How objectivity in journalism became a matter of opinion(economist.com)
economist.com
How objectivity in journalism became a matter of opinion
https://www.economist.com/books-and-arts/2020/07/15/how-objectivity-in-journalism-became-a-matter-of-opinion
262 comments
> once-objective mainstream journalism is now about writing content to please target audiences and catch trending topics on social media, as well as keep fast cycles going to appease the algorithms on news aggregation sites and search engines.
This is spot on. The major problem here is that content is now largely generated based on maximizing ad revenue. News publications developing content aren’t all that different from SEM campaigns. When editors and publishers use article clicks as a performance benchmark, as many do these days, this is bound to happen.
This is spot on. The major problem here is that content is now largely generated based on maximizing ad revenue. News publications developing content aren’t all that different from SEM campaigns. When editors and publishers use article clicks as a performance benchmark, as many do these days, this is bound to happen.
> The major problem here is that content is now largely generated based on maximizing ad revenue.
When has news content not been about maximizing ad revenue? That's been the model for decades before the internet.
When has news content not been about maximizing ad revenue? That's been the model for decades before the internet.
Newspapers used to have very geographically limited competition in advertising for things like apartment rentals, for-sale listings, and job listings. They also got a fair bit of national brand advertising, even after TV eclipsed them. The lack of competition enabled them to do things that don't make money -- like in-depth investigative journalism. A newspaper that contained only meaty investigative journalism could not cover its costs with advertising, even back in 1990.
This is similar to how today's high-margin advertising funded companies (e.g. Google, Facebook) can afford to pursue out-there projects with no prospect of making money in the short term. Investigative journalism was a vanity/halo product that usually didn't make money, funded by people overpaying to advertise in the newspaper.
In a case of perfect competition and low barriers to entry, newspapers have to prioritize minimally expensive content as a supporting scaffold for advertising. Newspapers are much closer to this "perfect competition" case now than they were in 1990. (A very few newspapers like the New York Times achieved "escape velocity" to reach a national audience on the strength of their reporting.) Likewise, if Google were up against a dozen other nearly-as-good search engines, neither it nor its competitors would have the luxurious cash surpluses for "moonshot" projects.
The golden ages of AT&T and IBM were also back when they enjoyed monopolistic pricing power. They could afford to do Nobel Prize winning research instead focusing slavishly on cost efficiency. They overcharged everyone, and a bit of that surplus money was reinvested in scientific research and product quality that was higher than what an equilibrated competitive market would converge on.
I wouldn't give AT&T a telephone monopoly again just to bring back Bell Telephone Laboratories. But certain kinds of positive externalities seem to emerge only from businesses enjoying fat margins and high pricing power. One of those positive externalities, in the case of newspapers in the 20th century, was deep reporting.
This is similar to how today's high-margin advertising funded companies (e.g. Google, Facebook) can afford to pursue out-there projects with no prospect of making money in the short term. Investigative journalism was a vanity/halo product that usually didn't make money, funded by people overpaying to advertise in the newspaper.
In a case of perfect competition and low barriers to entry, newspapers have to prioritize minimally expensive content as a supporting scaffold for advertising. Newspapers are much closer to this "perfect competition" case now than they were in 1990. (A very few newspapers like the New York Times achieved "escape velocity" to reach a national audience on the strength of their reporting.) Likewise, if Google were up against a dozen other nearly-as-good search engines, neither it nor its competitors would have the luxurious cash surpluses for "moonshot" projects.
The golden ages of AT&T and IBM were also back when they enjoyed monopolistic pricing power. They could afford to do Nobel Prize winning research instead focusing slavishly on cost efficiency. They overcharged everyone, and a bit of that surplus money was reinvested in scientific research and product quality that was higher than what an equilibrated competitive market would converge on.
I wouldn't give AT&T a telephone monopoly again just to bring back Bell Telephone Laboratories. But certain kinds of positive externalities seem to emerge only from businesses enjoying fat margins and high pricing power. One of those positive externalities, in the case of newspapers in the 20th century, was deep reporting.
> News publications developing content aren’t all that different from SEM campaigns.
Exactly - the have to please the same platforms and systems.
Exactly - the have to please the same platforms and systems.
Hooray for Goodhart's Law... Now all we need to do is convince marketers and advertising that it applies to them as well.
It is an attention economy. That is why news for nerds are dead, not only slashdot. They just use too much ad blockers and ate tio greedy to pay.
> The major problem here is that content is now largely generated based on maximizing ad revenue.
This has always been true. But “old media” was the same for everyone, so maximizing ad revenue was achieved through capturing the middle of the distribution (engagement is lower, but there’s much more people).
Now we can tailor for every individual, which means maximizing ad revenue is about pandering to the tails of the distribution (where people are super engaged even if the numbers are more limited).
This has always been true. But “old media” was the same for everyone, so maximizing ad revenue was achieved through capturing the middle of the distribution (engagement is lower, but there’s much more people).
Now we can tailor for every individual, which means maximizing ad revenue is about pandering to the tails of the distribution (where people are super engaged even if the numbers are more limited).
I agree and ironically I still find reading the paper edition of a high quality news paper to be much more pleasurable than scrolling through a news feed or navigating the ad-laden webpages of a newspaper. In fact the user experience on most of them is so much worse that it is almost laughable.
Also since the articles are laid out physically before you in a predetermined order, far more of your senses are engaged. You are also more likely to serendipitously read an article far from what you would normally be interested in.
Also since the articles are laid out physically before you in a predetermined order, far more of your senses are engaged. You are also more likely to serendipitously read an article far from what you would normally be interested in.
>navigating the ad-laden webpages of a newspaper.
Another HN-reader who doesn't use an ad-blocker?
Occasionally, I get to see things like the NYT on someone's computer who doesn't have an ad-blocker installed, and it is deeply shocking and quite disturbing.
With an ad-blocker, however, it's a remarkably pleasant experience, with almost zero distractions. There's even a "physical layout" that works more or less the same way as the paper version.
Caveat: I do pay for a subscription to the NYT, which may change my experience somewhat.
Another HN-reader who doesn't use an ad-blocker?
Occasionally, I get to see things like the NYT on someone's computer who doesn't have an ad-blocker installed, and it is deeply shocking and quite disturbing.
With an ad-blocker, however, it's a remarkably pleasant experience, with almost zero distractions. There's even a "physical layout" that works more or less the same way as the paper version.
Caveat: I do pay for a subscription to the NYT, which may change my experience somewhat.
Having paid for newspapers and running an adblocker, you really can't compare the experience. An adblocker doesn't give you descriptive headlines, a sensible layout of articles or even content that is meant to give you a reasonable overview of the world.
I remember the Economists app, having layout with sensibly named articles in sections that are relevant (so I can skip the style section), and first paragraphs that layout the meat of the article so I could skim it. Very good for me, but terrible for "engagement".
I can subscribe to them, unfortunately because they also run dark-patterns: you can subscribe online, but have to call a number during British Business hours to unsubscribe (I sent an angry email to their support, but still).
I remember the Economists app, having layout with sensibly named articles in sections that are relevant (so I can skip the style section), and first paragraphs that layout the meat of the article so I could skim it. Very good for me, but terrible for "engagement".
I can subscribe to them, unfortunately because they also run dark-patterns: you can subscribe online, but have to call a number during British Business hours to unsubscribe (I sent an angry email to their support, but still).
I subscribe to the Santa Fe New Mexican (local rag), NYT and the Guardian. It's a small sample size, but they are all ad-free for me, sensibly layed out and a pleasure to read, using any of AdBlock+, AdNauseam or uBlock Origin (I've switched in this order as the earlier ones become ineffective against ... YouTube ads)
In the age of polarisation, you should definitely keep up with at least one right-of-centre outlet. National Review is still of high standards
I use uBlock origin and still find a lot of news sites cancerous on desktop.
> In my opinion, once-objective mainstream journalism is now about writing content to please target audiences and catch trending topics on social media, as well as keep fast cycles going to appease the algorithms on news aggregation sites and search engines.
That’s an awfully cynical take when all you have to ask is how these publications could stay afloat without drawing readers in. They’re in a tough spot when people are opting for their Facebook feed over paying for articles from proper journalists.
That’s an awfully cynical take when all you have to ask is how these publications could stay afloat without drawing readers in. They’re in a tough spot when people are opting for their Facebook feed over paying for articles from proper journalists.
>> That’s an awfully cynical take when all you have to ask is how these publications could stay afloat without drawing readers in
Cynical? It seems accurate to me, and you even say they're in a tough spot.
The sad part is whatever drove them this direction is destroying them, but I think it came from inside, not twitter.
Cynical? It seems accurate to me, and you even say they're in a tough spot.
The sad part is whatever drove them this direction is destroying them, but I think it came from inside, not twitter.
It came from inside as far as their failure to adapt to a new ecosystem. They're still stuck in the print mindset where they think that a newspaper should be words printed on a page. They're stuck in the printing press mindset when they need to be in the digital media mindset. If they want to re-capture their audience they need to put their journalists to work creating more audio content that people can consume in their "found time" along with their other podcasts. They have the infrastructure to one up everyone in this field. If a journalist were to apply the same techniques of deep research, interviews with relevant sources, and the basic footwork necessary to find newsworthy material they could take their market back. People would pay for a subscription to a "paper" that was actually a basket of well researched and news-breaking podcasts. For God's sake though don't invite the radio and TV people in, just throw out your goddamn typewriter already and get a decent microphone and do it yourself.
"If they want to re-capture their audience they need to put their journalists to work creating more audio content that people can consume in their "found time" along with their other podcasts."
At least the NYT has a daily podcast, an updating podcast on the impeachment (when the impeachment happened), a podcast series on engagement algorithms in radicalizing people, I think several more. The Atlantic, The Daily Beast, NPR (So many NPR podcasts), etc. also have podcasts.
I think podcasts are well covered and this argument is coming from a place of ignorance.
At least the NYT has a daily podcast, an updating podcast on the impeachment (when the impeachment happened), a podcast series on engagement algorithms in radicalizing people, I think several more. The Atlantic, The Daily Beast, NPR (So many NPR podcasts), etc. also have podcasts.
I think podcasts are well covered and this argument is coming from a place of ignorance.
I was aware of NPR's offerings but not of the others. That tells you something to start with, those offerings aren't being made a centre piece. The Atlantic has them buried in a sidebar halfway down their page under a list of authors. They also seem to be fairly infrequent and listening to them briefly they are a turn off due to their over-production. They're also short, 30 min. Why would I want to wait 3 weeks for a 30 minute radio show? Pass. NPR has more on offer, they are listed as a menu item at the top of their site, they are more frequent, unfortunately they're still overdone which is why I don't follow them. The NYT daily is actually a pleasant surprise, they feature it a bit more prominently on their site, I'm listening to one right now and it's a straight up interview which is great, daily releases make up for the shorter run length so I'll try this one out.
I think my argument still stands, newspapers are still in the print business. Doing a quick search of other papers seems to show a trend of having a podcast as an afterthought and/or treating it as a way to deliver radio content. Putting a radio show on the internet doesn't make it a podcast. Give me a discussion, a long form interview, something real. I don't want cuts, voiceovers, musical interludes, or scripts. I'm coming down hard on the production quality because it's a sure sign that something has been editorialized to death, generally by a committee of people with competing interests and vanities. Too many cooks spoil the broth.
