5 ms·
It's frustrating to me that if this journalist was writing about what e.g. Donald Trump said, they would feel morally compelled to do a bunch of fact checking,
by mquander 3y ago
It's frustrating to me that if this journalist was writing about what e.g. Donald Trump said, they would feel morally compelled to do a bunch of fact checking, so that they can also print that the stuff he said is wrong and bad. But when they write this, they just copy and paste all the shit the publishers write about how libgen is a "thieves' den" and "massively illegal" and that companies should do the "right thing" to shut down the "serious harm." Zero push back, zero interrogation.
It would be nice to at least have a sentence in there like, you know, "Conversely, Professor Joe Schmoe, who uses pirate libraries daily in the course of his work researching cures for sick puppies, says that it's good that people can download textbooks and read them, and hopes that the publishers are unable to destroy people's ability to do so."
- underlipton 3y agoThis seems to be common in contemporary journalism, most notoriously in "crime reporting" that is often just rewritten press releases from the police. Trump is an interesting point of comparison; my recollection is that it took years for mainstream outlets to treat his statements with skepticism. There was a period where calling his bald-faced lies "lies" was a hotly-contested ethical issue. Unfortunately, journalism is not free of bias towards the particular incentives that the writers, editors, and publishers are subject to.