5 ms·

Maybe it's obvious manuvering like this that's to blame: >Yet journalists are quick to defend anyone who uncovers and disseminates information, as long as it’s

Maybe it's obvious manuvering like this that's to blame: >Yet journalists are quick to defend anyone who uncovers and disseminates information, as long as it’s genuine, by whatever means and with whatever motives. Julian Assange is possibly a criminal. He certainly intervened in the 2016 election, allegedly with Russian help, to damage the candidacy of Hillary Clinton. But top newspaper editors have insisted that what Assange does is protected by the First Amendment, and the Committee to Protect Journalists has protested the charges against him. So basically, "we're saying something that will turn our audience against him, but as an aside we mentioned that a couple organizations you've probably never heard of spoke out against something we're not going to explain, and that on balance means we're defending him."

jchw 4y ago
I was gonna say, it honestly feels like there's evidence in this article that would go great lengths to explain the real problem. I feel there is a huge disconnect between journalists and the public, and I think that having journalists be on Twitter helped make people aware of that disconnect. Unfortunately, it has only grown.
- whatshisface 4y ago
  I also thought it was eye-widening where they described access journalism as a happy and productive equilibrium involving the tolerance of "some hypocrisy on both sides."
A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
Good grief yes. If that was a sincere paragraph in that article, than I have to admit that there is no hope there, because any kind of self-reflection and soul searching is basically pointless with that kind of revelation. This weird patina of technically true sentences structured in a way that is intended to mislead or lead onto a specific thought pattern is just sad for anyone paying attention. This weird variation of navel gazing is very weird though. Is the author seriously suggest they should stop doing that? At that point, even the remnants of their current credibility will perish with the first source they burn since no one sensible will be stupid enough to disclose anything of value. If it is not sincere, then I am in full agreement with you. It is a poster child why Americans lost faith in news.
dangwhy 4y ago
yea that sentence has steven segal level self - awareness.
slg 4y ago
How could you rewrite that paragraph without bias? That seems an impossible task to me because there is no objectively truthful way to describe someone accused of a political crime.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
  This is not intended as a shot, but you just did by saying classifying Assange as 'someone accused of political crime'. I guess my general point is that it obviously can be done, but pre-ordained agenda seems to be clogging basic language faculties of people who live by the printed word.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
    Assange's alleged crimes are not political.
    - ajross 4y ago
      To pick just one incident: He's alleged to have selectively released information specifically to damage the Clinton campaign, and at a time where a Trump scandal was at the top of the news. That's not really even very arguable. To believe that Wikileaks release was non-political just strains reason. Clearly the Podesta emails were released for political purposes. You have an easier time arguing that it's not a crime. Certainly the Podesta hack itself was a crime, but it's plausible that Assange merely got the emails after the fact and published them because they were newsworthy. That's... pretty arguable, but it's at least an argument. Broadly... I just don't see the bias here. Assange is credibly accused of political crimes. Stating so isn't "bias", it's just describing a reasonably held opinion. That it isn't your opinion isn't the point.
      - pessimizer 4y ago
        > To pick just one incident: He's alleged to have selectively released information specifically to damage the Clinton campaign, and at a time where a Trump scandal was at the top of the news. Maybe pick an incident that he's charged with? > You have an easier time arguing that it's not a crime. Especially since nobody has claimed that this is a crime, and he's never been charged with it. You're spreading misinformation in order to justify the prosecution of a journalist.
api 4y ago
I also think a flipped version of this is also valid: Assange clearly was selective about release of information and timed his releases to affect political outcomes, which discredited him in my eyes and many others. But that just adds to the pile doesn't it? It shows that trustworthy agenda-free journalism is exceedingly rare even in the "alternative" media and activist journalism world. If you have an audience that trusts you, you have power. Power corrupts. I don't think there ever was an age in which journalism was significantly more trustworthy than today. I think we just had fewer options and less opportunity to look behind the curtain.
- chordalkeyboard 4y ago
  it is impossible to have journalism without an agenda.
- whatshisface 4y ago
  >Assange clearly was selective about release of information and timed his releases to affect political outcomes, which discredited him in my eyes The Guardian also timed the release of the Snowden leaks, what do you think about that? They were very careful about how they did it, and dripped it out to keep it in the headlines because they, as a newspaper, knew how the headlines worked. They were also selective. Also, what are you challenging when you say he is "discredited" in your eyes? Surely not the veracity of the information, which isn't impacted by the timing of its release.
- starik36 4y ago
  > Assange clearly was selective about release of information So did the rest of the American media, starting with the Biden laptop fiasco. I don't see anyone from news orgs being under arrest and not charged for the past 10 years.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
jt2190 4y ago
This is an essay [1] and the paragraphs you’ve quoted are exploring the question set up in the preceeding paragraph: > The classic statement of the problem [that objectivity journalism is a problematic concept] is Walter Lippmann’s book “Public Opinion,” published a hundred and one years ago. Lippmann’s critique remains relevant today—the Columbia Journalism School mounted a four-day conference on “Public Opinion” last fall, and people found that there was still plenty to talk about. Lippmann’s argument was that journalism is not a profession. You don’t need a license or an academic credential to practice the trade. All sorts of people call themselves journalists. Are all of them providing the public with reliable and disinterested news goods? [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essay https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essay
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
I think listeners or news consumers need to work harder. Every day somebody comes to me outraged with some news that they've inadvertently filled in the gaps on.
- themitigating 4y ago
  On some other post about misinformation someone claimed to combat it people needed even more information. Most people have limited amounts of time and with their free time I'm sure they want to spend the least amount getting to the bottom of a story on the news.
  - hot_gril 4y ago
    But they have time to rage about it online
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
    I don't think we necessarily need more information or time. People need to read more slowly. Think about the words that are being used. What is actually being said? People skim, fill in the blanks, and fulminate on twitter.
    - themitigating 4y ago
      If you're presented with a view from a bias source it doesn't mean it's invalid. That's a big problem today on forums where someone thinks "Pfizer benefits from vaccine therefore they ..."

jchw 4y ago

I was gonna say, it honestly feels like there's evidence in this article that would go great lengths to explain the real problem. I feel there is a huge disconnect between journalists and the public, and I think that having journalists be on Twitter helped make people aware of that disconnect. Unfortunately, it has only grown.

whatshisface 4y ago
I also thought it was eye-widening where they described access journalism as a happy and productive equilibrium involving the tolerance of "some hypocrisy on both sides."

