often by other journalists. The article was very detailed and well documented. Later he wrote another equally detailed article about how Trump ripped off investors through chicanery and the article was widely applauded by the same audience. It was the same journalist doing the same level of investigation with the same rigor, treated completely differently by the same audience. In both cases it seems like the popular reception was not based on facts at all, in either direction! The reaction was largely based on which 'team' it supported. 1- https://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187 https://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapon... 2- https://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/how-donald-trump-used-fine-print-make-it-harder-sue-wall-street-fraud-2440890 https://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/how-donald-trump-u...
- sofixa 5y ago
  > the same audience Care to provide examples of "same audience", aka same people and organisations criticising one and applauding the other? I can easily see how some extremely biased "entertainment news" talk show hosts might do it, but I'm doubtful of actual journalist doing that.
m0ngr31 5y ago
> Are we post-integrity? We have been for a long time
Jenk 5y ago
> are we still holding media and journalists to standards of integrity Were we ever? What do you mean by "holding"? How does one hold any given media outlet or journalist to any standard?
dundarious 5y ago
Very little reporting connected to foreign policy/natsec has integrity. The Washington Post recently ran the following obituary, emphasis mine. https://archive.md/20220201161018/https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/obituaries/general-john-singlaub-commando-dead/2022/01/31/68486e7e-6a20-11ea-b313-df458622c2cc_story.html https://archive.md/20220201161018/https://www.washingtonpost... > Gen. Singlaub started the U.S. Council for World Freedom, an affiliate of the World Anti-Communist League. Later, as president of the international organization, he made what the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith called “substantial progress” in purging the group of neo-Nazis, antisemites and Latin American death-squad leaders. > ... > In the early 1980s, as Congress began curtailing U.S. funding of efforts to overthrow leftist regimes in Nicaragua and elsewhere, Gen. Singlaub and his organizations remained an important conduit of materiel and financial assistance, reportedly with the help of deep-pocketed conservatives and foreign governments. > He was often compared to Marine Lt. Col. Oliver L. North and other major figures in the Reagan administration’s Iran-contra affair. North was among the national security officials who had authorized illegal arms sales to Iran to win the release of U.S. hostages in the Middle East and used some of the profits to support right-wing Nicaraguan rebels known as the contras. The same man being applauded for purging death squad leaders from an organization and for funding death squad leaders.
- openknot 5y ago
  The point of an independently-written newspaper obituary isn't hagiography (or endorsement of everything the notable person did). There is a slant to avoid speaking too ill of the dead, but typically obituary writers do not shy away from mentioning controversial aspects of the subject's life. The writer isn't celebrating that he funded the contras, but is instead reporting how he was perceived by the American political class, and also mention key controversies he was involved with. The mention of his involvement in the Iran-Contra affair is an example of responsible reporting; in contrast, an irresponsible writer would have omitted the topic, and you would have never read it.
  - dundarious 5y ago
    I know obituaries are mostly non-critical (we can leave for another day the decision-making process about which non-critical obituaries to publish, and whether there is a preference for non-critical obits for certain types of people). But this bold contradiction deserves mention in the article. It's about death squads.
dfxm12 5y ago
What does it mean to hold media and journalists to standards of integrity? Does it mean that the people who care about such things will no longer consume Vice Media's products? That employees will leave the company? If that's the case, you certainly can't judge who is holding who to what right as this is being made public. Are we post-integrity? I would argue when it comes to corporate decision making, making money has always come first ahead of integrity, and it's a little naive to consider this the straw that breaks the camel's back.

causi 5y ago

People consider Vice Media journalists? These are the guys that tour North Korea and hunt pigs in Chernobyl. Taking money from Saudi royalty is one hundred percent on-brand for them. You watch Vice because they'll tell you about crazy stuff nobody else will, not because you need an unbiased news source.

cf141q5325 5y ago
Vice news has (or had?) some actual journalists. They hired Ben Anderson whos Afghanistan and Iraq reporting was really impressive. Especially "This is what winning looks like". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ja5Q75hf6QI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ja5Q75hf6QI If i recall correctly he made the footage when embedded via the BBC and (re)published it on vice? Still incredibly impressed of the footage he managed to shoot as an embedded journalists. I would guess in no small parts due to the integrity of Major Bill Steuber. Unfortunately that seems to have cost him his military career. He is now a security guard in Manhattan. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3y8fqJt2cU&t=1360s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3y8fqJt2cU&t=1360s Afterwards Anderson mentioned the required style of reporting at Vice negatively (the camera focusing on his reactions) but he stayed with them for a while. Not sure if he is still associated with them. edit: Fixed timestamp & He left vice last year https://twitter.com/benjohnanderson/status/1427313721043521540?s=20 https://twitter.com/benjohnanderson/status/14273137210435215...

adamrezich 5y ago

"journalism" is a weird word in 2022 because it can mean everything from "blogger" to "talking head teevee news presenter" and we're supposed to give respect to & assume integrity from everyone who self-identifies with this term. once "journalists" started "reporting on" what's happening on social media instead of doing shit out in the field, the term lost all credibility for me personally, and many others, but there's still this societal expectation that "journalism" is an inherently noble profession, regardless of what form it takes.

