4 ms·

In the sense that it implies neutrality. This group of people is highly partisan and carefully cuts out context from their video recordings in order to slander

In the sense that it implies neutrality. This group of people is highly partisan and carefully cuts out context from their video recordings in order to slander their targets.

BurningFrog 3y ago
I don't see anything implying neutrality in that text.
- steamer25 3y ago
  Their expectation of neutrality probably stems from the word 'journalism'. I'd say that the expectation of neutral journalism is a (commonish) fallacy, though. Unbiased, neutral, objective reporting is a great ideal and aspiration for those who fancy themselves journalists. But that doesn't mean it could be 100% achieved. The very nature of reporting means that you need to make editorial decisions about which stories are newsworthy and salient. We probably don't need to know how many hairs were on the Senator's head as he gave his speech. Different people will make different choices about which details are important and those choices will inevitably be colored/informed by the things that're important to those making the editorial choices. As much as it'd be nice if we could somehow fix it, bias affects everything. Even institutions which we hold sacred like education, jurisprudence, science, statesmanship, etc. are all irrevocably tainted. What's especially interesting about the media, though, is that it comes with a megaphone. The medium is the message: "The most trusted name in news", "Fair and Balanced". Where the self-promotion is repeated often enough, it's particularly easy for people start believing it--at least about their favored side. Every other outlet produces nothing but salacious, yellow, muckraking tabloid-esque sound-bites but 'journalism' is as pure as the wind-driven snow. You can't apply the term 'journalism' to a real, human organization unless it's one of the organizations that I like. Otherwise, you're implying neutrality where none exists.
sourcegrift 3y ago
You know all news channels cut out the part where Trump followed Abe in feeding the fish, so as to mock Trump? And I'll be flagged again
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- nunuvit 3y ago
  Mocking a politician is protected political speech. Complaining that the politician you support has been mocked violates the no-politics rule here. Your understanding of what's allowed is completely backwards.
  - Laaas 3y ago
    The point is that neutrality isn't a given and shouldn't be assumed for any media organisation.
    - nunuvit 3y ago
      I think we might be talking about different things. Slander is illegal. Political speech is constitutionally protected. How exactly does this relate to "neutrality"?
      - mcpackieh 3y ago
        If you trace the conversation thread back up the page, you'll see a discussion about neutrality. What I can't figure out is why you started talking about protected speech instead, which is unrelated to neutrality.
        nunuvit 3y ago
        Yeah that's the error, as I interpret it. One comment mentioned slander, which is illegal. Project Veritas in the past has committed slander, and lost the resulting defamation suit. The response mentioned neutrality with regards to mocking Trump with an out of context video, which is protected political speech. It seems they're equating two instances of media reporting out of context, and saying that the response to those media outlets is not neutral. But they're not equivalent because one instance is illegal, and the other is protected. So I don't see where we'd need to apply neutrality in the first place. Maybe I'm reading it wrong. What's your take?
noduerme 3y ago
So? Police departments manipulate video all the time. Does that mean we should be against having cops wearing body cams? Isn't having the public right to document things at least the greater good? I don't understand what principle you're defending. Everyone is recorded in public all the time; if you want to stop that, it's a whole different set of laws. If the Starbucks CCTV camera can record it, but you can be arrested for recording it, that's a massive infringement on your rights[0]. You're OK with abolishing the right of people to record just because some right wing group splices video to make people look bad? [0] https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/la-sheriff-department-use-of-force-lancaster-video/3181987/ https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/la-sheriff-departme...
- laserdancepony 3y ago
  [flagged]
- AdamN 3y ago
  This comment doesn't make any sense. The critique was of the description of Project Veritas, not the facts of the case or anything else.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
stainablesteel 3y ago
do you have a source on any of this cutting?
- rootusrootus 3y ago
  You don't have to look any farther than the wikipedia page about them to get a list of their antics.
  - stainablesteel 3y ago
    wikipedia is not a valid source when it comes to people-drama, its has political bias. why the downvote? i'm just curious

In the sense that it implies neutrality. This group of people is highly partisan and carefully cuts out context from their video recordings in order to slander their targets.

