3 ms·
Honest question: how many people employed as journalists do you personally know? I ask because this sort of comment against an entire profession is generally a
by pkd 3y ago
Honest question: how many people employed as journalists do you personally know?
I ask because this sort of comment against an entire profession is generally a symptom of a level of separation that allows for the lack of nuance like "journalists are dishonest".
I am troubled by these views shared by so many on HN too. Journalism, especially the editorialised version, as a profession is extremely valuable. There are certainly problems it is facing with the advent of the internet but a replacement that consists of "individuals broadcasting their views" is going to be a worse deal because there will be no expectation for having an editor that sounds out their views. There is no check valve for individual ambition.
I would like to see a system that incentives factful reporting instead of sensationalism of course, but I have seen enough to believe that we can't do that with individuals for similar reasons we choose democracy over autocracy most of the time.
- jfengel 3y agoI do know a bunch of journalists, real journos from the 70s and 80s. They'd really hate to be characterized by "misdirection and dishonesty". That was absolutely not what they did, and their editors would not have allowed it. None of them had any financial incentive to be exciting or polarizing. They all very much wanted to get out the truth of the situation, which was a lot more work. But they are also acutely aware how bad their profession has become. Even before the Internet, 24-hour news made journalism about attracting attention. They expected to put out one newspaper a day, or one TV broadcast in the evening. They competed against a small handful of other local media outlets -- they wanted to be the first, but did not expect people to come seeking their specific version of the story. They thought their audience viewed the news as a dull duty, not entertainment. The Internet has made it so, so much worse. The real news outlets still gather news (the wire services, a few major newspapers), but practically everything labeled "news" is secondary, tertiary, or worse. The real primary-source journalists are much like they always were, but few people read those directly. They are mostly fodder for people making entertainment, which does indeed come with lots of "misdirection and dishonesty". If you want factful reporting it's still out there -- via the same few wire services and primary-source newspapers. It's not hard to find -- start anywhere and click on their supporting links until you get to the boots on the ground.