openknot 5y ago
This reminds me of a paper, which I can't find but can summarize (a less-in-depth version of the argument is advanced in quotes by a journalism professor here [0]). The argument, as I remember it, asserted that journalism is a semi-profession because journalists are expected to adhere to ethical principles widely practiced by reporters (e.g. fairness, accuracy, ethics). However, it's not a profession on the same level as physicians or lawyers because they don't require licenses or credentials (whether this is a good or bad aspect is up for debate, but it's a description of the way the field currently works). Since the code of ethics aren't widely agreed upon (different unions of journalists and different newspaper publications have slightly different codes of ethics), there is a loss of professionalism in an academic sense (versus lawyers and physicians where the ethical codes are more standardized and may have legal or at least stronger moral binding). However, this does elevate journalism above a non-profession, as there are still ethical principles widely agreed with among credible journalists (e.g. if a source tells you information off-the-record, you protect their identity, even if threatened with imprisonment or personal harm). [0] https://j-source.ca/can-journalism-be-a-profession/ https://j-source.ca/can-journalism-be-a-profession/

vanattab 5y ago

>are we still holding media and journalists to standards of integrity? As far as I can tell only if the journalist/activist is a member of an opposing political ideology. If they are on "our side" we tolerate almost anything because you know the other side is nazis or communists.

droopyEyelids 5y ago

To me it feels like the opposite. They're expected to be team players. An example were David Sirota's International Business Times articles Clinton[1] and Trump[2]. While head of the state department (which runs weapons deals), Clinton approved arms deals to controversial countries after they donated to the Clinton Foundation. This reporting was widely attacked online, often by other journalists. The article was very detailed and well documented. Later he wrote another equally detailed article about how Trump ripped off investors through chicanery and the article was widely applauded by the same audience. It was the same journalist doing the same level of investigation with the same rigor, treated completely differently by the same audience. In both cases it seems like the popular reception was not based on facts at all, in either direction! The reaction was largely based on which 'team' it supported. 1- https://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187 https://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapon... 2- https://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/how-donald-trump-used-fine-print-make-it-harder-sue-wall-street-fraud-2440890 https://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/how-donald-trump-u...

sofixa 5y ago
> the same audience Care to provide examples of "same audience", aka same people and organisations criticising one and applauding the other? I can easily see how some extremely biased "entertainment news" talk show hosts might do it, but I'm doubtful of actual journalist doing that.

m0ngr31 5y ago

> Are we post-integrity? We have been for a long time

Jenk 5y ago

> are we still holding media and journalists to standards of integrity Were we ever? What do you mean by "holding"? How does one hold any given media outlet or journalist to any standard?

dundarious 5y ago

Very little reporting connected to foreign policy/natsec has integrity. The Washington Post recently ran the following obituary, emphasis mine. https://archive.md/20220201161018/https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/obituaries/general-john-singlaub-commando-dead/2022/01/31/68486e7e-6a20-11ea-b313-df458622c2cc_story.html https://archive.md/20220201161018/https://www.washingtonpost... > Gen. Singlaub started the U.S. Council for World Freedom, an affiliate of the World Anti-Communist League. Later, as president of the international organization, he made what the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith called “substantial progress” in purging the group of neo-Nazis, antisemites and Latin American death-squad leaders. > ... > In the early 1980s, as Congress began curtailing U.S. funding of efforts to overthrow leftist regimes in Nicaragua and elsewhere, Gen. Singlaub and his organizations remained an important conduit of materiel and financial assistance, reportedly with the help of deep-pocketed conservatives and foreign governments. > He was often compared to Marine Lt. Col. Oliver L. North and other major figures in the Reagan administration’s Iran-contra affair. North was among the national security officials who had authorized illegal arms sales to Iran to win the release of U.S. hostages in the Middle East and used some of the profits to support right-wing Nicaraguan rebels known as the contras. The same man being applauded for purging death squad leaders from an organization and for funding death squad leaders.

openknot 5y ago
The point of an independently-written newspaper obituary isn't hagiography (or endorsement of everything the notable person did). There is a slant to avoid speaking too ill of the dead, but typically obituary writers do not shy away from mentioning controversial aspects of the subject's life. The writer isn't celebrating that he funded the contras, but is instead reporting how he was perceived by the American political class, and also mention key controversies he was involved with. The mention of his involvement in the Iran-Contra affair is an example of responsible reporting; in contrast, an irresponsible writer would have omitted the topic, and you would have never read it.
- dundarious 5y ago
  I know obituaries are mostly non-critical (we can leave for another day the decision-making process about which non-critical obituaries to publish, and whether there is a preference for non-critical obits for certain types of people). But this bold contradiction deserves mention in the article. It's about death squads.

dfxm12 5y ago

What does it mean to hold media and journalists to standards of integrity? Does it mean that the people who care about such things will no longer consume Vice Media's products? That employees will leave the company? If that's the case, you certainly can't judge who is holding who to what right as this is being made public. Are we post-integrity? I would argue when it comes to corporate decision making, making money has always come first ahead of integrity, and it's a little naive to consider this the straw that breaks the camel's back.