I think my argument still stands, newspapers are still in the print business. Doing a quick search of other papers seems to show a trend of having a podcast as an afterthought and/or treating it as a way to deliver radio content. Putting a radio show on the internet doesn't make it a podcast. Give me a discussion, a long form interview, something real. I don't want cuts, voiceovers, musical interludes, or scripts. I'm coming down hard on the production quality because it's a sure sign that something has been editorialized to death, generally by a committee of people with competing interests and vanities. Too many cooks spoil the broth.
>they could take their market back.
which market is that? Historically, US newspapers made most of their money by selling advertising. Just was with Google (and Facebook) today, the market wasn't readers - readers were the hook to get the actual customers - advertisers - to pay in.
Newspapers are not going to get that market back, no matter what they do.
which market is that? Historically, US newspapers made most of their money by selling advertising. Just was with Google (and Facebook) today, the market wasn't readers - readers were the hook to get the actual customers - advertisers - to pay in.
Newspapers are not going to get that market back, no matter what they do.
Again, just pointing out in fairness that places like NPR and CSpan do the sort of thing your comment suggests. I think some people might listen to NPR in their car, some may even donate, but I'm not sure how many people would pay enough to fund the groundwork necessary for stories like the Wirecard series for instance.
In the end, that sort of journalism may need to rely on donations. We're simply no longer wired to pay for that sort of information and media. If everyone changed at once, we might be retrained to pay, but I doubt that would happen.
In the end, that sort of journalism may need to rely on donations. We're simply no longer wired to pay for that sort of information and media. If everyone changed at once, we might be retrained to pay, but I doubt that would happen.
You're probably spot on about in-depth journalism being the only path forward. News used to aggregators of what's happening, but social media and customizable feeds do it better and much faster. So journalism should focus on what the social media grapevine isn't good at: investigation, good writing, and using a list of trusted sources and experts gathered over years.
And if a newsroom can't do that better than somebody on social media, it should hire that person (or at least commission a piece).
And if a newsroom can't do that better than somebody on social media, it should hire that person (or at least commission a piece).
I don't know if there was a realistic adaptation they could have made. What would they have done, short of simply abandoning their business and becoming a massive social network publisher earlier than the ones that ended up winning?
I think what happened is that it turned out the real value newspapers provided wasn't the expensive high-quality content, but simply the printing and distribution which used to have immense barriers to entry. The Internet shattered those barriers to entry, and it turned out that all that people wanted was to have access to some timely shared national/regional/local content and that the cheaper content would tend to win.
I think what happened is that it turned out the real value newspapers provided wasn't the expensive high-quality content, but simply the printing and distribution which used to have immense barriers to entry. The Internet shattered those barriers to entry, and it turned out that all that people wanted was to have access to some timely shared national/regional/local content and that the cheaper content would tend to win.
How do podcasts help? I skip every ad on every podcast I listen to. I click the +30s button a few times. Not sure how any podcasts make money. I get people are paying for ads. I'm curious if there is any proof they work. podcasts are to spoken word as tivo was to TV, in both one killer feature was skipping the ads.
See NYTimes as an example of someone doing everything here, and more.
I see that donation model turning out pretty swell for The Guardian. There might be more, no idea...
I'm not suggesting they had a choice - I believe they had to do it to survive. But there is now a void for the objective journalism of old. It's why I'm excited about the resurgence of the newsletter model - if journalists don't need to catch passing trade and can instead rely on being delivered direct, perhaps the incentives that have skewed their writing so much can be mitigated.
"But there is now a void for the objective journalism of old."
I don't know man? Many have tried, all have failed. Even newsletters, in the end, write what readers want to hear. Some of the most radical and extremist information out there, is disseminated by newsletters.
I think OP hit on the crux of the issue, technology, or "the smartphone" if you want to pin it on that, has changed not only methods of consumption, but consumption behavior and expectations on a fundamental level. And I think that applies to all media, not only news. The seeming efficiency of information and media delivery on a smartphone just makes us think differently about the value of information and media. We start wanting the information we want, and we start blocking the information we don't want. After a while, information and media we don't want won't even show up for us. It's massively efficient customer service on a global scale. I'm not sure what can reasonably be done about it?
I don't know man? Many have tried, all have failed. Even newsletters, in the end, write what readers want to hear. Some of the most radical and extremist information out there, is disseminated by newsletters.
I think OP hit on the crux of the issue, technology, or "the smartphone" if you want to pin it on that, has changed not only methods of consumption, but consumption behavior and expectations on a fundamental level. And I think that applies to all media, not only news. The seeming efficiency of information and media delivery on a smartphone just makes us think differently about the value of information and media. We start wanting the information we want, and we start blocking the information we don't want. After a while, information and media we don't want won't even show up for us. It's massively efficient customer service on a global scale. I'm not sure what can reasonably be done about it?
Implicit in your comment is the idea that mainstream media needs to survive.
The news corporations chose money over morals. They decided to become clickbait tabloids to chase ad revenue. I don't think anything of value would be lost if we saw some of these media giants go under.
The news corporations chose money over morals. They decided to become clickbait tabloids to chase ad revenue. I don't think anything of value would be lost if we saw some of these media giants go under.
I believe that some kind of free investigative press, one which the electorate pays attention to, is a requisite for anything that can be reasonably called a democracy.
I would go further than you and say that publishing fiction based loosely on current events under the guise of “news” has negative utility, and much would be gained by getting rid of it.
That said, I don’t know how to solve this! It — along with every other case where capitalism produces suboptimal outcomes — is an example of Goodhart's law, so the issue will come back fast if we tried any simple and obvious solutions.
I would go further than you and say that publishing fiction based loosely on current events under the guise of “news” has negative utility, and much would be gained by getting rid of it.
That said, I don’t know how to solve this! It — along with every other case where capitalism produces suboptimal outcomes — is an example of Goodhart's law, so the issue will come back fast if we tried any simple and obvious solutions.
I won't pretend to be an expert or even necessarily a proponent, but it's worth nothing that there are public broadcasting agencies that supposedly are independent of government other than being legally bound to certain journalistic standards.
I think what is needed is a change of perspective around news / media.
IMO, the money and the passion is there. I don't see why there can't be an NRA / Sierra Club / Red Cross type organization for true investigative, insightful, trustworthy journalism.
The issue is that people can already get "news" for free, so they wouldn't see the need to support such an organization. We as a society need to rebrand Fox, CNN, etc as current events based entertainment media.
IMO, the money and the passion is there. I don't see why there can't be an NRA / Sierra Club / Red Cross type organization for true investigative, insightful, trustworthy journalism.
The issue is that people can already get "news" for free, so they wouldn't see the need to support such an organization. We as a society need to rebrand Fox, CNN, etc as current events based entertainment media.
In a capitalistic ecosystem where the fitness function is profitability, the only organizations that survive are the ones that choose money. Choosing morals simply means you'll be outcompeted and go out of business.
> I don't think anything of value would be lost if we saw some of these media giants go under.
I do. Democracy requires citizens to know the facts at a level of understanding that is actionable. It takes a lot of work and skill to distill the chaos of mass human behavior into something that voters can make sense of and journalists are the closest we have to experts at that process.
> I don't think anything of value would be lost if we saw some of these media giants go under.
I do. Democracy requires citizens to know the facts at a level of understanding that is actionable. It takes a lot of work and skill to distill the chaos of mass human behavior into something that voters can make sense of and journalists are the closest we have to experts at that process.
> Democracy requires citizens to know the facts at a level of understanding that is actionable. It takes a lot of work and skill to distill the chaos of mass human behavior into something that voters can make sense of and journalists are the closest we have to experts at that process.
I agree with you that good journalists are essential to society 100%. I also think that the current state of affairs is doing more harm than good. We would be better off as a society if CNN and Fox News dissolved tomorrow.
> In a capitalistic ecosystem where the fitness function is profitability, the only organizations that survive are the ones that choose money.
What about the Red Cross, the NRA, the Sierra Club, the NAACP, the ACLU? There is absolutely room in a capitalist society for non-profit organizations that at least some segment of the population are passionate about enough to fund them.
In the modern age, there is also room for independent journalists. Thousands of Youtubers and podcasters make a living through patreon, why not journalists? With the internet, you don't need to backing of a massive news outlet to have your story printed and distributed.
I agree with you that good journalists are essential to society 100%. I also think that the current state of affairs is doing more harm than good. We would be better off as a society if CNN and Fox News dissolved tomorrow.
> In a capitalistic ecosystem where the fitness function is profitability, the only organizations that survive are the ones that choose money.
What about the Red Cross, the NRA, the Sierra Club, the NAACP, the ACLU? There is absolutely room in a capitalist society for non-profit organizations that at least some segment of the population are passionate about enough to fund them.
In the modern age, there is also room for independent journalists. Thousands of Youtubers and podcasters make a living through patreon, why not journalists? With the internet, you don't need to backing of a massive news outlet to have your story printed and distributed.
> What about the Red Cross, the NRA, the Sierra Club, the NAACP, the ACLU?
Good point. Yes, we are not quite living in a libertarian paradise/hellhole of pure capitalism yet. :)
Even there, though, non-profits do compete for donor dollars and the competitive pressure is not always well-aligned with the altruistic goals of the organization.
> There is absolutely room in a capitalist society for non-profit organizations that at least some segment of the population are passionate about enough to fund them.
I agree, but I hesitate to rely entirely on the largesse of those with spare cash to support journalism. Journalism is a vital function for democracy, and democracy should support all of a nations' people, not just the views of those with extra money.
There are, of course, many wealthy people willing to support journalism that protects the poor too, but I worry as always about bias.
> In the modern age, there is also room for independent journalists. Thousands of Youtubers and podcasters make a living through patreon, why not journalists? With the internet, you don't need to backing of a massive news outlet to have your story printed and distributed.
I have some but limited faith that "all bugs are shallow" applies to investigative journalism. Yes, independent journalists can dig up and find a lot of stuff. But there's really something to be said for the doors that get opened when a journalist from a well-regarded important publication knocks on them.
When the Washington Post asks a politician a hard question, they feel some pressure to answer. When J. Random Youtuber does, not so much.
Good point. Yes, we are not quite living in a libertarian paradise/hellhole of pure capitalism yet. :)
Even there, though, non-profits do compete for donor dollars and the competitive pressure is not always well-aligned with the altruistic goals of the organization.
> There is absolutely room in a capitalist society for non-profit organizations that at least some segment of the population are passionate about enough to fund them.
I agree, but I hesitate to rely entirely on the largesse of those with spare cash to support journalism. Journalism is a vital function for democracy, and democracy should support all of a nations' people, not just the views of those with extra money.
There are, of course, many wealthy people willing to support journalism that protects the poor too, but I worry as always about bias.
> In the modern age, there is also room for independent journalists. Thousands of Youtubers and podcasters make a living through patreon, why not journalists? With the internet, you don't need to backing of a massive news outlet to have your story printed and distributed.
I have some but limited faith that "all bugs are shallow" applies to investigative journalism. Yes, independent journalists can dig up and find a lot of stuff. But there's really something to be said for the doors that get opened when a journalist from a well-regarded important publication knocks on them.
