5 ms·

It was also opinionated. In the past strong opinion was contained into clearly labeled opinion columns. But in the last 20 years, every journalist confuses jou

It was also opinionated. In the past strong opinion was contained into clearly labeled opinion columns. But in the last 20 years, every journalist confuses journalism (informing people) with activism (changing people). Perhaps because cut&paste from the internet didn't feel fullfilling enough. This makes reading news unbearable to me.

soperj 3y ago
I don't think it's changed as much as you think it has over the years.
emodendroket 3y ago
Kind of a media criticism 101 point here but even in the 20th Century highpoint of mostly neutral journalism (the stuff people read in the 18th and 19th Centuries was generally tabloid or highly partisan), there's plenty of opinion and guiding of the audience simply by the selection of stories and facts to emphasize and which to bury.
mc32 3y ago
That's a pretty good take. One major problem is the total lack of seriousness. The news and journalists don't just have opinions and at time agitate but they tend to not have supporting evidence. They use the lightest and flimsiest evidence and use that to build opinions and agitate. There is no truth seeking, it's as they say, propaganda. At least opinion used to have some reason behind them and they'd lay out their thinking. Now it's more, "take my word, you and I agree on other things, so believe me on this."
codampa01314 3y ago
> But in the last 20 years, every journalist confuses journalism (informing people) with activism (changing people). My concern with this sentiment is that is glosses over far more nefarious motivations here (which I think are more common than we like to admit). I have met many many people in the corporate world that are more concerned about "what the rules are" as opposed to applying any sort of ethical mindset. I've seen again and again where people will take advantage of others, throw other people under the bus, and fight to take "what is theirs" (meaning what they want - not actually what makes sense) without any sort of self-reflection. If challenged they gaslight everyone around them, including themselves.. I'm willing to believe that this extends to reporters. I would not be surprised if a large number of "reporters" out there that happily go along with whatever they are told to do in the job (or to keep their job): go after eyeballs rather than report facts and (sometimes) on stuff that matters. Take a look at any sort of news network and you can clearly see that all these news anchors are playing parts in this screwed up version of reporting what's going on. It's bound to extend down to people writing the articles as well.
Lyapunov_Lover 3y ago
It's strange how people seem to think that Good Old Fashioned Journalism was objective and reliable. Bias is certainly not a modern invention. This bizarre nostalgia for an era that never actually existed seems to be pretty common, similar to the classic complaint that kids today are lazy and immoral. Anton Chekhov was an activist journalist 160 years ago. This is not at all a novel phenomenon. And news editors who sought to defend the status quo would, of course, be just as biased as activists—they would amplify or suppress narratives according to their ideological allegiances. The news industry has never been objective and pure. It has always been subjective and biased.
- KingOfCoders 3y ago
  "It was also opinionated" vs. "It's strange how people seem to think that Good Old Fashioned Journalism was objective"
- bad_username 3y ago
  If a phenomenon is old it does not mean it's good. If journalism isn't completely objective (or even if it can't be 100% objective) doesn't mean journalists should not be trying to be objective. Code always had bugs - should we give up fixing them? I am all for journalist activism if it's clearly marked as such. Disguising activism as news is the biggest sin that the modern media have committed and are committing.

soperj 3y ago

I don't think it's changed as much as you think it has over the years.

emodendroket 3y ago

Kind of a media criticism 101 point here but even in the 20th Century highpoint of mostly neutral journalism (the stuff people read in the 18th and 19th Centuries was generally tabloid or highly partisan), there's plenty of opinion and guiding of the audience simply by the selection of stories and facts to emphasize and which to bury.

mc32 3y ago

That's a pretty good take. One major problem is the total lack of seriousness. The news and journalists don't just have opinions and at time agitate but they tend to not have supporting evidence. They use the lightest and flimsiest evidence and use that to build opinions and agitate. There is no truth seeking, it's as they say, propaganda. At least opinion used to have some reason behind them and they'd lay out their thinking. Now it's more, "take my word, you and I agree on other things, so believe me on this."

codampa01314 3y ago

> But in the last 20 years, every journalist confuses journalism (informing people) with activism (changing people). My concern with this sentiment is that is glosses over far more nefarious motivations here (which I think are more common than we like to admit). I have met many many people in the corporate world that are more concerned about "what the rules are" as opposed to applying any sort of ethical mindset. I've seen again and again where people will take advantage of others, throw other people under the bus, and fight to take "what is theirs" (meaning what they want - not actually what makes sense) without any sort of self-reflection. If challenged they gaslight everyone around them, including themselves.. I'm willing to believe that this extends to reporters. I would not be surprised if a large number of "reporters" out there that happily go along with whatever they are told to do in the job (or to keep their job): go after eyeballs rather than report facts and (sometimes) on stuff that matters. Take a look at any sort of news network and you can clearly see that all these news anchors are playing parts in this screwed up version of reporting what's going on. It's bound to extend down to people writing the articles as well.

Lyapunov_Lover 3y ago

It's strange how people seem to think that Good Old Fashioned Journalism was objective and reliable. Bias is certainly not a modern invention. This bizarre nostalgia for an era that never actually existed seems to be pretty common, similar to the classic complaint that kids today are lazy and immoral. Anton Chekhov was an activist journalist 160 years ago. This is not at all a novel phenomenon. And news editors who sought to defend the status quo would, of course, be just as biased as activists—they would amplify or suppress narratives according to their ideological allegiances. The news industry has never been objective and pure. It has always been subjective and biased.

KingOfCoders 3y ago
"It was also opinionated" vs. "It's strange how people seem to think that Good Old Fashioned Journalism was objective"
bad_username 3y ago
If a phenomenon is old it does not mean it's good. If journalism isn't completely objective (or even if it can't be 100% objective) doesn't mean journalists should not be trying to be objective. Code always had bugs - should we give up fixing them? I am all for journalist activism if it's clearly marked as such. Disguising activism as news is the biggest sin that the modern media have committed and are committing.