5 ms·

A journalist's job is to journal something, exactly like how NTFS keeps a journal of what happens. A journalist doing anything other than journaling is not a j

A journalist's job is to journal something, exactly like how NTFS keeps a journal of what happens. A journalist doing anything other than journaling is not a journalist. So people getting quoted verbatim is perfectly fine. If the quoted turns out to be a liar, that's just part of the journal.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
llamaimperative 2y ago
You’re describing a PR representative. Simply the decision of what to cover is inherently selective and driven by an individual’s and a culture’s priorities.
i80and 2y ago
That sounds more like stenography than anything else
bee_rider 2y ago
I don’t think that’s right. First off, we don’t generally define jobs based on the closest computer analogy (we would be unhappy if the loggers returned with a list of things that happened in the woods, rather than a bunch of wood). The journalist’s job is to describe what actually is happening, and to provide enough context for readers to understand it. Some bias will inevitably creep in, because they can’t possibly describe every event that has ever happened to their subject. But for example if they are interviewing somebody who usually lies, it would be more accurate to at least include a small note about that.
- Dalewyn 2y ago
  >The journalist’s job is to describe what actually is happening, and to provide enough context for readers to understand it. The former is a journalist's job, the latter is the reader's concern and not the journalist. One of the reasons I consider journalism a cancer upon humanity is because journalists can't just write down "it is 35 degrees celsius today at 2pm", but rather "you won't believe how hot it is". Just journal down what the hell happens literally and plainly, we as readers can and should figure out the rest. NTFS doesn't interject opinions and clickbait into its journal, and neither should proper journalists.
  - tiznow 2y ago
    I think you might need a chill pill, I've never met a single journalist or editor who would let "you won't believe how hot it is" pass in more than a tweet.
    - Dalewyn 2y ago
      As a counterexample, I have deep respect for weather forecasters because they are professionally and legally bound to state nothing but the scientific journal at hand. "Typhoon 14 located 500km south of Tokyo, Japan with a pressure of 960hPa and moving north-northeast at a speed of 30km/h is expected to traverse so-and-so estimated course of travel at 6pm tomorrow." "Let's go over to Arizona. It's currently 105F in Tuscon, 102F in Yuma, ..." Brutally to the point, the readers are left to process that information as appropriate. Journalists do not do this, and they should if they claim to be journalists.
      - tiznow 2y ago
        >they are professionally and legally bound to state nothing but the scientific journal at hand In America, just about every meteorologist editorializes the weather to a degree. There's nothing scientific about telling me "it's a great night for baseball" (great for the fans? Pitchers? Hitters?) or "don't wash your car just yet" but I will never stop hearing those. I don't, and the public doesn't seem to think that infringes on journalistic standards, because the information is still presented. Maybe this is different than what you mean -- if you're talking about a situation where journalists intentionally created the full context and pushed the information to the side, obviously that is undesirable. I will add that weather as a "news product" actually gains quite a fair bit from presenter opinion, and news is a product above all.
  - bee_rider 2y ago
    The journalist is making a product for the reader in the best case, their job is to help the reader. The second example you mention is a typical example of clickbait journalism, where the journalist has betrayed the reader and is trying to steal their attention, because they actually serve advertisers. But the first example is not very useful either. That journalist could be replaced by a fully automated thermometer. Or weather stations with an API. Context is useful: “It is 35 degrees Celsius, and we’re predicting that it will stay sunny all day” will help you plan your day. “It is 35 degrees Celsius today, finishing off an unseasonably warm September” could provide a little info about the overall trend in the weather this year. I don’t see any particular reason that journalists should follow your definition, which you seem to have just… made up?
soared 2y ago
Thats.. not what journalism means. I don’t know where you got that definition, but I can’t find anything similar. Processing and displaying information is a huge part of journalism - ie assessing what is truth or fiction and communicating each as such. Wikipedia: > A journalist is a person who gathers information in the form of text, audio or pictures, processes it into a newsworthy form and disseminates it to the public. This is called journalism.
- zmgsabst 2y ago
  You’re injecting that “ie” — Wikipedia doesn’t say it as such. They’re describing collating and you’re describing evaluating.
  - Dalewyn 2y ago
    And to add, evaluating is the responsibility of the reader. If you're also tasking "journalists" to evaluate for you, you aren't a reader and they aren't journalists. You're just a dumb terminal getting programs (others' opinions) installed and they are influencers.
bediger4000 2y ago
> A journalist's job is to journal something, exactly like how NTFS keeps a journal of what happens. Your choice of metaphor points out problems with your definition. Avid Linux users will be immediately biased against what you wrote, true though it may be, because you assumed that NTFS is the predominant, or even good example of journaling file systems.
booleandilemma 2y ago
Sounds like you would be a bad journalist.
muddi900 2y ago
So they should report anything anyone says? Because selecting whom to report is editorializing by your standards. It creates a bias and gives importance aome over others. Woke Derangement Syndrome has taken the best of us.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

llamaimperative 2y ago

You’re describing a PR representative. Simply the decision of what to cover is inherently selective and driven by an individual’s and a culture’s priorities.