When the Washington Post asks a politician a hard question, they feel some pressure to answer. When J. Random Youtuber does, not so much.
What are "morals"?
Yours or mine or Joseph Stalin's?
In a moralistic ecosystem, you have a totalitarianism of the "morals" of whoever is in power.
In a moralistic ecosystem, you have a totalitarianism of the "morals" of whoever is in power.
> What are "morals"? Yours or mine or Joseph Stalin's?
I like mine, which probably significantly overlap yours in most of the ways that count. Not a big fan of Stalin's.
> In a moralistic ecosystem, you have a totalitarianism of the "morals" of whoever is in power.
All ecosystems reflect the values of those that are in power. The current capitalistic ecosystem reflects the value that maximum profit is good (in the moral sense), that one of the primary obligations of the individual is to consume products, and that you provide value to society by working a job that pays you money.
I like mine, which probably significantly overlap yours in most of the ways that count. Not a big fan of Stalin's.
> In a moralistic ecosystem, you have a totalitarianism of the "morals" of whoever is in power.
All ecosystems reflect the values of those that are in power. The current capitalistic ecosystem reflects the value that maximum profit is good (in the moral sense), that one of the primary obligations of the individual is to consume products, and that you provide value to society by working a job that pays you money.
> They’re in a tough spot when people are opting for their Facebook feed over paying for articles from proper journalists.
Indeed, because they are in such a tough spot, it suggests that they might be pushing towards doing unethical things in order to stay afloat.
Indeed, because they are in such a tough spot, it suggests that they might be pushing towards doing unethical things in order to stay afloat.
If journalism dies, that's awful, but no reason to support the anti-journalism garbage that replaces it.
WaPo and NYT dishonest political activism is far far worse than BuzzFeed's entertainment listicles.
WaPo and NYT dishonest political activism is far far worse than BuzzFeed's entertainment listicles.
> once-objective mainstream journalism
Objective journalism was never ever a thing. That's why Manufacturing Consent happened and all the works from Edward Bernays and all the way to Noam Chomsky.
What journalism had before though is just more consistency in worldview, because mass media was very centralized and pushed much more consistent propaganda with nothing to oppose it.
Objective journalism was never ever a thing. That's why Manufacturing Consent happened and all the works from Edward Bernays and all the way to Noam Chomsky.
What journalism had before though is just more consistency in worldview, because mass media was very centralized and pushed much more consistent propaganda with nothing to oppose it.
There might never have been some noble objective, but there were at least the business incentives to appeal to a broader audience because of the centralized distribution methods, no? I think Matt Taibbi wrote about this. Market forces then and now.
I mean, as much as Matt Taibbi articles are fun to read, he never came across to me as objective nor trying to be objective. A lot of what he writes is all about showing his viewpoint and appealing to people with similar viewpoint.
Objectivity will be subjective even outside of the communication model described in Manufacturing Consent.
Ie, you can read the French newspaper, "Canard Enchaine" and verify that it doesn't tick the checkboxes of the five filters of editorial bias. Nonetheless that's a very opinionated newspaper. Opinions are by definition subjective. And, as even Chomsky acknowledged, journalists intentions are in the majority good. But, like we are, are very much trapped in an unavoidable ideology.
Ie, you can read the French newspaper, "Canard Enchaine" and verify that it doesn't tick the checkboxes of the five filters of editorial bias. Nonetheless that's a very opinionated newspaper. Opinions are by definition subjective. And, as even Chomsky acknowledged, journalists intentions are in the majority good. But, like we are, are very much trapped in an unavoidable ideology.
godelzilla(1)
Journalism should have been all the more important than before given so much misleading information and controversies on social media. Did X really say Y? Under which context? Why would A push policy B? What's A's rationale? How did the policy work? What are the trade-offs? What are the data, facts, and logic that support claim C? And of course all kinds of cover-ups by local government. Deep and comprehensive reports can shed lights in this confusing world. For instance, is the US K-12 education system really this bad? I think it is, and it is even worse than the gloomy situation depicted in the documentary Waiting for Superman? But is my frustration really founded? A former secretary of education, whose name I forgot, also claimed that the documentary was detrimental to the teacher's union and the K-12 education system. What was her angle? Why did he say so? And this is probably the least controversial topic I have in my mind.
Instead, journalism got marginalized and polarized. It's sad.
Instead, journalism got marginalized and polarized. It's sad.
I am reminded of this topic of availability cascade in Kahneman's Thinking Fast and Slow:
"An availability cascade is a self-sustaining chain of events, which may start from media reports of a relatively minor event and lead up to public panic and large-scale government action. On some occasions, a media story about a risk catches the attention of a segment of the public, which becomes aroused and worried. This emotional reaction becomes a story in itself, prompting additional coverage in the media, which in turn produces greater concern and involvement. The cycle is sometimes sped along deliberately by 'availability entrepreneurs,' individuals or organizations who work to ensure a continuous flow of worrying news. The danger is increasingly exaggerated as the media compete for attention-grabbing headlines."
"An availability cascade is a self-sustaining chain of events, which may start from media reports of a relatively minor event and lead up to public panic and large-scale government action. On some occasions, a media story about a risk catches the attention of a segment of the public, which becomes aroused and worried. This emotional reaction becomes a story in itself, prompting additional coverage in the media, which in turn produces greater concern and involvement. The cycle is sometimes sped along deliberately by 'availability entrepreneurs,' individuals or organizations who work to ensure a continuous flow of worrying news. The danger is increasingly exaggerated as the media compete for attention-grabbing headlines."
[deleted]
[deleted]
I feel like this is a "preach to your base" response that doesn't address any of the salient points the article raises.
So I think the challenge is well illustrated by the example they gave of when a president says "Go back to where you came from" to X-th generation immigrants.
- I feel like I'd be kidding myself not to read this as nationalist/racist. However, newspapers have traditionally been hesitant to make "value judgements" about current politicians. How can the press be honest and realistic, without condoning or condemning such remarks? (Or to make the example harder, could you hypothetically write an article about Hitler without legitimizing nor condemning him? Would failure to condemn him in a "purely objective" historical piece not read as an endorsement?)
- Or, just as easily, take Bush an Iraq. What was the correct phrasing to describe a war in Iraq based on evidence that proved to be false? Is there a way to communicate the facts without anchoring the value judgements?
So I think the challenge is well illustrated by the example they gave of when a president says "Go back to where you came from" to X-th generation immigrants.
- I feel like I'd be kidding myself not to read this as nationalist/racist. However, newspapers have traditionally been hesitant to make "value judgements" about current politicians. How can the press be honest and realistic, without condoning or condemning such remarks? (Or to make the example harder, could you hypothetically write an article about Hitler without legitimizing nor condemning him? Would failure to condemn him in a "purely objective" historical piece not read as an endorsement?)
- Or, just as easily, take Bush an Iraq. What was the correct phrasing to describe a war in Iraq based on evidence that proved to be false? Is there a way to communicate the facts without anchoring the value judgements?
So I think the challenge is well illustrated by the example they gave of when a president says "Go back to where you came from" to X-th generation immigrants.
Was it though. That this is considered some staggeringly deep philosophy-of-journalism challenge says a lot about the level of corruption in the media.
I wasn't familiar with that quote. I had read Scott Alexander's post about how Trump is constantly painted by the media as overtly racist but actually isn't, so I was curious what the context was and what caused him to say this. The quote comes from a couple of tweets:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/11503813942349414...
"So interesting to see “Progressive” Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all), now loudly...... ....and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our government is to be run. Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how...."
Although the media repeated the "go back" part with a megaphone, they entirely dropped the bit where he asks them to come back later, once they figured out how to better run a country.
In these tweets Trump is making a political point about culture and government, not race. If he hated people based on race he wouldn't be telling them to come back to the USA when they become (in his view) less left wing and more governmentally-aware. It's a minor spin on a well worn right-wing talking point: socialist ideas have been tried in socialist republics and they're bad places to live, full of corruption and poverty.
Yet this two tweet statement, easily quotable in full anytime someone wants to refer to it, is presented as a challenge of the form "how do we say Trump is racist even more loudly than we already do".
It's this kind of thing that means I don't subscribe to the Economist anymore, nor do I care about other formerly respectable media outlets. I want objective facts that don't tell me what to think, with clearly separated analysis and context (ideally, separate outlets). Yet they're all engaged in massive amounts of selective quoting, manipulation, pushing their own extremist agendas on the reader base, and they're all desperate to find pseudo-intellectual justifications for even more fully embracing the total corruption of their industry.
Was it though. That this is considered some staggeringly deep philosophy-of-journalism challenge says a lot about the level of corruption in the media.
I wasn't familiar with that quote. I had read Scott Alexander's post about how Trump is constantly painted by the media as overtly racist but actually isn't, so I was curious what the context was and what caused him to say this. The quote comes from a couple of tweets:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/11503813942349414...
"So interesting to see “Progressive” Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all), now loudly...... ....and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our government is to be run. Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how...."
Although the media repeated the "go back" part with a megaphone, they entirely dropped the bit where he asks them to come back later, once they figured out how to better run a country.
In these tweets Trump is making a political point about culture and government, not race. If he hated people based on race he wouldn't be telling them to come back to the USA when they become (in his view) less left wing and more governmentally-aware. It's a minor spin on a well worn right-wing talking point: socialist ideas have been tried in socialist republics and they're bad places to live, full of corruption and poverty.
Yet this two tweet statement, easily quotable in full anytime someone wants to refer to it, is presented as a challenge of the form "how do we say Trump is racist even more loudly than we already do".
It's this kind of thing that means I don't subscribe to the Economist anymore, nor do I care about other formerly respectable media outlets. I want objective facts that don't tell me what to think, with clearly separated analysis and context (ideally, separate outlets). Yet they're all engaged in massive amounts of selective quoting, manipulation, pushing their own extremist agendas on the reader base, and they're all desperate to find pseudo-intellectual justifications for even more fully embracing the total corruption of their industry.
[deleted]
I'm not a sophisticated sociologist or anything by any means but I'd wager that social media originated and continues to drive the trend in popularism. The "upvote", "like", "retweet", and "share" buttons are a huge enabler for popular content to rise up and drown out all other. The only editorial review are the algorithms which are designed only to proliferate it even further.
Yesterday I suggested that we need to get rid of the downvote button. I see a problem where prevailing opinions only become reinforced with double the efficiency. It may even be greater because of the psychological effect of "grey = bad" or "collapsed = bad".
edit: typo desired->designed.
Yesterday I suggested that we need to get rid of the downvote button. I see a problem where prevailing opinions only become reinforced with double the efficiency. It may even be greater because of the psychological effect of "grey = bad" or "collapsed = bad".
edit: typo desired->designed.
I agree - the system gamifies conversation and literally rewards saying the popular thing with points. That's great for funny comments on memes, but it's not ideal for politics.
Obviously, we're doing it here right now, which brings me onto a second point - I have found that Hacker News is frequented by similar-minded people who will take my ideas in good faith, so I take time to post here. But I no longer bother with other platforms that would downvote me for saying the same thing.
And so, we're becoming inexperienced with ideas we disagree with.
