4 ms·
I don't know anyone who actually believes that. However, recognizing that objectivity in journalism is an ideal impossible to reach doesn't mean all variations
by ska 5y ago
I don't know anyone who actually believes that. However, recognizing that objectivity in journalism is an ideal impossible to reach doesn't mean all variations are equal, or that attempting to hew closer to the idea is pointless.
I think there is a reasonable argument the the general state of journalism and and availability of news to the general public is worse now than it was, say, 30 years ago. Or that 200 years ago was worse than now. I'm not sure I'm convinced, but the arguments aren't prima facie wrong.
- lazide 5y agoThat view can only be supported by false nostalgia or a VERY selective reading of the material and history of the time IMO. It was a mess, widespread censorship, corruption, and yellow news was common, and it was a period of extreme social turmoil.
- ska 5y agoWe're talking early to mid 90's. I agree it was bad on all those aspects - but some at least are arguably notably worse now. How it nets out isn't obvious.
- lazide 5y agoOops, I thought I was in the comment thread I replied to that was explicitly calling out the 60’s. The 90’s have tons of examples of manipulation (Gulf War 1?), as do the 80’s, 70’s, etc etc. It’s hard to contextualize any of that without being embedded in it though. What age were you then?
- ska 5y agoIf you are talking about mine, it never did. I haven't edited it, it refers to 30 years ago or 200. The one I was replying to didn't either, at least when I read it. Perhaps you meant something upstream or a sibling comment?