8 ms·

The Media damaged? Yes. Absolutely. But journalists? Far less so. Mainstream media and journalism are not synonymous. The root problem is, the mainstream medi

The Media damaged? Yes. Absolutely. But journalists? Far less so. Mainstream media and journalism are not synonymous. The root problem is, the mainstream media has self-anointed themselves as journalists doing journalism. Worst, actual bonafide journalists mostly remained silent (which ironically calls into question their authenticity). All the while the masses believe they're getting news via jounalistic standards. They were not. This Orwellian phenomenon isn't limited to Covid. It bears repeating: Mainstream media and journalism are not synonymous. Perhaps not perfect but if we use this JH list as a filter it become obvious The Fourth Estate has failed us. https://kottke.org/20/01/jim-lehrers-rules-of-journalism-1 https://kottke.org/20/01/jim-lehrers-rules-of-journalism-1 Editorial: Years ago, I was a regular and devoted reader of and often subscriber to the NY Times. The depth and breadth of its journalism kept me well informed. Its objectivity taught me the same. Then - in the 90s - the stanards slipped, and best I can tell have been slipping ever since. Ironic that I learned from The Times how to spot the downfall of The Times.

gatonegro 4y ago
> It bears repeating: Mainstream media and journalism are not synonymous. This. I'd argue that, to a large degree, mainstream media and journalism are not even compatible with each other. Sure, some mainstream outlets publish solid journalistic pieces now and again, but for the most part the "news industry" is, much like every other segment of media, geared towards maximising engagement and turning it into profit via advertising. Most consumers of mainstream news do not have the time or the inclination to dig into proper journalistic works. Journalism is essentially detective work, and requires a higher level of interest from the reader to keep up with the story and any follow-ups that might come out weeks, months, or even years down the line. It is the antithesis of the bite-sized segments you get on TV, where 4 or 5 different subjects are covered (if we are feeling generous with our descriptors) between commercial breaks. And then there are the talk shows, where the hilariously biased opinions of one or a handful of hosts are peddled for journalism or analysis. This has been the case for decades, too. Perhaps surprisingly, one of the best portrayals of the circus that is mainstream media was also a mainstream media production—Sydney Lumet's Network (1976).[1] Howard Beale's rant[2] about how it's all spectacle and lies is frighteningly applicable almost 50 years later. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_(1976_film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_(1976_film) [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPNBm4xv000 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPNBm4xv000
- chiefalchemist 4y ago
  > I'd argue that, to a large degree, mainstream media and journalism are not even compatible with each other. Agreed. And that's that's the crime against intelligence. The polar opposite of journalism is calling themselves journalists. As long as we follow that lead and reinforce that legitimacy of that lie. we'll be subject to misinformation, damage to person and community, etc. So for starters, those of us who know better (e.g., the author of the original article) need to stop using the word journalism / journalist when they don't apply. As I like to say: If your pet barks, do you call it a cat? Of course not. This isn't any different.

gatonegro 4y ago

> It bears repeating: Mainstream media and journalism are not synonymous. This. I'd argue that, to a large degree, mainstream media and journalism are not even compatible with each other. Sure, some mainstream outlets publish solid journalistic pieces now and again, but for the most part the "news industry" is, much like every other segment of media, geared towards maximising engagement and turning it into profit via advertising. Most consumers of mainstream news do not have the time or the inclination to dig into proper journalistic works. Journalism is essentially detective work, and requires a higher level of interest from the reader to keep up with the story and any follow-ups that might come out weeks, months, or even years down the line. It is the antithesis of the bite-sized segments you get on TV, where 4 or 5 different subjects are covered (if we are feeling generous with our descriptors) between commercial breaks. And then there are the talk shows, where the hilariously biased opinions of one or a handful of hosts are peddled for journalism or analysis. This has been the case for decades, too. Perhaps surprisingly, one of the best portrayals of the circus that is mainstream media was also a mainstream media production—Sydney Lumet's Network (1976).[1] Howard Beale's rant[2] about how it's all spectacle and lies is frighteningly applicable almost 50 years later. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_(1976_film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_(1976_film) [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPNBm4xv000 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPNBm4xv000

chiefalchemist 4y ago
> I'd argue that, to a large degree, mainstream media and journalism are not even compatible with each other. Agreed. And that's that's the crime against intelligence. The polar opposite of journalism is calling themselves journalists. As long as we follow that lead and reinforce that legitimacy of that lie. we'll be subject to misinformation, damage to person and community, etc. So for starters, those of us who know better (e.g., the author of the original article) need to stop using the word journalism / journalist when they don't apply. As I like to say: If your pet barks, do you call it a cat? Of course not. This isn't any different.