Obviously, we're doing it here right now, which brings me onto a second point - I have found that Hacker News is frequented by similar-minded people who will take my ideas in good faith, so I take time to post here. But I no longer bother with other platforms that would downvote me for saying the same thing.
And so, we're becoming inexperienced with ideas we disagree with.
I really liked slashdots system. It seemed to work well too.
Hacker News has a very specific techno-libertarian Silicon Valley type outlook and you get downvoted pretty quickly when you express other types of views, especially in politics and controversial topics.
I find that if such opinions are communicated civilly, they are much, much less likely to be downvoted. It's not like no one here will knee jerk downvote, but most often I see aggressive posts downvoted much more consistently than "merely" controversial ones
Some people downvote because a silent downvote is risk-free, a response isn't. Especially on a controversial topic, why respond and run the risk of being downvoted by those who disagree with you when you can just downvote and move on?
I agree that uncivil comments are down-voted more often, but there is clear "I don't agree with you even though you've made your point intelligently, so I will see if I can make it disappear" which is really unfortunate and not conducive to civil discourse.
Perhaps less than other platforms but certainly a thing - often with no counter comment to explain. All seems a bit small-minded.
Perhaps less than other platforms but certainly a thing - often with no counter comment to explain. All seems a bit small-minded.
[deleted]
If you are civil you get less down votes, but some opinions will automatically get you a few down votes no matter how insightful and well worded.
I'm a utilitarian social democrat and I don't think I ever been downvoted because of that, despite living in a world completely different from SV. I'm not american, I'm not rich, and some of the problems that SV like to focus at seem childish and/or absurd to me, but here I am, still thinking that HN is probably one of the best communities.
If this is the sort of thing you like, you'll like it here. Choose your bubble.
Case in point, this very comment!
I downvoted it because it's anecdotal and furthermore not accurate based on my own anecdotal experience. i.e. I'm using my downvote for my anecdotal experience to cancel their anecdotal experience. Likewise I expect downvotes on this comment for being anecdotal as well (except in the circumstance that some of the additional commentary below garners upvotes)
I'm probably one of the people that would be categorized as a techno-libertarian (even though I don't live in SV), but I get downvotes all the time as well.
This community is a lot more diverse than just the techno-libertarian crowd. There's no lack of people in opposition to the techno-libertarianism as well downvoting the techno-libertarian comments and upvoting those in opposition to the techno-libertarian comments.
Basically I downvoted this comment for presenting the situation as one where only their views are getting downvoted excessively because they believe themselves to be in the minority when my experience clearly falsifies the assumption that it's only non-techno-libertarian comments being downvoted.
Furthermore, HNers tend to downvote comments that speculate on why things are being downvoted. The truth is that you have absolutely zero knowledge into why a comment was downvoted unless someone replies to say they downvoted and explains exactly why they did so like I just did. Anything other than that is pure baseless speculation and that doesn't get you very far in a community that prefers statements based on evidence.
Also, complaining about downvotes is known to get you downvoted because it's generally been observed to contribute negatively to the quality of discussion. You shouldn't complain about downvotes and instead you should add a comment where you argue your point better and try to gain karma with a new better comment than complaining about downvotes on a previous one that didn't succeed.
I'm probably one of the people that would be categorized as a techno-libertarian (even though I don't live in SV), but I get downvotes all the time as well.
This community is a lot more diverse than just the techno-libertarian crowd. There's no lack of people in opposition to the techno-libertarianism as well downvoting the techno-libertarian comments and upvoting those in opposition to the techno-libertarian comments.
Basically I downvoted this comment for presenting the situation as one where only their views are getting downvoted excessively because they believe themselves to be in the minority when my experience clearly falsifies the assumption that it's only non-techno-libertarian comments being downvoted.
Furthermore, HNers tend to downvote comments that speculate on why things are being downvoted. The truth is that you have absolutely zero knowledge into why a comment was downvoted unless someone replies to say they downvoted and explains exactly why they did so like I just did. Anything other than that is pure baseless speculation and that doesn't get you very far in a community that prefers statements based on evidence.
Also, complaining about downvotes is known to get you downvoted because it's generally been observed to contribute negatively to the quality of discussion. You shouldn't complain about downvotes and instead you should add a comment where you argue your point better and try to gain karma with a new better comment than complaining about downvotes on a previous one that didn't succeed.
I can't help wondering if some of the down-voting in this case is intended as ironic.
As the old adage goes, "it's still shitposting even if you're being ironic".
Perhaps my longest internet commenting rule is “downvote people complaining about downvotes”
Its sometimes a fair complaint (if against HN guidelines) in an environment like this where you hope for a little bit more thought in when to down-vote.
Perhaps. But always off topic and almost always boring. When I think I’m unfairly downvoted, I just try to reply with more detail and accounting for more possible interpretations. Or I move on.
[deleted]
I'm very experienced with the opposing views .. and I find it increasingly difficult to assume that they're both held in good faith and also willing to take my views as held in good faith.
There's a "iterated prisoner's dilemma" thing going on, where the side that plays "defect" all the time has got the upper hand.
There's a "iterated prisoner's dilemma" thing going on, where the side that plays "defect" all the time has got the upper hand.
Yes to the "defect" thought. Learning about Karpman's triangle[0] helped me understand this. In conflict, people flit between three identities: the villain who tries to force their way, the hero who tries to save the situation, and the victim who accepts loss and points out their difficulties. And everyone's trying to be the victim because that's who ultimately gets their way, through manipulating the "don't kick someone when they're down" mentality. Fascinating stuff, and now that I've seen it I just can't unsee it almost everywhere.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karpman_drama_triangle
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karpman_drama_triangle
I should add that the tendency of adopting the hero role ("let bygones be bygones, but we need to get this done") isn't ideal since it leaves a power imbalance in its wake. A more effective response lies in Nonviolent Communication,[0] so saying, "When you say this I feel this because I value this. Would you be willing to do this?" This way emotions are managed and both parties begin exiting the dialogue understanding each other, and on equal footing.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_Communication
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_Communication
And then I tell you that I am not responsible for your feelings, you are. Which is very common thing to say these days. Or I say you that you are oversensitive and emotional.
I agree that "hero" in original framing basically favors status quo.
I agree that "hero" in original framing basically favors status quo.
You're right. In the case of a narcissist or someone looking to argue (or someone very emotionally invested and stirred up), the "broken pop machine" method is better. They try to press your buttons but you don't react, saying things like, "Gee, I can't help you with that," and they eventually disengage.
Applying Karpman's triangle assumes both parties genuinely want to (and can) move forward.
Applying Karpman's triangle assumes both parties genuinely want to (and can) move forward.
Nonviolent communication seems to be reasonably popular here, but I must admit that that quote comes of as extremely condescending and manipulative to me.
The KDT is a brilliant insight, but it only really works if people have some ability to distance from a situation and their own emotional framing of it.
I recently dropped a link to the KDT into a rather mad online flame war that took a Facebook forum by surprise.
It may have made a few participants stop and think, but overall it was a low EQ mistake and didn't go well. I don't recommend it.
I recently dropped a link to the KDT into a rather mad online flame war that took a Facebook forum by surprise.
It may have made a few participants stop and think, but overall it was a low EQ mistake and didn't go well. I don't recommend it.
We live in crazy times. No one takes any argument that they don't agree at good faith. It is all about the zinger.
Without the downvote HN would descend into flame war bullshit pretty quickly (imo). Things that don't outright break the rules can still be low effort and subtly hostile.
Most heavily downvoted posts I see on here tend to be people transparently arguing in bad faith, or being unnecessarily rude in ways that aren't quite obvious enough to attract proper moderation.
Sure sometimes it's just opinions that most people disagree with, but overall I think the downvote button is a positive force (and the comments are still there, you can judge for yourself if they were worth it).
(If you want to see all the terrible comments that get posted, turn on the showdead option on your user profile. Otherwise you get an unrealistically sunny view of the quality of discourse here).
Most heavily downvoted posts I see on here tend to be people transparently arguing in bad faith, or being unnecessarily rude in ways that aren't quite obvious enough to attract proper moderation.
Sure sometimes it's just opinions that most people disagree with, but overall I think the downvote button is a positive force (and the comments are still there, you can judge for yourself if they were worth it).
(If you want to see all the terrible comments that get posted, turn on the showdead option on your user profile. Otherwise you get an unrealistically sunny view of the quality of discourse here).
Of course. What purpose does the downvote button serve? If the post is breaking the rules, you should report/flag it. If its not, you shouldn't downvote.
I think the idea is that downvotes require a minimum level of karma (and thus ideally habituation to Hacker News norms around not simply downvoting content that you disagree with).
But... I don’t always see that being applied. I regularly upvote graying content that I vehemently disagree with if the commenter is making an earnest point in a respectful way. I do sometimes wish that the downvote button came with a selection box for what norm was being violated, because I think downvotes should require more thought and carry a little more friction.
That said, a friend asked me just yesterday if HN was the last place on the Internet I still comment, and I realized it is. On balance, I find the discourse and application of voting to be generally acceptable and better than other forums that I’ve mostly given up on.
But... I don’t always see that being applied. I regularly upvote graying content that I vehemently disagree with if the commenter is making an earnest point in a respectful way. I do sometimes wish that the downvote button came with a selection box for what norm was being violated, because I think downvotes should require more thought and carry a little more friction.
That said, a friend asked me just yesterday if HN was the last place on the Internet I still comment, and I realized it is. On balance, I find the discourse and application of voting to be generally acceptable and better than other forums that I’ve mostly given up on.
What about when a post isn’t breaking the rules but is factually incorrect?
If I comment that the earth is flat or that the sun revolves around the moon I would expect that comment to be filtered out by the community rather than something to bother the mods about.
If I comment that the earth is flat or that the sun revolves around the moon I would expect that comment to be filtered out by the community rather than something to bother the mods about.
I've seen downvotes that are applied to factually correct information but that goes against the herd. A simple rebuttal would suffice as we tend to do in the technical stories. Political stories on this site are insufferable.
Regardless of where you stand on a situation, advocacy is unavoidable in political stories. You can be 100% factually correct, but still commit sins of advocacy and partisanship like omitting factual information or misrepresenting factual information.
About the only comments that remain factually accurate without committing sins of advocacy in political stories are those that acknowledge that the issue is complicated, that there are many sides and that there isn't anything conclusive.
The more certain/convicted about an issue a commenter comes, the more likely they are going to get downvoted in political stories. My observation is that those comments that practice the principle of charity with their interlocutors are those that are more likely to be upvoted. How you say something is more important than what you're saying if you're trying to reach common understanding in earnest.
Technical stories generally don't have positions and advocacy except advocacy in favor of intellectual curiosity.
About the only comments that remain factually accurate without committing sins of advocacy in political stories are those that acknowledge that the issue is complicated, that there are many sides and that there isn't anything conclusive.
The more certain/convicted about an issue a commenter comes, the more likely they are going to get downvoted in political stories. My observation is that those comments that practice the principle of charity with their interlocutors are those that are more likely to be upvoted. How you say something is more important than what you're saying if you're trying to reach common understanding in earnest.
Technical stories generally don't have positions and advocacy except advocacy in favor of intellectual curiosity.
