8 ms·

You know what, you're right. Instead of discussing the topic at hand, we should talk about the sins of the messenger. It's far more important to not discuss th

You know what, you're right. Instead of discussing the topic at hand, we should talk about the sins of the messenger. It's far more important to not discuss the actual topic at hand. I heard the author once said a naughty thing at a dinner party. And more importantly, А у вас негров вешают.

underlipton 3y ago
It would be nice if we could talk about NPR's many missteps (as perceived from my quite left-leaning perspective). Journalists seem immune to substantive criticism and introspection, and it's quite frustrating - especially for those of us who would like journalism to remain a social pillar, in such a way that the public feels a duty to protect the institution. Corporate ownership and reader dissatisfaction are two sides of the "eroding trust/legitimacy" coin.
- chiefalchemist 3y ago
  The solution is simple: 1) There are standards for being a journalist and practicing journalism. If you fail to reach the height of that bar, you can't self-declare yourself something you're not. Or as I like to say, "If your pet barks, do you still call it a cat?" If their peers don't call them out, the rest of us should [1]. 2) Along the same lines, stop allowing editorial to be passed off as news / journalism. There seems to be a false belief that everything that comes from a journalist's mouth, pen or KB is "journalism", and that at no time do their obvious biases make that content editorial. Again, if their peers don't call them out, the rest of us should [1]. [1] But do note, even on the "objective" HN I was down voted for stating the obvious. Sheepfulness is real.
chiefalchemist 3y ago
You know what, you're right. The sinner rolls out a distraction, and we should all jump on it like cats to a ball of yarn. Politicians do it? Why shouldn't "journalists"? True story: I was raised by parents who taught, "Consider the source." The point is, if NPR had any integrity and was aware of journalistic standards it would hush-up and look in the mirror. But why do that when there are (down-voting) fools who will attack the messenger instead of considering the source? Good job citizen. You and your ilk are part of the problem. Bonus points: Commit the phase, "just because you can, doesn't mean you should." In this case, HN is suppose to have standards. Something being shared here doesn't make it comment-worth, and when it's not that should be pointed out and why. In short, you're welcome. smh

underlipton 3y ago

It would be nice if we could talk about NPR's many missteps (as perceived from my quite left-leaning perspective). Journalists seem immune to substantive criticism and introspection, and it's quite frustrating - especially for those of us who would like journalism to remain a social pillar, in such a way that the public feels a duty to protect the institution. Corporate ownership and reader dissatisfaction are two sides of the "eroding trust/legitimacy" coin.

chiefalchemist 3y ago
The solution is simple: 1) There are standards for being a journalist and practicing journalism. If you fail to reach the height of that bar, you can't self-declare yourself something you're not. Or as I like to say, "If your pet barks, do you still call it a cat?" If their peers don't call them out, the rest of us should [1]. 2) Along the same lines, stop allowing editorial to be passed off as news / journalism. There seems to be a false belief that everything that comes from a journalist's mouth, pen or KB is "journalism", and that at no time do their obvious biases make that content editorial. Again, if their peers don't call them out, the rest of us should [1]. [1] But do note, even on the "objective" HN I was down voted for stating the obvious. Sheepfulness is real.

chiefalchemist 3y ago

You know what, you're right. The sinner rolls out a distraction, and we should all jump on it like cats to a ball of yarn. Politicians do it? Why shouldn't "journalists"? True story: I was raised by parents who taught, "Consider the source." The point is, if NPR had any integrity and was aware of journalistic standards it would hush-up and look in the mirror. But why do that when there are (down-voting) fools who will attack the messenger instead of considering the source? Good job citizen. You and your ilk are part of the problem. Bonus points: Commit the phase, "just because you can, doesn't mean you should." In this case, HN is suppose to have standards. Something being shared here doesn't make it comment-worth, and when it's not that should be pointed out and why. In short, you're welcome. smh