BurningFrog 3y ago

I don't see anything implying neutrality in that text.

steamer25 3y ago
Their expectation of neutrality probably stems from the word 'journalism'. I'd say that the expectation of neutral journalism is a (commonish) fallacy, though. Unbiased, neutral, objective reporting is a great ideal and aspiration for those who fancy themselves journalists. But that doesn't mean it could be 100% achieved. The very nature of reporting means that you need to make editorial decisions about which stories are newsworthy and salient. We probably don't need to know how many hairs were on the Senator's head as he gave his speech. Different people will make different choices about which details are important and those choices will inevitably be colored/informed by the things that're important to those making the editorial choices. As much as it'd be nice if we could somehow fix it, bias affects everything. Even institutions which we hold sacred like education, jurisprudence, science, statesmanship, etc. are all irrevocably tainted. What's especially interesting about the media, though, is that it comes with a megaphone. The medium is the message: "The most trusted name in news", "Fair and Balanced". Where the self-promotion is repeated often enough, it's particularly easy for people start believing it--at least about their favored side. Every other outlet produces nothing but salacious, yellow, muckraking tabloid-esque sound-bites but 'journalism' is as pure as the wind-driven snow. You can't apply the term 'journalism' to a real, human organization unless it's one of the organizations that I like. Otherwise, you're implying neutrality where none exists.

sourcegrift 3y ago

You know all news channels cut out the part where Trump followed Abe in feeding the fish, so as to mock Trump? And I'll be flagged again

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
nunuvit 3y ago
Mocking a politician is protected political speech. Complaining that the politician you support has been mocked violates the no-politics rule here. Your understanding of what's allowed is completely backwards.
- Laaas 3y ago
  The point is that neutrality isn't a given and shouldn't be assumed for any media organisation.
  - nunuvit 3y ago
    I think we might be talking about different things. Slander is illegal. Political speech is constitutionally protected. How exactly does this relate to "neutrality"?
    - mcpackieh 3y ago
      If you trace the conversation thread back up the page, you'll see a discussion about neutrality. What I can't figure out is why you started talking about protected speech instead, which is unrelated to neutrality.
      - nunuvit 3y ago
        Yeah that's the error, as I interpret it. One comment mentioned slander, which is illegal. Project Veritas in the past has committed slander, and lost the resulting defamation suit. The response mentioned neutrality with regards to mocking Trump with an out of context video, which is protected political speech. It seems they're equating two instances of media reporting out of context, and saying that the response to those media outlets is not neutral. But they're not equivalent because one instance is illegal, and the other is protected. So I don't see where we'd need to apply neutrality in the first place. Maybe I'm reading it wrong. What's your take?

noduerme 3y ago

So? Police departments manipulate video all the time. Does that mean we should be against having cops wearing body cams? Isn't having the public right to document things at least the greater good? I don't understand what principle you're defending. Everyone is recorded in public all the time; if you want to stop that, it's a whole different set of laws. If the Starbucks CCTV camera can record it, but you can be arrested for recording it, that's a massive infringement on your rights[0]. You're OK with abolishing the right of people to record just because some right wing group splices video to make people look bad? [0] https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/la-sheriff-department-use-of-force-lancaster-video/3181987/ https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/la-sheriff-departme...

laserdancepony 3y ago
[flagged]
AdamN 3y ago
This comment doesn't make any sense. The critique was of the description of Project Veritas, not the facts of the case or anything else.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

stainablesteel 3y ago

do you have a source on any of this cutting?

rootusrootus 3y ago
You don't have to look any farther than the wikipedia page about them to get a list of their antics.
- stainablesteel 3y ago
  wikipedia is not a valid source when it comes to people-drama, its has political bias. why the downvote? i'm just curious