There's data that is factually correct but contextually useless in a vacuum to the point of being harmful when cited for advocacy reasons. It's not difficult to figure out when people cite that data and why.
It's to cut down on the tedious arguments. If someone posts something stupid, you could get into a long, drawn-out argument with them that goes nowhere and clutters up the comments, or you just click downvote and move on. Same reason for upvoting rather than "posting 'me too' like some brain-dead AOLer". [0]
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpMvS1Q1sos
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpMvS1Q1sos
I downvote comments which I think don't add anything to the conversation. Lately I find myself downvoting comments which try to interject U.S. politics—of any ideological stripe—into discussions of non-political topics.
I don't think the commentators are "breaking the rules," per se, but they aren't contributing positively. I'm sure they feel their political opinion is being suppressed, but my votes reflect that I come here for technical insights, not politics.
I don't think the commentators are "breaking the rules," per se, but they aren't contributing positively. I'm sure they feel their political opinion is being suppressed, but my votes reflect that I come here for technical insights, not politics.
In face to face situations there’s way to express disapproval. Downvotes let people express their displeasure with a comment.
When only upvotes exist, it’s very difficult to remove bad content. It also favors vapid, pleasing posts that will easily get upvotes.
When only upvotes exist, it’s very difficult to remove bad content. It also favors vapid, pleasing posts that will easily get upvotes.
It's an important stand in for what would happen in real life conversation, but can't in the same way online. Awkward silence, confused/upset looks, a muttered "what the fuck dude" etc.
I don't know. People were sharing ridiculous and untrue stories via email, via sms, etc.
Is it the "buttons" or the "gamification" that is driving the change in scale? Or is it just that there are more people online, with easier access to sharing content, and perhaps also - easier access to creating content?
I really don't know the answer to this, but it seems like everyone always blames social media, whereas I think the problem is basically a people-problem, not a tech-problem - give more people a voice, and you might not like what you hear.
Is it the "buttons" or the "gamification" that is driving the change in scale? Or is it just that there are more people online, with easier access to sharing content, and perhaps also - easier access to creating content?
I really don't know the answer to this, but it seems like everyone always blames social media, whereas I think the problem is basically a people-problem, not a tech-problem - give more people a voice, and you might not like what you hear.
Correct. If you signup for newsletters or read the news on their websites, or open their in-house app, the GP comment is wrong, there are lot's of newsrooms doing solid work, and what the article is circling is the burden of proof for stating "this official lied" as a fact.
If you're looking at social media newsfeeds all day, the algorithm is going to emphasize the things people are passionate about sharing. The people you follow become your front-page editor.
In the end, GP's perception is more about what he's reading and how he's receiving it than what real reporters do every day.
If you're looking at social media newsfeeds all day, the algorithm is going to emphasize the things people are passionate about sharing. The people you follow become your front-page editor.
In the end, GP's perception is more about what he's reading and how he's receiving it than what real reporters do every day.
I still want downvotes to exist, but I'm especially interested in being able to identify comments that oscillate in the sense that they get many competing votes.
I have a fair amount of karma on HN, but in the past few years that karma plateaued and I find myself getting as many upvotes as I did before, but now more downvotes.
I'm sure that I'm not the only one that has experienced seeing their comments oscillate between black and grey.
I have a fair amount of karma on HN, but in the past few years that karma plateaued and I find myself getting as many upvotes as I did before, but now more downvotes.
I'm sure that I'm not the only one that has experienced seeing their comments oscillate between black and grey.
There's nothing objective about feeling vindicated by Bari Weiss.
People will always point to technology as the root cause for this problem but I think that the problem is in fact related to our fiat monetary system and 0% interest rate policy.
The way technology evolves is just a symptom of our monetary environment. Would Facebook have been as successful as it is today if it wasn't for our insane monetary environment? I don't think so.
My theory is that the Fed is printing so much easy money that money has become effectively worthless to those who already have it. Some people can throw it out the window and it will come right back to them. In such an artificial environment, the only assets that have real value are those which can transcend the current monetary reality.
If interest rates ever go up, fiat currency will become more valuable. That means that the price of everything would drop (since prices are determined relative to fiat)... One of the few assets whose value would not drop so much if fiat becomes more valuable is "brand awareness" aka "consumer mindshare". That's why value creation is worthless and everyone is focused on zero-sum games and why some of the most valuable startups in the world don't make any profits. Their rich investors are not interested in today-money (of which they have an unlimited amount), that's worthless, they want tomorrow-money! They will throw away as much money as necessary on advertising to secure their current economic position in tomorrow-land.
Also, I think that the reason why the quality of journalism degraded is also because consumer mindshare has become too valuable relative to everything else to let the truth get in the way. The truth doesn't efficiently align with the goals of corporate sponsors to increase brand awareness and gain consumer mindshare.
Fed money-printing broke investors' financial compasses such that most of them can't tell the difference between creating real economic value and flushing money down the toilet. If anything, flushing money down the toilet tends to yield higher returns; this is because corporate exits at the end of the VC funnel are fueled by corporate debt which is freshly printed by the Fed.
My theory is that the Fed is printing so much easy money that money has become effectively worthless to those who already have it. Some people can throw it out the window and it will come right back to them. In such an artificial environment, the only assets that have real value are those which can transcend the current monetary reality.
If interest rates ever go up, fiat currency will become more valuable. That means that the price of everything would drop (since prices are determined relative to fiat)... One of the few assets whose value would not drop so much if fiat becomes more valuable is "brand awareness" aka "consumer mindshare". That's why value creation is worthless and everyone is focused on zero-sum games and why some of the most valuable startups in the world don't make any profits. Their rich investors are not interested in today-money (of which they have an unlimited amount), that's worthless, they want tomorrow-money! They will throw away as much money as necessary on advertising to secure their current economic position in tomorrow-land.
Also, I think that the reason why the quality of journalism degraded is also because consumer mindshare has become too valuable relative to everything else to let the truth get in the way. The truth doesn't efficiently align with the goals of corporate sponsors to increase brand awareness and gain consumer mindshare.
Fed money-printing broke investors' financial compasses such that most of them can't tell the difference between creating real economic value and flushing money down the toilet. If anything, flushing money down the toilet tends to yield higher returns; this is because corporate exits at the end of the VC funnel are fueled by corporate debt which is freshly printed by the Fed.
Was the mainstream media ever objective or impartial?
I find it appalling how people believe there is such a thing as unopinionated journalism. There's not, especially in a world where much media outlet income and even access to information comes from its association with state actors.
In some - if not most - parts of the world, there are even supposedly impartial media outlets whose most income comes from advertisings for state campaigns and politicians' agendas.
Exclusive perks and access to state authorities for journalists is also another problem. While many people might say that it's essential for them to have close access to presidents, governors, and lawmakers to inform the general public, no one can argue that this doesn't have implications in behavior.
You get reporters traveling alongside politicians in taxpayer-paid aircraft, bypassing immigration protocols, getting celebrities associated with authority, and their integrity is likely going to mold even if it is hard to see.
I find it appalling how people believe there is such a thing as unopinionated journalism. There's not, especially in a world where much media outlet income and even access to information comes from its association with state actors.
In some - if not most - parts of the world, there are even supposedly impartial media outlets whose most income comes from advertisings for state campaigns and politicians' agendas.
Exclusive perks and access to state authorities for journalists is also another problem. While many people might say that it's essential for them to have close access to presidents, governors, and lawmakers to inform the general public, no one can argue that this doesn't have implications in behavior.
You get reporters traveling alongside politicians in taxpayer-paid aircraft, bypassing immigration protocols, getting celebrities associated with authority, and their integrity is likely going to mold even if it is hard to see.
> Was the mainstream media ever objective or impartial?
"Objective" or "impartial" were never descriptive - they were aspirational. It's a philosophy that says "check your assumptions" and "let the reader draw conclusions." It's this aspiration that appears to be leaving the industry.
I recently saw an article in the NY Times.
Headline: "Churches Were Eager to Reopen. Now They Are A Major Source of Cases." Body (summarized): 650 cases linked to churches and religious events since the start of the pandemic.
I believe this was published on the same day that the US crossed 3,000,000 cases, meaning that this "major source of cases" was linked to 0.022% of all cases.
So, why I brought this up. Is there a fully objective way to share this news? Of course not - the very act of publishing an article about church transmission is political - looking for that data was a result of bias. But there clearly was a more objective way to publish it, by changing the title from one that's so obviously bullshit to one that just shares the facts.
Edit: it appears that NYT changed the headline 2 days after publishing. DDG search, top result is the old headline, click through and it has a new one: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=churches+were+eager+to+reopen+site...
"Objective" or "impartial" were never descriptive - they were aspirational. It's a philosophy that says "check your assumptions" and "let the reader draw conclusions." It's this aspiration that appears to be leaving the industry.
I recently saw an article in the NY Times.
Headline: "Churches Were Eager to Reopen. Now They Are A Major Source of Cases." Body (summarized): 650 cases linked to churches and religious events since the start of the pandemic.
I believe this was published on the same day that the US crossed 3,000,000 cases, meaning that this "major source of cases" was linked to 0.022% of all cases.
So, why I brought this up. Is there a fully objective way to share this news? Of course not - the very act of publishing an article about church transmission is political - looking for that data was a result of bias. But there clearly was a more objective way to publish it, by changing the title from one that's so obviously bullshit to one that just shares the facts.
Edit: it appears that NYT changed the headline 2 days after publishing. DDG search, top result is the old headline, click through and it has a new one: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=churches+were+eager+to+reopen+site...
Thanks for posting this. A couple of years ago I was logging examples of media bias which has become so normalised it's sometimes difficult to put your finger on. I think part of the problem is that journalism used to be a profession with experienced well-paid staff and now isn't. Perhaps journalism needs to be regulated with standards and case studies taught as part of the training.
> Is there a fully objective way to share this news? Of course not - the very act of publishing an article about church transmission is political - looking for that data was a result of bias.
There are several ways to be objective about it. One is to write an article about the spread of covid in social gatherings, and include church gatherings as part of that piece. Another is to put the data into context, quantitatively. Yet another is to avoid the use of charged words, phrases, or examples. That article was designed to be political, so that is how it ended up.
I'm not saying that you could write an article that everyone agreed was apolitical. Heck, if an evidence based article was written about the roundness of the Earth, someone would find a way to politicize it. Yet an article can be written that most people would agree is factual and avoids bias.
There are several ways to be objective about it. One is to write an article about the spread of covid in social gatherings, and include church gatherings as part of that piece. Another is to put the data into context, quantitatively. Yet another is to avoid the use of charged words, phrases, or examples. That article was designed to be political, so that is how it ended up.
I'm not saying that you could write an article that everyone agreed was apolitical. Heck, if an evidence based article was written about the roundness of the Earth, someone would find a way to politicize it. Yet an article can be written that most people would agree is factual and avoids bias.
Headlines are frequently clickbait, unfortunately. You have to read the actual article and then decide hire slanted it is. It’s not uncommon for the article to actually be pretty good and then an editor slapped a bad headline on it.
Journalism has always involved the outlets having a broad social/political position and each story being spun to get attention.
The claim to impartiality and unbiased-ness was indeed a way for certain papers to enhance their credibility and it's been concentrated more in the US than other countries, where each political party having a newspaper is a situation that doesn't raise eyebrows (still, papers in other countries do sometimes try for the mantle of objectivity, independence and so).
