4 ms·

These policies are in place because companies have learned that journalists will happily take any comment, from any employee, from any context, and make it Cruc

by tqi 2y ago

These policies are in place because companies have learned that journalists will happily take any comment, from any employee, from any context, and make it Crucial Evidence(TM) of impropriety...

bargainbot3k 2y ago
[flagged]
- lolinder 2y ago
  There's a difference between snooping and questioning in search of the truth versus snooping and questioning in search of a juicy story to repeat for profit. Like with the police, there's a lot of hagiography that paints journalists as the dogged researcher who will stop at nothing to expose the truth about $SUBJECT, but like with the police that trope is not the full picture. The average journalist spends a few hours collecting quotes to support a story that they have already written in their head, which they then put into writing underneath the most exciting headline they (or their editor) can imagine. They're paid to sell papers/get clicks, not to discover the truth, and it shows. With that in mind, OP is absolutely correct, and "don't talk to journalists" should be right up there with "don't talk to the police" in our guidelines for life. They're not your friend: they will destroy you if they think it'll grab enough attention.
  - bargainbot3k 2y ago
    If you’d put this much effort every day into privacy laws, neither Google nor journos would be able to snoop. But, here we are, and it’s fair game.
- cruano 2y ago
  You say that like journalists themselves don't work for "a company"
  - bargainbot3k 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - tqi 2y ago
      check out the big brain on brad
- htx80nerd 2y ago
  >"Courts are there to decide what matters." Doesnt work well when the Judge and/or Jury doesnt understand the matters at hand
wging 2y ago
I don't think that is true. I'm sure they are more concerned about legal consequences than PR, even if both are important.
sevensor 2y ago
The press comes in for a lot of hate from just about everybody. They must be doing something right.
- smsm42 2y ago
  [dead]
mmooss 2y ago
People love to demonize journalism, but who else will hold the powerful like Google to account? The meme of demonization comes from the powerful - 'enemy of the people', etc. > journalists will happily take any comment, from any employee, from any context, and make it Crucial Evidence(TM) of impropriety... I think that's more a problem of social media, where it seems true more often than not, and not professional media, which actually reviews evidence, corroborates, etc., and are subject to expensive lawsuits if they fail (e.g., Fox News has paid out something like a billion dollars over smearing the voting machine manufacturers). It depends what you call 'professional', but I mean high-quality sources like NY Times, CBS News, etc. (Yes, you can find where they've been accused of failing, which of course will happen, and where they've actually failed - there's nothing perfect under the sun). The targets of professional journalists' investigations will lie their asses off - until they are caught, and then they switch to a fall-back lie. They also use the tactic of attacking the messenger. They aren't under oath or required to answer questions.
- tqi 2y ago
  > I think that's more a problem of social media, where it seems true more often than not, and not professional media For one thing, Professional Media is inextricably linked to Social Media (especially Twitter), and are leading participants in the salacious outrage bait economy there. For another, my criticism is not that journalists are making things up from whole cloth, but rather that they are more than willing to comb through discovery filings to find the most outlandish thing anyone has every said in order to paint a picture that may or may not be an representative of the broader case. I don't think they do this because they are the "enemy of the people", but because it drives engagement.
  - mmooss 2y ago
    I really don't see that happen very often. Can you give examples? I think it's a vast exaggeration. Every human activity and institution has flaws; we can't eliminate all of them. One solution is to have transparency - journalists are transparent because they have to provide evidence.

by tqi 2y ago

These policies are in place because companies have learned that journalists will happily take any comment, from any employee, from any context, and make it Crucial Evidence(TM) of impropriety...

bargainbot3k 2y ago

[flagged]

lolinder 2y ago
There's a difference between snooping and questioning in search of the truth versus snooping and questioning in search of a juicy story to repeat for profit. Like with the police, there's a lot of hagiography that paints journalists as the dogged researcher who will stop at nothing to expose the truth about $SUBJECT, but like with the police that trope is not the full picture. The average journalist spends a few hours collecting quotes to support a story that they have already written in their head, which they then put into writing underneath the most exciting headline they (or their editor) can imagine. They're paid to sell papers/get clicks, not to discover the truth, and it shows. With that in mind, OP is absolutely correct, and "don't talk to journalists" should be right up there with "don't talk to the police" in our guidelines for life. They're not your friend: they will destroy you if they think it'll grab enough attention.
- bargainbot3k 2y ago
  If you’d put this much effort every day into privacy laws, neither Google nor journos would be able to snoop. But, here we are, and it’s fair game.
cruano 2y ago
You say that like journalists themselves don't work for "a company"
- bargainbot3k 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - tqi 2y ago
    check out the big brain on brad
htx80nerd 2y ago
>"Courts are there to decide what matters." Doesnt work well when the Judge and/or Jury doesnt understand the matters at hand

wging 2y ago

I don't think that is true. I'm sure they are more concerned about legal consequences than PR, even if both are important.

sevensor 2y ago

The press comes in for a lot of hate from just about everybody. They must be doing something right.

smsm42 2y ago
[dead]

mmooss 2y ago

People love to demonize journalism, but who else will hold the powerful like Google to account? The meme of demonization comes from the powerful - 'enemy of the people', etc. > journalists will happily take any comment, from any employee, from any context, and make it Crucial Evidence(TM) of impropriety... I think that's more a problem of social media, where it seems true more often than not, and not professional media, which actually reviews evidence, corroborates, etc., and are subject to expensive lawsuits if they fail (e.g., Fox News has paid out something like a billion dollars over smearing the voting machine manufacturers). It depends what you call 'professional', but I mean high-quality sources like NY Times, CBS News, etc. (Yes, you can find where they've been accused of failing, which of course will happen, and where they've actually failed - there's nothing perfect under the sun). The targets of professional journalists' investigations will lie their asses off - until they are caught, and then they switch to a fall-back lie. They also use the tactic of attacking the messenger. They aren't under oath or required to answer questions.

tqi 2y ago
> I think that's more a problem of social media, where it seems true more often than not, and not professional media For one thing, Professional Media is inextricably linked to Social Media (especially Twitter), and are leading participants in the salacious outrage bait economy there. For another, my criticism is not that journalists are making things up from whole cloth, but rather that they are more than willing to comb through discovery filings to find the most outlandish thing anyone has every said in order to paint a picture that may or may not be an representative of the broader case. I don't think they do this because they are the "enemy of the people", but because it drives engagement.
- mmooss 2y ago
  I really don't see that happen very often. Can you give examples? I think it's a vast exaggeration. Every human activity and institution has flaws; we can't eliminate all of them. One solution is to have transparency - journalists are transparent because they have to provide evidence.