A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago

Good grief yes. If that was a sincere paragraph in that article, than I have to admit that there is no hope there, because any kind of self-reflection and soul searching is basically pointless with that kind of revelation. This weird patina of technically true sentences structured in a way that is intended to mislead or lead onto a specific thought pattern is just sad for anyone paying attention. This weird variation of navel gazing is very weird though. Is the author seriously suggest they should stop doing that? At that point, even the remnants of their current credibility will perish with the first source they burn since no one sensible will be stupid enough to disclose anything of value. If it is not sincere, then I am in full agreement with you. It is a poster child why Americans lost faith in news.

dangwhy 4y ago

yea that sentence has steven segal level self - awareness.

slg 4y ago

How could you rewrite that paragraph without bias? That seems an impossible task to me because there is no objectively truthful way to describe someone accused of a political crime.

A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
This is not intended as a shot, but you just did by saying classifying Assange as 'someone accused of political crime'. I guess my general point is that it obviously can be done, but pre-ordained agenda seems to be clogging basic language faculties of people who live by the printed word.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
  Assange's alleged crimes are not political.
  - ajross 4y ago
    To pick just one incident: He's alleged to have selectively released information specifically to damage the Clinton campaign, and at a time where a Trump scandal was at the top of the news. That's not really even very arguable. To believe that Wikileaks release was non-political just strains reason. Clearly the Podesta emails were released for political purposes. You have an easier time arguing that it's not a crime. Certainly the Podesta hack itself was a crime, but it's plausible that Assange merely got the emails after the fact and published them because they were newsworthy. That's... pretty arguable, but it's at least an argument. Broadly... I just don't see the bias here. Assange is credibly accused of political crimes. Stating so isn't "bias", it's just describing a reasonably held opinion. That it isn't your opinion isn't the point.
    - pessimizer 4y ago
      > To pick just one incident: He's alleged to have selectively released information specifically to damage the Clinton campaign, and at a time where a Trump scandal was at the top of the news. Maybe pick an incident that he's charged with? > You have an easier time arguing that it's not a crime. Especially since nobody has claimed that this is a crime, and he's never been charged with it. You're spreading misinformation in order to justify the prosecution of a journalist.

api 4y ago

I also think a flipped version of this is also valid: Assange clearly was selective about release of information and timed his releases to affect political outcomes, which discredited him in my eyes and many others. But that just adds to the pile doesn't it? It shows that trustworthy agenda-free journalism is exceedingly rare even in the "alternative" media and activist journalism world. If you have an audience that trusts you, you have power. Power corrupts. I don't think there ever was an age in which journalism was significantly more trustworthy than today. I think we just had fewer options and less opportunity to look behind the curtain.

chordalkeyboard 4y ago
it is impossible to have journalism without an agenda.
whatshisface 4y ago
>Assange clearly was selective about release of information and timed his releases to affect political outcomes, which discredited him in my eyes The Guardian also timed the release of the Snowden leaks, what do you think about that? They were very careful about how they did it, and dripped it out to keep it in the headlines because they, as a newspaper, knew how the headlines worked. They were also selective. Also, what are you challenging when you say he is "discredited" in your eyes? Surely not the veracity of the information, which isn't impacted by the timing of its release.
starik36 4y ago
> Assange clearly was selective about release of information So did the rest of the American media, starting with the Biden laptop fiasco. I don't see anyone from news orgs being under arrest and not charged for the past 10 years.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

jt2190 4y ago

This is an essay [1] and the paragraphs you’ve quoted are exploring the question set up in the preceeding paragraph: > The classic statement of the problem [that objectivity journalism is a problematic concept] is Walter Lippmann’s book “Public Opinion,” published a hundred and one years ago. Lippmann’s critique remains relevant today—the Columbia Journalism School mounted a four-day conference on “Public Opinion” last fall, and people found that there was still plenty to talk about. Lippmann’s argument was that journalism is not a profession. You don’t need a license or an academic credential to practice the trade. All sorts of people call themselves journalists. Are all of them providing the public with reliable and disinterested news goods? [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essay https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essay

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago

I think listeners or news consumers need to work harder. Every day somebody comes to me outraged with some news that they've inadvertently filled in the gaps on.

themitigating 4y ago
On some other post about misinformation someone claimed to combat it people needed even more information. Most people have limited amounts of time and with their free time I'm sure they want to spend the least amount getting to the bottom of a story on the news.
- hot_gril 4y ago
  But they have time to rage about it online
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
  I don't think we necessarily need more information or time. People need to read more slowly. Think about the words that are being used. What is actually being said? People skim, fill in the blanks, and fulminate on twitter.
  - themitigating 4y ago
    If you're presented with a view from a bias source it doesn't mean it's invalid. That's a big problem today on forums where someone thinks "Pfizer benefits from vaccine therefore they ..."