That said, there are degrees of spin and non-spin. The papers that make up stories are below those that exaggerate facts who are below those that get the facts correct but use "framing" to put forward their positions.
I think mass support for false facts is new for the industrializing world. It's kind of a throwback to times of pernicious superstition. And the result one can imagine are thus disturbing.
The claim to impartiality and unbiased-ness was indeed a way for certain papers to enhance their credibility and it's been concentrated more in the US than other countries, where each political party having a newspaper is a situation that doesn't raise eyebrows (still, papers in other countries do sometimes try for the mantle of objectivity, independence and so).
That said, there are degrees of spin and non-spin. The papers that make up stories are below those that exaggerate facts who are below those that get the facts correct but use "framing" to put forward their positions.
I think mass support for false facts is new for the industrializing world. It's kind of a throwback to times of pernicious superstition. And the result one can imagine are thus disturbing.
People aren't perfect, but I believe journalists can at least make a good faith effort to put both sides of a story. Or be open about whether they want to be an activist with a byline or not.
The problem is there isn't always 2 sides to a story. Sometimes there is one, sometimes there are multiple. If one side says it is raining, one side says it is not, the journalist should stick their hand out the window, not report the two sides.
Very few news articles are this cut and dried. EG for reporting on an earthquake, fair enough.
However, describing something more contentious like the economy or immigration policy, they absolutely should make a good faith effort to report both sides fairly.
However, describing something more contentious like the economy or immigration policy, they absolutely should make a good faith effort to report both sides fairly.
> In some - if not most - parts of the world, there are even supposedly impartial media outlets whose most income comes from advertisings for state campaigns and politicians' agendas.
Some, but probably not most; most developed democracies _severely_ limit spending on political campaigning. The US is something of an oddity there.
Some, but probably not most; most developed democracies _severely_ limit spending on political campaigning. The US is something of an oddity there.
> Was the mainstream media ever objective or impartial?
It depends where you are - I'm in the UK where TV news still has objectivity regulation. I know that's been gone in the US for a long time.
In general though I think when there were fewer publications and delivery channels that we had to share together (the newspaper stand), journalists had to appeal to a wider audience than they do now.
Personal devices mean they have a direct route to you, on an article-by-article basis. So they can write whatever lands in a niche.
It depends where you are - I'm in the UK where TV news still has objectivity regulation. I know that's been gone in the US for a long time.
In general though I think when there were fewer publications and delivery channels that we had to share together (the newspaper stand), journalists had to appeal to a wider audience than they do now.
Personal devices mean they have a direct route to you, on an article-by-article basis. So they can write whatever lands in a niche.
The BBC is in no way impartial. They have a very specific way of directing interviews and such that push the narrative in a direction they control.
As I said to the other commenter, I didn't even mention the BBC in the comment you're responding to. Ofcom rules mean that all TV news broadcasters must be impartial (i.e. can't openly support a particular side).
Do people outside the UK think we only have the BBC or something?
Do people outside the UK think we only have the BBC or something?
> I'm in the UK where TV news still has objectivity regulation
That's only for the BBC, as far as I know. And one could, er, definitely question how well it worked in the last election.
That's only for the BBC, as far as I know. And one could, er, definitely question how well it worked in the last election.
It should apply to all news covered by OFCOM.
https://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv-radio-and-on-demand/broadcast-co...
https://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv-radio-and-on-demand/broadcast-co...
The BBC is impartial by charter but I think it's for all of them to some degree. Ofcom regulates it. Sky actually stopped carrying Fox News over here because of it.
Are you telling me that the BBC is impartial?
No, it cannot be for two things:
1. It's a state-owned media company. 2. TV licensing is a tax in the UK owners of TV appliances must pay to support it. You also have to pay if you ever visit the BBC on your computer, and so on.
No way such an entity might be impartial. Another thing to consider: not being impartial is not a problem per se.
However, when combined with state actors, this is unlimited unchecked power that can be a massive problem for society. It can brainwash people by imposing a view of the world fabricated by government rulers.
No, it cannot be for two things:
1. It's a state-owned media company. 2. TV licensing is a tax in the UK owners of TV appliances must pay to support it. You also have to pay if you ever visit the BBC on your computer, and so on.
No way such an entity might be impartial. Another thing to consider: not being impartial is not a problem per se.
However, when combined with state actors, this is unlimited unchecked power that can be a massive problem for society. It can brainwash people by imposing a view of the world fabricated by government rulers.
I didn't mention the BBC in the comment you're replying to at all, I was talking about Ofcom impartiality regulations which are a separate thing that all TV broadcasters need to mind when reporting the news.
I think you might need to learn a little more about this topic. As for the BBC, many of us here think the BBC lean left and are biased against the right-wing government for example.
I think you might need to learn a little more about this topic. As for the BBC, many of us here think the BBC lean left and are biased against the right-wing government for example.
Exactly. There is no such thing as 'objective' journalism, even if the facts of a piece of reporting are correct, there is still an enormous degree of subjectivity in choosing what to report in the first place or what to emphasise within a report.
The best we can hope for IMO is journalism that is up front about it's biases and political slant and clearly distinguishes factual and opinion reporting.
The best we can hope for IMO is journalism that is up front about it's biases and political slant and clearly distinguishes factual and opinion reporting.
There certainly is objective reporting. That online outlets put more focus on editorials doesn't change that. I couldn't name a US example to be honest, but the classic profession of journalism goes to great length to ensure objectivity. Maybe don't call it objectivity and just detachment if that resonates more.
That is referred to as the "view from nowhere".
It is just a stylistic choice that, among other things, attempts to both sound authoritative and hide the speaker. More and more it just sounds pompous, dodgy and artificial to me.
It is just a stylistic choice that, among other things, attempts to both sound authoritative and hide the speaker. More and more it just sounds pompous, dodgy and artificial to me.
Yes, because it gives the reader the opportunity to evaluate the information himself instead. I get that some people like to have a ready opinion, but it doesn't change the fact I prefer the style and think it more informative. Pompous and paternalistic is trying to explain the world to readers.
When I am choosing which information I show and how exactly it is framed, whether hints of opposing information existing are shown or not, it is still pretty easy to lead you to my opinion.
It is just less apparent that is is going on. When you know what my opinion is, then you was warned.
It is just less apparent that is is going on. When you know what my opinion is, then you was warned.
Detachment and objectivity are much different things. Detachment can create an illusion of objectivity under some conditions, but it is not the same at all.
Completely true if you are meticulous. But it stands in contrast to activist journalism and would already lead to much better results, even if it isn't the same.
This, one hundred times! Journalists are humans like we all. Expecting them to be completely unbiased would be too much. But should hold them to the professional standard of being open about there biases, and be as neutral as possible in their reporting.
No true Scotsman.
This is just a bad faith argument because you happen to agree with the activism in left-leaning journalism.
Ends justify the means, right?
This is just a bad faith argument because you happen to agree with the activism in left-leaning journalism.
Ends justify the means, right?
Projection. I'm a centrist not a leftist.
>I find it appalling how people believe there is such a thing as unopinionated journalism
It could be, but it would turn most news organizations into simple notification services that resemble weather reports. Some folks desire the opinions and biased views.
It could be, but it would turn most news organizations into simple notification services that resemble weather reports. Some folks desire the opinions and biased views.
Even that would be unfeasible. To report on most significant events, even for a simple factual description of what happened, you have to decide which of a variety of contradictory sources is correct, which is one kind of bias, or list all of the incompatible accounts, according equal credence to each, which is another kind of bias, even when the number of competing versions is manageable.
In practice, journalists have to make judgments about what is likely to be true or relevant, and historically have been egregiously wrong about that in highly predictable ways.
In practice, journalists have to make judgments about what is likely to be true or relevant, and historically have been egregiously wrong about that in highly predictable ways.
Seems like the news sections on many wikis might be pretty close to that. For example, in Wikipedia's 'In the News' section right now:
> Comet NEOWISE (pictured) is visible to the naked eye in the Northern Hemisphere.
Or from the Mario Wiki news section:
> Donkey Kong Country was released on Super Nintendo Entertainment System - Nintendo Switch Online on July 15, 2020.
A completely objective news source would probably be that sort of thing for every story on the site. They'd be about two paragraphs long, be almost a bullet point list of facts and dates, and likely not be all that interesting to read.
But I guess it could be possible.
> Comet NEOWISE (pictured) is visible to the naked eye in the Northern Hemisphere.
Or from the Mario Wiki news section:
> Donkey Kong Country was released on Super Nintendo Entertainment System - Nintendo Switch Online on July 15, 2020.
A completely objective news source would probably be that sort of thing for every story on the site. They'd be about two paragraphs long, be almost a bullet point list of facts and dates, and likely not be all that interesting to read.
But I guess it could be possible.
>To report on practically any political event, even for a simple factual description of what happened, you have to decide which of a variety of contradictory sources is correct
It would be more like, "This campaign held an event at X location, here's a 90 minute uncut video of the stage" and that's the entire post. No quotes, official statements, no conclusions by reporters, just that it happened with proof. The weather isn't perfect either, but we could strip out 95% of what's in most news reports. It's not completely free from bias, but there's no proof true objectivity exists in journalism. All news is biased against people who reflexively deny the obvious (like the earth is flat).
Politics is tricky anyway because people intentionally lie, so you go from trying to sort out bias to actually discovering lies. That kind of reporting cannot be unbiased because you think they're lying and they pretend they're not.
It would be more like, "This campaign held an event at X location, here's a 90 minute uncut video of the stage" and that's the entire post. No quotes, official statements, no conclusions by reporters, just that it happened with proof. The weather isn't perfect either, but we could strip out 95% of what's in most news reports. It's not completely free from bias, but there's no proof true objectivity exists in journalism. All news is biased against people who reflexively deny the obvious (like the earth is flat).
Politics is tricky anyway because people intentionally lie, so you go from trying to sort out bias to actually discovering lies. That kind of reporting cannot be unbiased because you think they're lying and they pretend they're not.
It's not black and white and this is a common attack on the press - without which this nation would fall.
The media can be more, or less objective. It can be more, or less impartial. Each source can have bias, more, or less. The problem becomes when sources centralize around political ideas and competition decreases. What was once nationwide respected newspapers and 1 hour evening news, became 3 major 24/7 news-channels, decimated newspaper industry controlled by conglomerates, and social media being gamed by everyone squeezing dollars out of an uneducated populace.
I genuinely challenge people on here to read old newspapers and look at the difference in reporting. There were far more newspapers - every major city had one. The nightly news didn't have time to have a "panel" of "experts" discuss how "issue x will destroy america."
And instead of addressing the real issue - the money behind politics (i.e. citizens united, coinciding with social media), you say it's "inherent to media." No it is not. media needs to be free and it needs to be decentralized. And no, it does not need to be perfect.
The media can be more, or less objective. It can be more, or less impartial. Each source can have bias, more, or less. The problem becomes when sources centralize around political ideas and competition decreases. What was once nationwide respected newspapers and 1 hour evening news, became 3 major 24/7 news-channels, decimated newspaper industry controlled by conglomerates, and social media being gamed by everyone squeezing dollars out of an uneducated populace.
