3 ms·

If you identify sufficiently with the people giving you the article to publish, it's not a "they" but an "us". Even if the decisions are taken in rooms you don'

If you identify sufficiently with the people giving you the article to publish, it's not a "they" but an "us". Even if the decisions are taken in rooms you don't have access to. Maybe they think they'll get access to them eventually if they're loyal. It might seem cowardly, but it isn't that different to what happens every day in business. Society is full of organisations working on the "make the boss' opinions your own" principle.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> If you identify sufficiently with the people giving you the article to publish Then you aren’t a journalist.
- vintermann 1y ago
  Not a good journalist maybe, but if you identify too little with them, you probably don't even get to "sit where you're sitting", as Chomsky said.
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > if you identify too little with them, you probably don't even get to "sit where you're sitting", as Chomsky said The people winning White House credentials are political influencers. Chomsky was an interesting linguist. His political observations are about as scientific as our current crop of Silicon Valley elites’.
    - mikkupikku 1y ago
      Chomsky's observations about how the media works may not have been solid science, but from the way you describe the present circumstance it really sounds like Chomsky is still on target.
      - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        > from the way you describe the present circumstance it really sounds like Chomsky is still on target The refutation is there are lots of places to sit. Like, yes, the people at a linguistics conference will predominantly be linguists. That doesn’t suggest a linguistics conspiracy.
        vintermann 1y ago
        So you don't have any problem with the Hegseth Pentagon demands then? There are still many places to sit, and who gets access is mostly decided by neutral competence anyway? (That's what your linguistics conference analogy suggests). Chomsky's whole point is that it doesn't take a conspiracy for journalists to share their superiors' views. Not for those superiors to be very aligned with each other.
        mikkupikku 1y ago
        > "That doesn’t suggest a linguistics conspiracy." That's Chomsky's point. In Manufacturing Consent, Chomsky explains how the appearance of collusion can arise without conspiracy. Like-minded people hiring and promoting like-minded people isn't a conspiracy, it only looks like one because people with similar incentives and values will behave in similar ways given similar circumstances.
    - vintermann 1y ago
      Scientific? That's neither here nor there. What he said, and I agree is true and important, is that you won't get to work as a journalist and do things like, say, interview people for BBC, unless you believe most of the things your employer believes.
- eagleal 1y ago
  You're never heard of biased or militant journalists have you? In fact the most common form of journalism you will find is what's akin to a Propaganda channel of a Sponsoring Party (Defense, Media Company, Political party, Rich Individual with an agenda, etc). Essentialy a PR employee. But this is true since always. The kind of journalism we usually think of though is Investigative journalism, but that's a different beast and usually doesn't really pay.
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > You're never heard of biased or militant journalists have you? You seem to have presumed your conclusion.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago

> If you identify sufficiently with the people giving you the article to publish Then you aren’t a journalist.

vintermann 1y ago
Not a good journalist maybe, but if you identify too little with them, you probably don't even get to "sit where you're sitting", as Chomsky said.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > if you identify too little with them, you probably don't even get to "sit where you're sitting", as Chomsky said The people winning White House credentials are political influencers. Chomsky was an interesting linguist. His political observations are about as scientific as our current crop of Silicon Valley elites’.
  - mikkupikku 1y ago
    Chomsky's observations about how the media works may not have been solid science, but from the way you describe the present circumstance it really sounds like Chomsky is still on target.
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      > from the way you describe the present circumstance it really sounds like Chomsky is still on target The refutation is there are lots of places to sit. Like, yes, the people at a linguistics conference will predominantly be linguists. That doesn’t suggest a linguistics conspiracy.
      - vintermann 1y ago
        So you don't have any problem with the Hegseth Pentagon demands then? There are still many places to sit, and who gets access is mostly decided by neutral competence anyway? (That's what your linguistics conference analogy suggests). Chomsky's whole point is that it doesn't take a conspiracy for journalists to share their superiors' views. Not for those superiors to be very aligned with each other.
      - mikkupikku 1y ago
        > "That doesn’t suggest a linguistics conspiracy." That's Chomsky's point. In Manufacturing Consent, Chomsky explains how the appearance of collusion can arise without conspiracy. Like-minded people hiring and promoting like-minded people isn't a conspiracy, it only looks like one because people with similar incentives and values will behave in similar ways given similar circumstances.
  - vintermann 1y ago
    Scientific? That's neither here nor there. What he said, and I agree is true and important, is that you won't get to work as a journalist and do things like, say, interview people for BBC, unless you believe most of the things your employer believes.
eagleal 1y ago
You're never heard of biased or militant journalists have you? In fact the most common form of journalism you will find is what's akin to a Propaganda channel of a Sponsoring Party (Defense, Media Company, Political party, Rich Individual with an agenda, etc). Essentialy a PR employee. But this is true since always. The kind of journalism we usually think of though is Investigative journalism, but that's a different beast and usually doesn't really pay.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > You're never heard of biased or militant journalists have you? You seem to have presumed your conclusion.