4 ms·

To be skeptical they first need competency to understand both sides of the argument. Unfortunately the longer I observe the work of journalists the more I becom

To be skeptical they first need competency to understand both sides of the argument. Unfortunately the longer I observe the work of journalists the more I become convinced,except few individuals, most people that become journalists do so because they failed in their primary choice of career. This is a huge threat to democracy that one of the most important functions in society (to inform) has been "outsourced" to a bunch of random people that landed in this job because they failed in others. Unless we find a solution to increase the quality of journalism or replace it with something else I doubt democracy as a system will be anything more than a facade over oligarchy or even worse dictatorships. What is the solution? It has to be country specific, but one common theme has to be better wages for journalists to attract talent and much more strict requirements for professional conduct to filter out those unable to do it right. Both have to happen at the same time.

tiznow 3y ago
"most people that become journalists do so because they failed in their primary choice of career." Well this is braindead. I assure you most journalists want to be journalists more than anything else -- that's the only reason to hang around in that industry.
- concordDance 3y ago
  I recommend using "wrong" rather than "braindead". You're less likely to get people's backs up and more likely for them to be receptive. (Plus, it's less hurtful)
- pydry 3y ago
  My impression is that it's nowadays a poorly paid career of choice for the propertied upper classes for whom the job is an identity and means of social signaling and only incidentally an income. Same as acting - perhaps easier to get into though. They were for sure a lot more talented when there existed such a thing as a working class journalist. They probably also had more resources available to them to do real journalism - before tech took the lion's share of the advertising pie.
- marttt 3y ago
  +1, former and trained journalist here. I would say all the best journalists I know in person (many of them among the very best ones in my country) have almost exclusively had journalism as their primary choice of career. What separates top level and (as a cynical metaphor or stereotype) "screwed up former musician, now a critic and journo, lost in life" level journalists is that the former ones really-really understand the ethics of journalism. They make well-grounded, extremely careful ethical decisions, and they are able to make them fast. As a side note, in my country, I'd say ethical reasoning in journalism has reached a higher level during the post-pandemic years (and, now, the war in Ukraine). I think journalists' grasp of science (scientific reasoning) has improved quite a bit as well during this same period. Obviously, everything can always be better (also, 90% of everything is not-so-good), but todays' best journalism is actually pretty decent, isn't it.
- BeFlatXIII 3y ago
  > that's the only reason to hang around in that industry That and having a vendetta against their previous industry and now being a muckraking watchdog.
willyt 3y ago
‘Journalist’ should be a profession like ‘medical doctor’ or ’structural engineer’ or ‘electrician’ or ‘architect’. Anyone can still write anything and publish it wherever they want. But the words ‘News’ and ‘Journalist’ become legally protected. If you want to claim that what you have written is ‘News’ and that you are a ‘Journalist’ you have to be registered with a professional body and you have to sign every article that you write and claim as ‘news’. This signature is like a checksum that can be verified to check that a story hasn’t been changed and that the person who wrote it takes responsibility for it. You submit this to a register kept by your professional body. Mistakes and retractions are also kept on file there. If you make a lot of mistakes or consistently ignore standard practices like not using multiple sources or verifiable sources you will loose your right to claim to be a ‘Journalist’ and all your past articles would be called into question. You can still say or write whatever you want but you lose the right to call it news and claim you are a journalist. I think something like that would protect freedom of speech but also give a sense of responsibility to the profession. A bad doctor can accidentally kill a good few people over thier career but a bad journalist can incite war or unrest that could potentially kill many more people. E.g. WMDs in Iraq that didn’t exist.
- willyt 3y ago
  In reply to downvotes: Interesting… Is it the idea of regulation that you disagree with? Do you also think that professionals like Structural engineers, Electricians and Doctors shouldn’t be regulated? Or is it the idea of protected words ‘e.g ‘Medical Doctor’ or ‘Prescription’?
  - wholinator2 3y ago
    If i might speak on some behalf, an adjacent question is what would a political agenda in structural engineering registration and certification look like? Then, what would a political agenda in the registration of journalists look like? It feels sorta like regulatory capture. Why would we allow the government or some central organizing body to determine who is legally allowed to report on them. Because introducing certifications turns it into a legal proceeding, possibly prosecutable with possibly steep penalties. Then we've just provided the infrastructure to jail dissenting journalists on a silver platter. Maybe if the world was in a better state we could trust anyone with the literal power over speech but have you seen the uproar over even corporate pseudo-control that exists now? Imagine a world where a President, instead of removing unfavorable journalists from his press conferences, revokes those journalists certifications and then jails them the next time they try to do their job. Okay, so it wouldn't be the president who has that power, who would you pick? Name a person who you trust with control over investigative speech itself. That's where all the downvotes are coming from. You can't just say, what if we regulated journalism legally. You have to also introduce a system that doesn't immediately descend into hell or people are gonna be way against you
chiefalchemist 3y ago
The solution starts with this: If they're not skeptical, *by definition* they're not journalists. We need to stop giving credit where is *not* due. As it is, we're doing a version of "everyone gets a trophy". That's fine for kids. But if they want to be called a journalist they need to earn it (i.e., meet the criteria). Furthermore, solo bloggers aside, this also falls on the editors and publishers. If some hack - notice I didn't say journalist - writes something that fails to meet the criteria then that should not be published. Full stop. But that's not what's happening. Instead we get less and less quality as the hacks drink their own Kool Aid. The current situation is Orwellian. The hacks call themselves journalists. The journalists call the hacks journalists. The rest of us call the hacks journalists. There is zero incentive for the hacks (and associated editors and publishers) to fix their QA problem. Zer. Oh. If your pet barks, do you call it a cat? Well, the same attention to detail should apply to journalists and journalism. That is the start to fixing the problem. Stop letting bullshit get passed off as anything but what it is.
dennis_jeeves1 3y ago
>Unless we find a solution to increase the quality of journalism or replace it with something else I doubt democracy as a system will be anything more than a facade over oligarchy or even worse dictatorships. Very poignant observation. I really see no way that _any_ system will work for the masses for the long run. Even if the 'best' system is in place it will soon morph into a facade that ends up being a propaganda piece of the ruling class.