I genuinely challenge people on here to read old newspapers and look at the difference in reporting. There were far more newspapers - every major city had one. The nightly news didn't have time to have a "panel" of "experts" discuss how "issue x will destroy america."
And instead of addressing the real issue - the money behind politics (i.e. citizens united, coinciding with social media), you say it's "inherent to media." No it is not. media needs to be free and it needs to be decentralized. And no, it does not need to be perfect.
"the press" does not mean all news organizations and does not mean news organizations of a particular type.
It's interesting to see people talk about the necessity of the press as it currently exists to the continuing success of the nation as a whole. While I agree that a free press is needed, I'm not certain it has to be this model.
Further, it seems to me that the press that you and others believe we cannot function without is really a method for disseminating a centralized ideology and set of beliefs that, true or not, allow the majority of the country to continue in a unified direction. I don't believe that is necessary for the nation to continue, but I could be wrong there.
It's interesting to see people talk about the necessity of the press as it currently exists to the continuing success of the nation as a whole. While I agree that a free press is needed, I'm not certain it has to be this model.
Further, it seems to me that the press that you and others believe we cannot function without is really a method for disseminating a centralized ideology and set of beliefs that, true or not, allow the majority of the country to continue in a unified direction. I don't believe that is necessary for the nation to continue, but I could be wrong there.
I don't think our current media is the correct model - it is much worse than in year's past.
> Further, it seems to me that the press that you and others believe we cannot function without is really a method for disseminating a centralized ideology and set of beliefs that, true or not, allow the majority of the country to continue in a unified direction. I don't believe that is necessary for the nation to continue, but I could be wrong there.
Historically there are two sources of tyranny - authoritarian rule, and the rule of the mob. I am specifically against centralization as I already said - this would lead to tyranny of authority in most cases. The other is the mob - as we've seen from doxxing witchhunts online, cancel culture, etc. This is simply tyranny represented differently. The idea that social media can replace journalism has been markedly disproved since the rise of social media.
Function is the wrong term - I'm sure something will function, like a broken clock functions - it still runs, but does it tell the right time?
> Further, it seems to me that the press that you and others believe we cannot function without is really a method for disseminating a centralized ideology and set of beliefs that, true or not, allow the majority of the country to continue in a unified direction. I don't believe that is necessary for the nation to continue, but I could be wrong there.
Historically there are two sources of tyranny - authoritarian rule, and the rule of the mob. I am specifically against centralization as I already said - this would lead to tyranny of authority in most cases. The other is the mob - as we've seen from doxxing witchhunts online, cancel culture, etc. This is simply tyranny represented differently. The idea that social media can replace journalism has been markedly disproved since the rise of social media.
Function is the wrong term - I'm sure something will function, like a broken clock functions - it still runs, but does it tell the right time?
> a "panel" of "experts" discuss how "issue x will destroy america."
My friend who worked in news regarded this as the first incarnation of "fake news".
My friend who worked in news regarded this as the first incarnation of "fake news".
Old newspapers? Like segregation era? Super objective times.
Or, more charitably, the 90s?
This is one journalist using 1996 is example of biased reporting https://twitter.com/RottenInDenmark/status/12808621032978759...
Biased reporting has always existed - again, no one is claiming utopia without bias. The idea is to have enough trustworthy sources for different points of view, arguing in good faith, for certain positions.
Now biased reporting comes from a few sources - the polarization is evidence of this.
Now biased reporting comes from a few sources - the polarization is evidence of this.
The funny thing is that newspapers often started that way in the US. The reason you would often see the <Town/City Name> Democratic/Republician Gazzette newspapers? Because the ones who could afford to publish small town news were political parties. They did wear their motives explicitly and the eras were hella corrupt but it has precedent.
But my example was precisely about lack of differing opinions. The issue there was consensus in media, that made it look like there is clear agreement of experts about something where it was not the case.
An anecdote is not evidence of anything.
1980s
I agree that there is no perfect objectivity journalism, even the choice of reporting something or not is a subjective choice. However, I find it misleading if not dangerous to claim that there is not even a continuum of objectivity or impartiality in journalism.
If we just say that there is no impartiality, we put the news outlets that do a lot of research and strive to give news reports painting a balanced view of reality at the same level as propaganda machines that completely disregard facts.
If we just say that there is no impartiality, we put the news outlets that do a lot of research and strive to give news reports painting a balanced view of reality at the same level as propaganda machines that completely disregard facts.
> Was the mainstream media ever objective or impartial?
There's a difference between having a bias in your reporting and being an activist. Of course every viewpoint is biased. At the very least, there was always a heavy American bias in the mainstream media.
But today they're rabidly and without much self reflection trying to destroy any opposition to creating a society at large that strictly conforms to their vision for the world. And they're doing so without much integrity or a commitment to accept those with alternative ideas as having any legitimacy.
There's a difference between having a bias in your reporting and being an activist. Of course every viewpoint is biased. At the very least, there was always a heavy American bias in the mainstream media.
But today they're rabidly and without much self reflection trying to destroy any opposition to creating a society at large that strictly conforms to their vision for the world. And they're doing so without much integrity or a commitment to accept those with alternative ideas as having any legitimacy.
==But today they're rabidly and without much self reflection trying to destroy any opposition to creating a society at large that strictly conforms to their vision for the world.==
This assumes that every member of the “mainstream media” (an oft-used, but rarely defined phrase) shares the exact same viewpoint. That seems bizarre given that they are direct competitors. They are driven by money more than ideology.
We keep blaming “the media” for our ails when all they do is show us the things we want. Maybe we should look in the mirror?
This assumes that every member of the “mainstream media” (an oft-used, but rarely defined phrase) shares the exact same viewpoint. That seems bizarre given that they are direct competitors. They are driven by money more than ideology.
We keep blaming “the media” for our ails when all they do is show us the things we want. Maybe we should look in the mirror?
> We keep blaming “the media” for our ails when all they do is show us the things we want. Maybe we should look in the mirror?
The problem I have with your comment is that it states that "the media" are not a uniform group with hive mind, but then it implies that the whole population of the Earth is. (all they do is show _us_ the things _we_ want
The problem I have with your comment is that it states that "the media" are not a uniform group with hive mind, but then it implies that the whole population of the Earth is. (all they do is show _us_ the things _we_ want
The “we” is each individual. We have self-contained bubbles which the media analyzes to create “channels”. Those are the never-ending feeds built specifically for us based on our past usage.
Of course we all have a personal responsibility to help shape a world worth living in. But there is a reason that every coup d'état also takes control of the media. It is a foundational building block of a cohesive society. If the media is corrupted, the world becomes much harder to navigate as an individual, and even moreso as a community.
Exactly this. CNN and FoxNews openly describe themselves as activist agenda driven organizations.
That's not journalism, at all.
That's not journalism, at all.
> Was the mainstream media ever objective or impartial?
100%? No. But it was much more objective and impartial. Journalism ethics were more important than pandering to specific target audiences. Now it's become a popularity contest and truth is very unpopular.
100%? No. But it was much more objective and impartial. Journalism ethics were more important than pandering to specific target audiences. Now it's become a popularity contest and truth is very unpopular.
> Was the mainstream media ever objective or impartial?
With respect to the mainstream media, there was always some bias in terms of what was reported. What we are seeing today is something entirely different and very dangerous.
The original article pointed to a couple of the problems with the media today, things like there being disagreement over what the facts are and how balanced reporting has a tendency to misrepresent the facts. I would go a step further by suggesting that facts and context have been abandoned altogether.
The end result is that two media outlets can tell two very different stories about the same issue. Ignoring facts is how we end up with protests being described as riots, or being described as protests with undue emphasis upon violence (which is a clear case of balance misrepresenting the facts). At the opposite end of the spectrum, I have seen individual claims left unquestioned in the name of moral clarity. The sad part is that reporters could take a step back, look at what is happening at a societal level, and have damning evidence that backs their moral clarity with facts.
If you believe that this is nothing new, I would suggest pulling up a full newspaper from thirty years ago. You would find that news reporting is clearly separated from other content. You would also find that moral clarity is in there, but it would be clearly presented in forms such as the editorial or human interest story. Lines were drawn instead of blurred.
With respect to the mainstream media, there was always some bias in terms of what was reported. What we are seeing today is something entirely different and very dangerous.
The original article pointed to a couple of the problems with the media today, things like there being disagreement over what the facts are and how balanced reporting has a tendency to misrepresent the facts. I would go a step further by suggesting that facts and context have been abandoned altogether.
The end result is that two media outlets can tell two very different stories about the same issue. Ignoring facts is how we end up with protests being described as riots, or being described as protests with undue emphasis upon violence (which is a clear case of balance misrepresenting the facts). At the opposite end of the spectrum, I have seen individual claims left unquestioned in the name of moral clarity. The sad part is that reporters could take a step back, look at what is happening at a societal level, and have damning evidence that backs their moral clarity with facts.
If you believe that this is nothing new, I would suggest pulling up a full newspaper from thirty years ago. You would find that news reporting is clearly separated from other content. You would also find that moral clarity is in there, but it would be clearly presented in forms such as the editorial or human interest story. Lines were drawn instead of blurred.
I agree that it seems like fallacy to think there was some golden age of neutrality (iirc Ben Franklin bought newspapers which he used to stir up revolution), I'd be curious to here which era supposedly had neutrality.
However there are degrees, and this does NOT mean that neutrality is not worth fighting for. The points about authoritarian states serve to highlight how much worse it could be without a constant pressure toward objectivity (or as close as we can get).
However there are degrees, and this does NOT mean that neutrality is not worth fighting for. The points about authoritarian states serve to highlight how much worse it could be without a constant pressure toward objectivity (or as close as we can get).
Not sure if anyone here has heared about the case Claas Relotius before. Relotius was a German journalist mainly working for "Der Spiegel" and well known for his remarkable, well-written articles. He wrote primarily about civil war, refugee children, racism, often with a pillorying undertone about the heartbreaking cruel world we live in. His view of the world (which he incorporated subliminally into his articles) was well received in his circles; he was awarded over 19 prizes.
Long story short: In 2018 was revealed that most of his articles were fake or embellished. He got away with it for so long because everyone _wanted_ the world to be the way he portrayed it, almost nobody looked closer.
I think this is symptomatic of modern journalism: Many journalists are only interested in getting recognition in their circles, so they do whatever is necessary to get it, even if it means bending facts. This is also problematic because it casts a bad light on reputable journalists who reflect the events of the "boring" world correctly and not through lies or Hollywood stories.
Long story short: In 2018 was revealed that most of his articles were fake or embellished. He got away with it for so long because everyone _wanted_ the world to be the way he portrayed it, almost nobody looked closer.
I think this is symptomatic of modern journalism: Many journalists are only interested in getting recognition in their circles, so they do whatever is necessary to get it, even if it means bending facts. This is also problematic because it casts a bad light on reputable journalists who reflect the events of the "boring" world correctly and not through lies or Hollywood stories.
For a fun movie on similar try Shattered Glass (2003) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0323944/
He got busted by computer nerds outing him over a hacking story, not his articles on conservatives.