i80and 2y ago

That sounds more like stenography than anything else

bee_rider 2y ago

I don’t think that’s right. First off, we don’t generally define jobs based on the closest computer analogy (we would be unhappy if the loggers returned with a list of things that happened in the woods, rather than a bunch of wood). The journalist’s job is to describe what actually is happening, and to provide enough context for readers to understand it. Some bias will inevitably creep in, because they can’t possibly describe every event that has ever happened to their subject. But for example if they are interviewing somebody who usually lies, it would be more accurate to at least include a small note about that.

Dalewyn 2y ago
>The journalist’s job is to describe what actually is happening, and to provide enough context for readers to understand it. The former is a journalist's job, the latter is the reader's concern and not the journalist. One of the reasons I consider journalism a cancer upon humanity is because journalists can't just write down "it is 35 degrees celsius today at 2pm", but rather "you won't believe how hot it is". Just journal down what the hell happens literally and plainly, we as readers can and should figure out the rest. NTFS doesn't interject opinions and clickbait into its journal, and neither should proper journalists.
- tiznow 2y ago
  I think you might need a chill pill, I've never met a single journalist or editor who would let "you won't believe how hot it is" pass in more than a tweet.
  - Dalewyn 2y ago
    As a counterexample, I have deep respect for weather forecasters because they are professionally and legally bound to state nothing but the scientific journal at hand. "Typhoon 14 located 500km south of Tokyo, Japan with a pressure of 960hPa and moving north-northeast at a speed of 30km/h is expected to traverse so-and-so estimated course of travel at 6pm tomorrow." "Let's go over to Arizona. It's currently 105F in Tuscon, 102F in Yuma, ..." Brutally to the point, the readers are left to process that information as appropriate. Journalists do not do this, and they should if they claim to be journalists.
    - tiznow 2y ago
      >they are professionally and legally bound to state nothing but the scientific journal at hand In America, just about every meteorologist editorializes the weather to a degree. There's nothing scientific about telling me "it's a great night for baseball" (great for the fans? Pitchers? Hitters?) or "don't wash your car just yet" but I will never stop hearing those. I don't, and the public doesn't seem to think that infringes on journalistic standards, because the information is still presented. Maybe this is different than what you mean -- if you're talking about a situation where journalists intentionally created the full context and pushed the information to the side, obviously that is undesirable. I will add that weather as a "news product" actually gains quite a fair bit from presenter opinion, and news is a product above all.
- bee_rider 2y ago
  The journalist is making a product for the reader in the best case, their job is to help the reader. The second example you mention is a typical example of clickbait journalism, where the journalist has betrayed the reader and is trying to steal their attention, because they actually serve advertisers. But the first example is not very useful either. That journalist could be replaced by a fully automated thermometer. Or weather stations with an API. Context is useful: “It is 35 degrees Celsius, and we’re predicting that it will stay sunny all day” will help you plan your day. “It is 35 degrees Celsius today, finishing off an unseasonably warm September” could provide a little info about the overall trend in the weather this year. I don’t see any particular reason that journalists should follow your definition, which you seem to have just… made up?

soared 2y ago

Thats.. not what journalism means. I don’t know where you got that definition, but I can’t find anything similar. Processing and displaying information is a huge part of journalism - ie assessing what is truth or fiction and communicating each as such. Wikipedia: > A journalist is a person who gathers information in the form of text, audio or pictures, processes it into a newsworthy form and disseminates it to the public. This is called journalism.

zmgsabst 2y ago
You’re injecting that “ie” — Wikipedia doesn’t say it as such. They’re describing collating and you’re describing evaluating.
- Dalewyn 2y ago
  And to add, evaluating is the responsibility of the reader. If you're also tasking "journalists" to evaluate for you, you aren't a reader and they aren't journalists. You're just a dumb terminal getting programs (others' opinions) installed and they are influencers.

bediger4000 2y ago

> A journalist's job is to journal something, exactly like how NTFS keeps a journal of what happens. Your choice of metaphor points out problems with your definition. Avid Linux users will be immediately biased against what you wrote, true though it may be, because you assumed that NTFS is the predominant, or even good example of journaling file systems.

booleandilemma 2y ago

Sounds like you would be a bad journalist.

muddi900 2y ago

So they should report anything anyone says? Because selecting whom to report is editorializing by your standards. It creates a bias and gives importance aome over others. Woke Derangement Syndrome has taken the best of us.