3 ms·
Retroactively calling anything that has ever appeared in the media "journalism" produces a sad and useless definition of the term. It turns out to be just any t
by gdulli 13y ago
Retroactively calling anything that has ever appeared in the media "journalism" produces a sad and useless definition of the term. It turns out to be just any trash that media outlets know people will consume. An admirable definition would include some sort of discretion about (for example) the private lives of public figures, and not conflate information with journalism.
To the extent that Anthony Weiner's mistakes in his personal life does impact his job, which is in the public interest, that can qualify as journalism and separate him from the common case of a typical victim of these sites.
- dinkumthinkum 13y agoWell yes it is ridiculous. If you want to blame this game of "everything is journalism" then probably we should revisit the whole notion of freedom of the press.
- gdulli 13y agoFreedom isn't and can't be absolute. There's too much predation in human nature for that to be a possibility. Reasonable lines need to be drawn, and nudging a line one way or another is going to happen sometimes and doesn't always need to be feared as the beginning of a slippery slope or invite sarcastic comments about whether we still have a free press. Deciding that our society is going to have a standard of behavior above revenge porn has value. If we were capable (collectively) of handling absolute freedom, we might have it.
- yummyfajitas 13y agoI am taking as a given that most people here don't want further restrictions on newspapers, and generally support free speech as it currently exists. My argument is simply attacking the distinction between newspapers and revenge porn. If you oppose contemporary journalism as well and favor a more Chinese approach to free speech, I will be unpersuasive.
- tptacek 13y agoThat rhetoric is lame. You can argue better than that.