tiznow 3y ago

"most people that become journalists do so because they failed in their primary choice of career." Well this is braindead. I assure you most journalists want to be journalists more than anything else -- that's the only reason to hang around in that industry.

concordDance 3y ago
I recommend using "wrong" rather than "braindead". You're less likely to get people's backs up and more likely for them to be receptive. (Plus, it's less hurtful)
pydry 3y ago
My impression is that it's nowadays a poorly paid career of choice for the propertied upper classes for whom the job is an identity and means of social signaling and only incidentally an income. Same as acting - perhaps easier to get into though. They were for sure a lot more talented when there existed such a thing as a working class journalist. They probably also had more resources available to them to do real journalism - before tech took the lion's share of the advertising pie.
marttt 3y ago
+1, former and trained journalist here. I would say all the best journalists I know in person (many of them among the very best ones in my country) have almost exclusively had journalism as their primary choice of career. What separates top level and (as a cynical metaphor or stereotype) "screwed up former musician, now a critic and journo, lost in life" level journalists is that the former ones really-really understand the ethics of journalism. They make well-grounded, extremely careful ethical decisions, and they are able to make them fast. As a side note, in my country, I'd say ethical reasoning in journalism has reached a higher level during the post-pandemic years (and, now, the war in Ukraine). I think journalists' grasp of science (scientific reasoning) has improved quite a bit as well during this same period. Obviously, everything can always be better (also, 90% of everything is not-so-good), but todays' best journalism is actually pretty decent, isn't it.
BeFlatXIII 3y ago
> that's the only reason to hang around in that industry That and having a vendetta against their previous industry and now being a muckraking watchdog.

