3 ms·

> Journalism couldn't get much worse than it already was. This is such a poor attitude that totally flies in the face of history and the situation for journali

> Journalism couldn't get much worse than it already was. This is such a poor attitude that totally flies in the face of history and the situation for journalists in other places in the world, like Mexico, where hundreds of reporters have been executed in the last few years. Journalism as a profession is just fine, monetizing it might not be.

logn 12y ago
Correction: Journalism in the US In the US, the profession is not fine. The major news outlets regularly bury stories the administration finds objectionable (e.g., NY Times on the Bush surveillance). They reiterate propaganda talking points (e.g., NY Times not using the word "torture" until this week). And they generally support the overall goals of each administration (majority of Americans believed Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11). Washington reporters are all too happy to be part of the insiders network and scorn people who aren't (such as Glenn Greenwald).
- bellerocky 12y ago
  > The major news outlets regularly bury stories the administration finds objectionable You seem incredulous. "regularly bury stories" is quite an unsubstantiated claim and you listed one example for which I have seen no evidence that this happened and if it did that the reason was to please a White House administration. Yet you make the claim with great conviction. As for the Iraqi War drumming, I think that was a problem the NY Times had and was largely the result of the now discredited and very much resigned Judith Miller.
  - logn 12y ago
    > "one example for which I have seen no evidence" The evidence for the NY Times editor burying this story is well-documented. The only reason they ever published it was because the writer was going to publish it in his own book. Quote from wikipedia: "Former NYT executive editor Bill Keller decided not to report the piece after being pressured by the Bush administration" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times#Delayed_publication_of_2005_NSA_warrantless_surveillance_story http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times#Delayed_publ... Other links: "New study documents media’s servitude to government" http://www.salon.com/2010/06/30/media_258/ http://www.salon.com/2010/06/30/media_258/ "The NYT’s journalistic obedience" http://www.salon.com/2011/02/21/nyt_16/ http://www.salon.com/2011/02/21/nyt_16/ "The War Photo No One Would Publish" http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/08/the-war-photo-no-one-would-publish/375762/ http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/08/the-war-... "Propaganda model" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model
    - hnnewguy 12y ago
      >The only reason they ever published it was because the writer was going to publish it in his own book. This is an interesting interpretation. There was legal pressure from the Justice Department and an implicit threat from the Bush Administration that the New York Times could be on the hook for revealing "state secrets" and be held responsible for associated repercussions. Whether you feel that way or not, there is some conflicted, moral debate about Snowden. It's not like the NYT didn't have and want to bust the story, but the ramifications weren't clear cut, so they delayed. I'm sure you're willing to put your professional career and perhaps freedom on the line at any time, right? In the end, the story got out, as it always tends to do. The fact that people even use the NY Times and Buzzfeed in the same sentence, as if it's the same business, is hilarious.
- hnnewguy 12y ago
  >majority of Americans believed Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11 I'm not sure how that's the fault of the mainstream news media, rather than an ignorant population.

logn 12y ago

Correction: Journalism in the US In the US, the profession is not fine. The major news outlets regularly bury stories the administration finds objectionable (e.g., NY Times on the Bush surveillance). They reiterate propaganda talking points (e.g., NY Times not using the word "torture" until this week). And they generally support the overall goals of each administration (majority of Americans believed Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11). Washington reporters are all too happy to be part of the insiders network and scorn people who aren't (such as Glenn Greenwald).

bellerocky 12y ago
> The major news outlets regularly bury stories the administration finds objectionable You seem incredulous. "regularly bury stories" is quite an unsubstantiated claim and you listed one example for which I have seen no evidence that this happened and if it did that the reason was to please a White House administration. Yet you make the claim with great conviction. As for the Iraqi War drumming, I think that was a problem the NY Times had and was largely the result of the now discredited and very much resigned Judith Miller.
- logn 12y ago
  > "one example for which I have seen no evidence" The evidence for the NY Times editor burying this story is well-documented. The only reason they ever published it was because the writer was going to publish it in his own book. Quote from wikipedia: "Former NYT executive editor Bill Keller decided not to report the piece after being pressured by the Bush administration" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times#Delayed_publication_of_2005_NSA_warrantless_surveillance_story http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times#Delayed_publ... Other links: "New study documents media’s servitude to government" http://www.salon.com/2010/06/30/media_258/ http://www.salon.com/2010/06/30/media_258/ "The NYT’s journalistic obedience" http://www.salon.com/2011/02/21/nyt_16/ http://www.salon.com/2011/02/21/nyt_16/ "The War Photo No One Would Publish" http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/08/the-war-photo-no-one-would-publish/375762/ http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/08/the-war-... "Propaganda model" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model
  - hnnewguy 12y ago
    >The only reason they ever published it was because the writer was going to publish it in his own book. This is an interesting interpretation. There was legal pressure from the Justice Department and an implicit threat from the Bush Administration that the New York Times could be on the hook for revealing "state secrets" and be held responsible for associated repercussions. Whether you feel that way or not, there is some conflicted, moral debate about Snowden. It's not like the NYT didn't have and want to bust the story, but the ramifications weren't clear cut, so they delayed. I'm sure you're willing to put your professional career and perhaps freedom on the line at any time, right? In the end, the story got out, as it always tends to do. The fact that people even use the NY Times and Buzzfeed in the same sentence, as if it's the same business, is hilarious.
hnnewguy 12y ago
>majority of Americans believed Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11 I'm not sure how that's the fault of the mainstream news media, rather than an ignorant population.