3 ms·

Well, in the "technically correct" department, the stars all do, even if it's on the order of attometers or whatever. It's set up to pass the fact-checking, so

Well, in the "technically correct" department, the stars all do, even if it's on the order of attometers or whatever. It's set up to pass the fact-checking, so yeah, that's just about the standards of modern journalism.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
jacquesm 3y ago
I'm sick and tired of the more or less concerted attack on journalists with every opportunity. Bad media have been around as long as there have been media, if you think the standards of modern journalism have dropped you are either looking at things through a very local lens or simply not well informed about mass media through the ages. But quality content exists if you're willing to pay for it, which is how it has always been. Free content, whether in print or on the web can be very good but as a rule if it is brought to you by a commercial entity you have to always question the value of the words and their relation to commercial interests.
- mianos 3y ago
  Whilst I agree with you, there has always been bad journalism, I have been reading the same newspaper for many years and have had a paid subscription to it. The problem is, as the paid readers fall, they are forced to use clickbait titles to attract more on line readers to click ads. Imagine a newspaper founded in 1831, using titles like, "You will never guess what she said next" as a main headline. The same here, who is going to click on "Passing stars may affect the orbits of our planets"? They know exactly what they are doing and it's not about the scientifically literate.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    The media landscape has always been shifting and business models change over time. The internet pretty much put paid newspapers out of business, circulation is a fraction of what it used to be. TV started it, the internet ended it. So just like with everything else it changes, just like you don't normally complain about how 'art galleries show crap today' because your favorite art galleries have gone down the tubes you move to new ones or you directly patronize the artists that you like. A similar thing happens to journalism.
    - effingwewt 3y ago
      I get where you are coming from, but journalists today aren't real journalists. Public trust in media is at an all-time low for a reason. I understand that real journalism must be paid for, but allowing megacorps to buy up all maintream media was a huge mistake and now they are all corporate mouthpieces. I don't know what the answer is, but trusting 'journalists' of today is not it. The head of journalism at my college warned us of this over a decade ago, and he didn't have the answer either. They lost their ethics in search of clicks and clout and cry foul when they aren't believed. They use divisive language, outright lie, holy crap this election cycle will be a shitshow. There's no unbiased truth finders anymore. The ones I feel sorry for are the real journalists drowned out by the fake.
      - jacquesm 3y ago
        > I get where you are coming from, but journalists today aren't real journalists. Some are, some aren't. Just like some programmers are real programmers and others are not, and some managers are real managers and others are not. The world is full of posers but that doesn't mean there aren't people that hold the title + the ethics that come with it dear. They're a minority, but they've always been a minority, that didn't change at all. > Public trust in media is at an all-time low for a reason. It mostly is because there are well funded political groups that incessantly undermine the public trust in the media. Because the last thing they want is for their deeds to be properly exposed and investigated. > I understand that real journalism must be paid for, but allowing megacorps to buy up all maintream media was a huge mistake and now they are all corporate mouthpieces. > I don't know what the answer is, but trusting 'journalists' of today is not it. Well, one thing that could be done is to seriously limit ownership of media by global empires. The likes of Murdoch have done untold damage to the world in the pursuit of some green paper. > The head of journalism at my college warned us of this over a decade ago, and he didn't have the answer either. Yes, it is a problem. And given the cost of good investigative journalism it is in fact unbelievable that there are still people doing this because they see it as their calling. And I'm mighty impressed with that and do not accept the broad brush with which they too are being painted. In every country you can find journalists that operate with integrity and that are not to be muzzled by corporate interests. They're real heroes too because in plenty of places that will get you ostracized, beaten up, blacklisted or murdered. > They lost their ethics in search of clicks and clout and cry foul when they aren't believed. Some. Not all. > They use divisive language, outright lie, holy crap this election cycle will be a shitshow. There's no unbiased truth finders anymore. There are, just not all that many, but they do exist. > The ones I feel sorry for are the real journalists drowned out by the fake. So, it seems we agree they exist. My solution is pretty simple, I seek out the journalists whose work I trust and I try to get my information about country A from any source except the ones in country A because they likely will not be objective. That's a hack and a workaround but it seems to work quite well.
- dotancohen 3y ago
  Lots of things that have existed for long are no longer tolerated. Racism and sexism for two prominent examples. Expecting high standards from those tasked with informing the public seems very reasonable to me.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    There always has been a dividing line between quality journalism and what amounts to clickbait. Bild was a thing when I grew up. If you want better journalism pay for it. The whole idea that news and media should be free is part and parcel of the destruction of quality journalism and it is the very same people bitching about the quality of journalism that want all of their news to be free. No matter how poor we were my mom was paying for a newspaper because she felt it important to stay informed and for us to stay informed. That newspaper may have slowly died on account of the TV and the Internet but those journalists still exist and if you put some effort into it you can find them.
    - dotancohen 3y ago
      You are correct - I have no problem paying a reasonable fee for good journalism to be informed. The problem is that poor journalism influences the masses. And in a democracy, the masses' opinion is assigned a higher decision-making weight than is the opinion of the informed minority.
      - jacquesm 3y ago
        Yes, that is a massive problem. But I don't blame the journalists per se: the masses are part and parcel of that and they collectively seem to prefer to be lied to over the unvarnished truth, which as often as not is very uncomfortable. People want simplicity and predictability, they don't want to have to exercise their grey matter too much, they don't want to be inconvenienced and they - and this one really gets me - would prefer not to know. That makes it easier to ignore things and to focus on the little joys in life instead of on the overarching much larger troubles.
        3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

jacquesm 3y ago

I'm sick and tired of the more or less concerted attack on journalists with every opportunity. Bad media have been around as long as there have been media, if you think the standards of modern journalism have dropped you are either looking at things through a very local lens or simply not well informed about mass media through the ages. But quality content exists if you're willing to pay for it, which is how it has always been. Free content, whether in print or on the web can be very good but as a rule if it is brought to you by a commercial entity you have to always question the value of the words and their relation to commercial interests.