willyt 3y ago

‘Journalist’ should be a profession like ‘medical doctor’ or ’structural engineer’ or ‘electrician’ or ‘architect’. Anyone can still write anything and publish it wherever they want. But the words ‘News’ and ‘Journalist’ become legally protected. If you want to claim that what you have written is ‘News’ and that you are a ‘Journalist’ you have to be registered with a professional body and you have to sign every article that you write and claim as ‘news’. This signature is like a checksum that can be verified to check that a story hasn’t been changed and that the person who wrote it takes responsibility for it. You submit this to a register kept by your professional body. Mistakes and retractions are also kept on file there. If you make a lot of mistakes or consistently ignore standard practices like not using multiple sources or verifiable sources you will loose your right to claim to be a ‘Journalist’ and all your past articles would be called into question. You can still say or write whatever you want but you lose the right to call it news and claim you are a journalist. I think something like that would protect freedom of speech but also give a sense of responsibility to the profession. A bad doctor can accidentally kill a good few people over thier career but a bad journalist can incite war or unrest that could potentially kill many more people. E.g. WMDs in Iraq that didn’t exist.

willyt 3y ago
In reply to downvotes: Interesting… Is it the idea of regulation that you disagree with? Do you also think that professionals like Structural engineers, Electricians and Doctors shouldn’t be regulated? Or is it the idea of protected words ‘e.g ‘Medical Doctor’ or ‘Prescription’?
- wholinator2 3y ago
  If i might speak on some behalf, an adjacent question is what would a political agenda in structural engineering registration and certification look like? Then, what would a political agenda in the registration of journalists look like? It feels sorta like regulatory capture. Why would we allow the government or some central organizing body to determine who is legally allowed to report on them. Because introducing certifications turns it into a legal proceeding, possibly prosecutable with possibly steep penalties. Then we've just provided the infrastructure to jail dissenting journalists on a silver platter. Maybe if the world was in a better state we could trust anyone with the literal power over speech but have you seen the uproar over even corporate pseudo-control that exists now? Imagine a world where a President, instead of removing unfavorable journalists from his press conferences, revokes those journalists certifications and then jails them the next time they try to do their job. Okay, so it wouldn't be the president who has that power, who would you pick? Name a person who you trust with control over investigative speech itself. That's where all the downvotes are coming from. You can't just say, what if we regulated journalism legally. You have to also introduce a system that doesn't immediately descend into hell or people are gonna be way against you

chiefalchemist 3y ago

The solution starts with this: If they're not skeptical, *by definition* they're not journalists. We need to stop giving credit where is *not* due. As it is, we're doing a version of "everyone gets a trophy". That's fine for kids. But if they want to be called a journalist they need to earn it (i.e., meet the criteria). Furthermore, solo bloggers aside, this also falls on the editors and publishers. If some hack - notice I didn't say journalist - writes something that fails to meet the criteria then that should not be published. Full stop. But that's not what's happening. Instead we get less and less quality as the hacks drink their own Kool Aid. The current situation is Orwellian. The hacks call themselves journalists. The journalists call the hacks journalists. The rest of us call the hacks journalists. There is zero incentive for the hacks (and associated editors and publishers) to fix their QA problem. Zer. Oh. If your pet barks, do you call it a cat? Well, the same attention to detail should apply to journalists and journalism. That is the start to fixing the problem. Stop letting bullshit get passed off as anything but what it is.

dennis_jeeves1 3y ago

>Unless we find a solution to increase the quality of journalism or replace it with something else I doubt democracy as a system will be anything more than a facade over oligarchy or even worse dictatorships. Very poignant observation. I really see no way that _any_ system will work for the masses for the long run. Even if the 'best' system is in place it will soon morph into a facade that ends up being a propaganda piece of the ruling class.