4 ms·
> journalists are transparent because they have to provide evidence. Just count how many "according to anonymous sources" stories you heard recently, and how m
by smsm42 2y ago
> journalists are transparent because they have to provide evidence.
Just count how many "according to anonymous sources" stories you heard recently, and how much of the "evidence" anyone would independently verify. You'd be surprised (or not, if you've been awake for the last decade).
- mmooss 2y agoI read those stories quite a bit. In serious journalism, they are corroborated with other evidence and usually turn out to be accurate. I saw a NY Times story based on interviews with ~80 people and confidential documents; these journalists aren't kidding around. The reputations and careers (and liability) of serious journalists rest on uncovering important stories and getting it right, not on the number of clicks. Contrast that with social media.
- smsm42 2y ago> The reputations and careers (and liability) of serious journalists rest on uncovering important stories Maybe it used to be so, but not anymore. Now the careers of journalists (I don't know how to define "serious" without going into true-scotsman weeds) depend much more on ideological conformity and willingness to serve partisan interests and push the narrative that needs to be pushed. The ones that are not willing to do that - regardless of political affiliations - find themselves outside of the "mainstream" media, usually on Substack or likewise stand-alone platforms.
- mmooss 2y agoWhat is that based on? I read most of the serious publications, and I don't see it. Could you give examples of these people? Of events? > I don't know how to define "serious" without going into true-scotsman weeds Yes, agreed. I'm just leaving it ambiguous.