4 ms·

> All journalism has a point of view and its impossible to be completely unbiased... So the alternative is to not even try? To double-down or triple-down on bi

> All journalism has a point of view and its impossible to be completely unbiased... So the alternative is to not even try? To double-down or triple-down on bias and shamelessly continue to self-label as journalism? To whine & cry about "the threat to democracy" while neglecting their duties as The Fourth Estate? I think not. The problem is simple: stop lowering the bar. Stop calling things journalism that don't qualify. If your pet barks, would you call it a cat? You've got Jim Leher is turning in his grave. https://www.openculture.com/2020/01/jim-lehrers-16-rules-for-being-a-journalist-with-integrity.html https://www.openculture.com/2020/01/jim-lehrers-16-rules-for...

watwut 2y ago
No, the alternative is to be more honest about it. The whole debate about "objectivity" is because the previous definition of objectivity produced consistent bias. And by that I mean consistent huge bias. Objectivity meant that journalist had to identify two sides and report on both equally - even if the acts in question were not equal in any objective way. If I obviously lied and you obviously did not, articles did not reflected that at all. What was called objectivity enabled and facilitated bad actors. Consistently. Second issue was that just a selection of topics and selection of who will be allowed to express things itself creates bias. And the rules about that consistently disadvantaged certain groups and advantaged other groups.
- chiefalchemist 2y ago
  I understand there's a bias. But review that Leher list and you'll realize that 95% of what is passed off as journalism violates too many of those rules. That is, it doesn't qualify to be called journalism. As threats to democracy go, there's nothing worse than a self-proclaimed journalist (read: a hack) fronting like they're fulfilling their duties as a member of The Fourth Estate. Frankly, most of them don't know the difference between cause and correlation (which is an essential / foundational concept in truth and being objective), let alone what The Fourth Estate is (and why it matters). The problem is, the publishing industry doesn't even realize it's wrong. It's blind to its own blind spot. What could go wrong?
  - watwut 2y ago
    First of all, funnily, Lehrer rules do not define journalism. Not even historically, origins of journalism is not that. And some of them in fact do cause own bias - they presume how the result should look like. Lehrer rules will facilitate both side journalism where you blame both sides equally regardless of facts on the ground. As I said, it is biased toward bad actors. And against those who says the truth. Note how they contain nothing about real fact checking. They are super easy to "be followed" while being manipulative. Stuff like "I am just reporting on what X said" whereas X said unfounded accusation that is just getting traction because you refuse to fact check it.
    - chiefalchemist 2y ago
      So we're going to nitpick Lehrer while giving current (mainstream) media a free pass? I'm sorry, I don't wish to participate in such a distraction. And the irony only highlights how broken the current situation is.

watwut 2y ago

No, the alternative is to be more honest about it. The whole debate about "objectivity" is because the previous definition of objectivity produced consistent bias. And by that I mean consistent huge bias. Objectivity meant that journalist had to identify two sides and report on both equally - even if the acts in question were not equal in any objective way. If I obviously lied and you obviously did not, articles did not reflected that at all. What was called objectivity enabled and facilitated bad actors. Consistently. Second issue was that just a selection of topics and selection of who will be allowed to express things itself creates bias. And the rules about that consistently disadvantaged certain groups and advantaged other groups.

chiefalchemist 2y ago
I understand there's a bias. But review that Leher list and you'll realize that 95% of what is passed off as journalism violates too many of those rules. That is, it doesn't qualify to be called journalism. As threats to democracy go, there's nothing worse than a self-proclaimed journalist (read: a hack) fronting like they're fulfilling their duties as a member of The Fourth Estate. Frankly, most of them don't know the difference between cause and correlation (which is an essential / foundational concept in truth and being objective), let alone what The Fourth Estate is (and why it matters). The problem is, the publishing industry doesn't even realize it's wrong. It's blind to its own blind spot. What could go wrong?
- watwut 2y ago
  First of all, funnily, Lehrer rules do not define journalism. Not even historically, origins of journalism is not that. And some of them in fact do cause own bias - they presume how the result should look like. Lehrer rules will facilitate both side journalism where you blame both sides equally regardless of facts on the ground. As I said, it is biased toward bad actors. And against those who says the truth. Note how they contain nothing about real fact checking. They are super easy to "be followed" while being manipulative. Stuff like "I am just reporting on what X said" whereas X said unfounded accusation that is just getting traction because you refuse to fact check it.
  - chiefalchemist 2y ago
    So we're going to nitpick Lehrer while giving current (mainstream) media a free pass? I'm sorry, I don't wish to participate in such a distraction. And the irony only highlights how broken the current situation is.