mianos 3y ago
Whilst I agree with you, there has always been bad journalism, I have been reading the same newspaper for many years and have had a paid subscription to it. The problem is, as the paid readers fall, they are forced to use clickbait titles to attract more on line readers to click ads. Imagine a newspaper founded in 1831, using titles like, "You will never guess what she said next" as a main headline. The same here, who is going to click on "Passing stars may affect the orbits of our planets"? They know exactly what they are doing and it's not about the scientifically literate.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  The media landscape has always been shifting and business models change over time. The internet pretty much put paid newspapers out of business, circulation is a fraction of what it used to be. TV started it, the internet ended it. So just like with everything else it changes, just like you don't normally complain about how 'art galleries show crap today' because your favorite art galleries have gone down the tubes you move to new ones or you directly patronize the artists that you like. A similar thing happens to journalism.
  - effingwewt 3y ago
    I get where you are coming from, but journalists today aren't real journalists. Public trust in media is at an all-time low for a reason. I understand that real journalism must be paid for, but allowing megacorps to buy up all maintream media was a huge mistake and now they are all corporate mouthpieces. I don't know what the answer is, but trusting 'journalists' of today is not it. The head of journalism at my college warned us of this over a decade ago, and he didn't have the answer either. They lost their ethics in search of clicks and clout and cry foul when they aren't believed. They use divisive language, outright lie, holy crap this election cycle will be a shitshow. There's no unbiased truth finders anymore. The ones I feel sorry for are the real journalists drowned out by the fake.
    - jacquesm 3y ago
      > I get where you are coming from, but journalists today aren't real journalists. Some are, some aren't. Just like some programmers are real programmers and others are not, and some managers are real managers and others are not. The world is full of posers but that doesn't mean there aren't people that hold the title + the ethics that come with it dear. They're a minority, but they've always been a minority, that didn't change at all. > Public trust in media is at an all-time low for a reason. It mostly is because there are well funded political groups that incessantly undermine the public trust in the media. Because the last thing they want is for their deeds to be properly exposed and investigated. > I understand that real journalism must be paid for, but allowing megacorps to buy up all maintream media was a huge mistake and now they are all corporate mouthpieces. > I don't know what the answer is, but trusting 'journalists' of today is not it. Well, one thing that could be done is to seriously limit ownership of media by global empires. The likes of Murdoch have done untold damage to the world in the pursuit of some green paper. > The head of journalism at my college warned us of this over a decade ago, and he didn't have the answer either. Yes, it is a problem. And given the cost of good investigative journalism it is in fact unbelievable that there are still people doing this because they see it as their calling. And I'm mighty impressed with that and do not accept the broad brush with which they too are being painted. In every country you can find journalists that operate with integrity and that are not to be muzzled by corporate interests. They're real heroes too because in plenty of places that will get you ostracized, beaten up, blacklisted or murdered. > They lost their ethics in search of clicks and clout and cry foul when they aren't believed. Some. Not all. > They use divisive language, outright lie, holy crap this election cycle will be a shitshow. There's no unbiased truth finders anymore. There are, just not all that many, but they do exist. > The ones I feel sorry for are the real journalists drowned out by the fake. So, it seems we agree they exist. My solution is pretty simple, I seek out the journalists whose work I trust and I try to get my information about country A from any source except the ones in country A because they likely will not be objective. That's a hack and a workaround but it seems to work quite well.
dotancohen 3y ago
Lots of things that have existed for long are no longer tolerated. Racism and sexism for two prominent examples. Expecting high standards from those tasked with informing the public seems very reasonable to me.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  There always has been a dividing line between quality journalism and what amounts to clickbait. Bild was a thing when I grew up. If you want better journalism pay for it. The whole idea that news and media should be free is part and parcel of the destruction of quality journalism and it is the very same people bitching about the quality of journalism that want all of their news to be free. No matter how poor we were my mom was paying for a newspaper because she felt it important to stay informed and for us to stay informed. That newspaper may have slowly died on account of the TV and the Internet but those journalists still exist and if you put some effort into it you can find them.
  - dotancohen 3y ago
    You are correct - I have no problem paying a reasonable fee for good journalism to be informed. The problem is that poor journalism influences the masses. And in a democracy, the masses' opinion is assigned a higher decision-making weight than is the opinion of the informed minority.
    - jacquesm 3y ago
      Yes, that is a massive problem. But I don't blame the journalists per se: the masses are part and parcel of that and they collectively seem to prefer to be lied to over the unvarnished truth, which as often as not is very uncomfortable. People want simplicity and predictability, they don't want to have to exercise their grey matter too much, they don't want to be inconvenienced and they - and this one really gets me - would prefer not to know. That makes it easier to ignore things and to focus on the little joys in life instead of on the overarching much larger troubles.
      - 3y ago