26 ms·

Journalists are largely a joke. Just read something they write in which you are an expert: they clearly haven't a clue what they are talking about and instead a

Journalists are largely a joke. Just read something they write in which you are an expert: they clearly haven't a clue what they are talking about and instead are just stringing together vaguely related words in barely coherent thoughts. > Primary sources are highly biased, very narrow in knowledge and perspective, and are not trying to inform you. The primary goal of most major news outlets isn't to inform either, it's to present propaganda. See, e.g., the Trusted News Initiative.

wolverine876 3y ago
Not only is that not my experience, I wonder where the 'joke' is. When people broadly dismiss enormous issues with nothing more than trendy contempt, it signals to me that they lack any real evidence or basis.
- anankaie 3y ago
  Consider alternatively, that we do not owe journalists our trust, and that they need to take proactive steps to regain that trust, which had clearly been lost. Blaming consumers of journalism for lack of trust, is a step away from victim-blaming. Journalists collaborating with the very state institutions over which they are meant to be a watchdog for the sake of future access is destroying the profession.
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    > we do not owe journalists our trust I agree! > they need to take proactive steps to regain that trust, which had clearly been lost Speak for yourself! It varies greatly with the journalist and publication, of course, but journalists earn my trust every day in their articles. The amount of direct, personal, on-the-ground research is really impressive. > Journalists collaborating with the very state institutions over which they are meant to be a watchdog for the sake of future access is destroying the profession. That's been complained about for a long time - it's nothing new and not 'destroying the profession'. But how do you maintain access to key information valuable to the public, while criticizing the people who provide it? It's a real challenge. And yet journalism does amazing things. > Blaming consumers of journalism for lack of trust, is a step away from victim-blaming. If you can't take some disagreement, you are in the wrong place! Probably you shouldn't read journalism either.
    - anankaie 3y ago
      > Speak for yourself! It varies greatly with the journalist and publication, of course, but journalists earn my trust every day in their articles. I am speaking statistically. Trust in the media is at an all-time low: https://deadline.com/2021/10/news-media-trust-gallup-1234852211/ https://deadline.com/2021/10/news-media-trust-gallup-1234852.... I'm happy that you don't see that in your personal consumption, but I would urge you to take your own advice. > But how do you maintain access to key information valuable to the public, while criticizing the people who provide it? It's a real challenge. You do investigation. You hire private investigators. You find courageous individuals who will blow the whistle and have the courage to do so publically. You certainly do not continue to use "anonymous sources" when they have shows themselves completely worthless, while lying to your audience that you have vetted the information. > If you can't take some disagreement, you are in the wrong place! Probably you shouldn't read journalism either. Not at all. But your earlier comment implies that there could not be anything to GPs stance than ignorance. This showed your own ignorance as to the state of affairs re: trust in journalism, along with other institutions. Blaming rightly-earned distrust on ignorance... See my comment above.
      - wolverine876 3y ago
        > You do investigation. You hire private investigators. You find courageous individuals who will blow the whistle and have the courage to do so publically. Agreed! And it happens daily in at least the serious news media. Though I'm not sure where private investigators fit - the journalists are already professional investigators. > "anonymous sources" ... have shows themselves completely worthless Speaking of worthless, these claims seem pretty empty of value. Certainly many exceptionally valuable, true things have come from anonymous sources. Certainly there aren't always alternatives to them.

wolverine876 3y ago

Not only is that not my experience, I wonder where the 'joke' is. When people broadly dismiss enormous issues with nothing more than trendy contempt, it signals to me that they lack any real evidence or basis.

anankaie 3y ago
Consider alternatively, that we do not owe journalists our trust, and that they need to take proactive steps to regain that trust, which had clearly been lost. Blaming consumers of journalism for lack of trust, is a step away from victim-blaming. Journalists collaborating with the very state institutions over which they are meant to be a watchdog for the sake of future access is destroying the profession.
- wolverine876 3y ago
  > we do not owe journalists our trust I agree! > they need to take proactive steps to regain that trust, which had clearly been lost Speak for yourself! It varies greatly with the journalist and publication, of course, but journalists earn my trust every day in their articles. The amount of direct, personal, on-the-ground research is really impressive. > Journalists collaborating with the very state institutions over which they are meant to be a watchdog for the sake of future access is destroying the profession. That's been complained about for a long time - it's nothing new and not 'destroying the profession'. But how do you maintain access to key information valuable to the public, while criticizing the people who provide it? It's a real challenge. And yet journalism does amazing things. > Blaming consumers of journalism for lack of trust, is a step away from victim-blaming. If you can't take some disagreement, you are in the wrong place! Probably you shouldn't read journalism either.
  - anankaie 3y ago
    > Speak for yourself! It varies greatly with the journalist and publication, of course, but journalists earn my trust every day in their articles. I am speaking statistically. Trust in the media is at an all-time low: https://deadline.com/2021/10/news-media-trust-gallup-1234852211/ https://deadline.com/2021/10/news-media-trust-gallup-1234852.... I'm happy that you don't see that in your personal consumption, but I would urge you to take your own advice. > But how do you maintain access to key information valuable to the public, while criticizing the people who provide it? It's a real challenge. You do investigation. You hire private investigators. You find courageous individuals who will blow the whistle and have the courage to do so publically. You certainly do not continue to use "anonymous sources" when they have shows themselves completely worthless, while lying to your audience that you have vetted the information. > If you can't take some disagreement, you are in the wrong place! Probably you shouldn't read journalism either. Not at all. But your earlier comment implies that there could not be anything to GPs stance than ignorance. This showed your own ignorance as to the state of affairs re: trust in journalism, along with other institutions. Blaming rightly-earned distrust on ignorance... See my comment above.
    - wolverine876 3y ago
      > You do investigation. You hire private investigators. You find courageous individuals who will blow the whistle and have the courage to do so publically. Agreed! And it happens daily in at least the serious news media. Though I'm not sure where private investigators fit - the journalists are already professional investigators. > "anonymous sources" ... have shows themselves completely worthless Speaking of worthless, these claims seem pretty empty of value. Certainly many exceptionally valuable, true things have come from anonymous sources. Certainly there aren't always alternatives to them.