[1] The story he wrote - http://penenberg.com/story-archive/hack-heaven/ [2] The story which brought him down - https://www.forbes.com/1998/05/11/otw3.html#35e255922d7f
He got busted by computer nerds outing him over a hacking story, not his articles on conservatives.
[1] The story he wrote - http://penenberg.com/story-archive/hack-heaven/ [2] The story which brought him down - https://www.forbes.com/1998/05/11/otw3.html#35e255922d7f
One of the last drops in the bucket for him was his story about a town that voted for Trump:
https://medium.com/@micheleanderson/der-spiegel-journalist-m...
What made all this worse was the fact that Der Spiegel was looked up to for (supposedly) having a solid team of fact-checkers.
As the medium post shows (and the magazine's own investigation afterwards) was that not even basic and publicly available info was checked, such as the percentage of pro-Trump voters, let alone the rest of the original article's hilariously ridiculous claims.
Another Der Spiegel reporter who was suspicious of Relotius tried raising his concerns with the management after he did some digging of his own, which almost cost him his job and reputation:
https://english.elpais.com/elpais/2019/02/26/inenglish/15511...
Der Spiegel enjoyed the profits of Relotius' fiction and peddled literal fake news to the world for years, and the magazine's readers lapped it all up because it reinforced their biases.
https://medium.com/@micheleanderson/der-spiegel-journalist-m...
What made all this worse was the fact that Der Spiegel was looked up to for (supposedly) having a solid team of fact-checkers.
As the medium post shows (and the magazine's own investigation afterwards) was that not even basic and publicly available info was checked, such as the percentage of pro-Trump voters, let alone the rest of the original article's hilariously ridiculous claims.
Another Der Spiegel reporter who was suspicious of Relotius tried raising his concerns with the management after he did some digging of his own, which almost cost him his job and reputation:
https://english.elpais.com/elpais/2019/02/26/inenglish/15511...
Der Spiegel enjoyed the profits of Relotius' fiction and peddled literal fake news to the world for years, and the magazine's readers lapped it all up because it reinforced their biases.
> because everyone _wanted_ the world to be the way he portrayed it, almost nobody looked closer.
This is definitely the real issue a lot of news sites/sources have now. They have an audience in mind, they and that audience have some ideas about what the world is like, and anything that conforms to that view isn't properly fact checked at all.
If you want to get a hoax past any news outlet, make it a story that shows their ideological opponents in a bad light.
This is definitely the real issue a lot of news sites/sources have now. They have an audience in mind, they and that audience have some ideas about what the world is like, and anything that conforms to that view isn't properly fact checked at all.
If you want to get a hoax past any news outlet, make it a story that shows their ideological opponents in a bad light.
Objectivity has been dead for half a decade. Sure, the explicit statement of opinion has been (mostly) relegated to the Op-Ed section. But journalists are experts in spin. You can spin an article in a million ways without explicitly stating an opinion.
1) Bury the lede. Make your argument above the fold, hold the counter arguments near the end. 2) Use sneaky language instead of numbers/statistics, unless the statistics support your position. 3) Misinform the public, then use polling of the misinformed public to push lies (one egregious example[0]) 4) Misrepresent a situation with technical truths that leave out pertinent behavior. 50 million USD in property damage in Minneapolis becomes 'some destruction of property by a small minority of protesters'. 5) Selectively fact-check 6) When mentioning a person you dislike, remind the reader of past controversies. 7) Use loaded language. A person you like 'punches back' a person you dislike 'lashes out'. A person you like 'gives an impassioned speech', while a person you dislike 'goes on a rant'. Someone you don't like is trustworthy "Person A says [yada yada]". Someone you don't like is suspect "Person A, without evidence, claims [yada yada]" 8) Editorialize the headline, include snark in headline. 9) People you like are described by their allies. People you dislike are described by their opponents. 10) Find anonymous 'sources' with convenient 'inside information' that always seem to support your biases. 11) Make statements as fact about the state of mindset of your opponents. You can say what they fear, when they're anxious, etc, with impunity.
[0]https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/majority-ame...
1) Bury the lede. Make your argument above the fold, hold the counter arguments near the end. 2) Use sneaky language instead of numbers/statistics, unless the statistics support your position. 3) Misinform the public, then use polling of the misinformed public to push lies (one egregious example[0]) 4) Misrepresent a situation with technical truths that leave out pertinent behavior. 50 million USD in property damage in Minneapolis becomes 'some destruction of property by a small minority of protesters'. 5) Selectively fact-check 6) When mentioning a person you dislike, remind the reader of past controversies. 7) Use loaded language. A person you like 'punches back' a person you dislike 'lashes out'. A person you like 'gives an impassioned speech', while a person you dislike 'goes on a rant'. Someone you don't like is trustworthy "Person A says [yada yada]". Someone you don't like is suspect "Person A, without evidence, claims [yada yada]" 8) Editorialize the headline, include snark in headline. 9) People you like are described by their allies. People you dislike are described by their opponents. 10) Find anonymous 'sources' with convenient 'inside information' that always seem to support your biases. 11) Make statements as fact about the state of mindset of your opponents. You can say what they fear, when they're anxious, etc, with impunity.
[0]https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/majority-ame...
>Objectivity has been dead for half a decade.
Half a decade? 5 years?
Half a decade? 5 years?
I think the issue is really whether people can make up their own minds. Early on it seems there was this idea that you could simply give people the facts, and they could decide for themselves what to think.
This seems to not be the case. Both in the sense of whether people can think for themselves, and whether anyone thinks they can. How often do you see a comment that blames public opinion on the media? For me, it's all the time.
Now that everyone thinks that people will just think what they're told, you have a paternal class of writers who feel they need to be very vocal in what they direct people's opinions towards. It's clear that if you think people can't think for themselves, persuading them of one opinion or another is going to look very different from if you thought they were rational agents that just looked at evidence.
This seems to not be the case. Both in the sense of whether people can think for themselves, and whether anyone thinks they can. How often do you see a comment that blames public opinion on the media? For me, it's all the time.
Now that everyone thinks that people will just think what they're told, you have a paternal class of writers who feel they need to be very vocal in what they direct people's opinions towards. It's clear that if you think people can't think for themselves, persuading them of one opinion or another is going to look very different from if you thought they were rational agents that just looked at evidence.
Early on it seems there was this idea that you could simply give people the facts, and they could decide for themselves what to think. This seems to not be the case.
Yeah, people say they want objectivity, that they want facts, but then they'll complain about bias when they read that their opinion on something is objectively not based in fact.
As an example, how many people are complaining about objectivity, while also refusing to even entertain the idea that someone who says "COVID-19 is a hoax" is a liar?
Yeah, people say they want objectivity, that they want facts, but then they'll complain about bias when they read that their opinion on something is objectively not based in fact.
As an example, how many people are complaining about objectivity, while also refusing to even entertain the idea that someone who says "COVID-19 is a hoax" is a liar?
Early journalism was highly opinionated and inflammatory.
There was period where objectivity was defined as asking both sides and then being seemingly neutral. But it is debatable how objective it was and how much it was just shared consensus.
But tabloids always existed even during that period. And they were not objective at all.
There was period where objectivity was defined as asking both sides and then being seemingly neutral. But it is debatable how objective it was and how much it was just shared consensus.
But tabloids always existed even during that period. And they were not objective at all.
There was period where objectivity was defined as asking both sides and then being seemingly neutral.
Unfortunately, that period is still here. A lot of cable news is based on this idea, for example. Of course, most issues are way more nuanced than just two sides, and to be frank, even in the context of being objective, not each argument deserves to be represented.
Consider a debate about treating creationism and evolution as equal when talking about science curriculum in schools, as an example. It would still be an objective stance to not even consider teaching creationism as science...
Unfortunately, that period is still here. A lot of cable news is based on this idea, for example. Of course, most issues are way more nuanced than just two sides, and to be frank, even in the context of being objective, not each argument deserves to be represented.
Consider a debate about treating creationism and evolution as equal when talking about science curriculum in schools, as an example. It would still be an objective stance to not even consider teaching creationism as science...
Facts without the corresponding counter are incredibly powerful at being "accurate" but still swaying opinion towards a bad take. Modern media abuses this.
There are facts to support most viewpoints, but most can also be readily attributed to other factors. However, when presented in certain lenses it's near impossible to tell who is correct (without going off and doing independent research).
There are facts to support most viewpoints, but most can also be readily attributed to other factors. However, when presented in certain lenses it's near impossible to tell who is correct (without going off and doing independent research).
Careful use of facts can even convince people of things that are out-and-out untrue. For example, at least for a while everyone on HN seemed convinced that the US coronavirus testing program must obviously have been sabotaged because we couldn't even catch up with South Korea in tests per capita - people kept on pointing to that one specific fact, even though it wasn't true and hadn't been in a good while.
This was the result of hard, deliberate work by the American media. It started when America genuinely was behind South Korea and the media pointed to this as the reason they'd supposedly contained the coronavirus without locking down (they hadn't, of course). Then when the US started catching up with South Korea, passing them in both total tests and testing rate per capita, all the usual publications ran fact checks insisting it was false to claim that the US was testing more people for coronavirus because they'd tested less people per capita. When even that was passed, the media carefully avoided mentioning it, using other comparisons such as test positivity rate to argue that the US coronavirus testing was still behind South Korea. (In reality this wasn't actually measuring the scale of coronavirus testing at all - South Korea had reached that low positivity rate by using a partial lockdown to drop the number of cases and were coming to the end of that lockdown.) Anyone Googling for information on the false claim would find only the outdated fact checks, which even their authors must've known weren't going to be true for long given the trajectory back then.
Not only that, when Trump pointed out in a press conference that in reality the US had passed South Korea in this, the New York Times even ran a news headline claiming he was lying... and if you read the article, their basis for claiming this was that there were still a few other countries carrying out more coronavirus tests per capita than the US. (Which was technically true but irrelevant, particularly since most of the larger ones also had worse coronavirus outbreaks than the US so it clearly wasn't doing them much good.)
This was the result of hard, deliberate work by the American media. It started when America genuinely was behind South Korea and the media pointed to this as the reason they'd supposedly contained the coronavirus without locking down (they hadn't, of course). Then when the US started catching up with South Korea, passing them in both total tests and testing rate per capita, all the usual publications ran fact checks insisting it was false to claim that the US was testing more people for coronavirus because they'd tested less people per capita. When even that was passed, the media carefully avoided mentioning it, using other comparisons such as test positivity rate to argue that the US coronavirus testing was still behind South Korea. (In reality this wasn't actually measuring the scale of coronavirus testing at all - South Korea had reached that low positivity rate by using a partial lockdown to drop the number of cases and were coming to the end of that lockdown.) Anyone Googling for information on the false claim would find only the outdated fact checks, which even their authors must've known weren't going to be true for long given the trajectory back then.
Not only that, when Trump pointed out in a press conference that in reality the US had passed South Korea in this, the New York Times even ran a news headline claiming he was lying... and if you read the article, their basis for claiming this was that there were still a few other countries carrying out more coronavirus tests per capita than the US. (Which was technically true but irrelevant, particularly since most of the larger ones also had worse coronavirus outbreaks than the US so it clearly wasn't doing them much good.)
The weak form of the hypothesis is that a sizeable minority really can't / won't think for themselves. Suppose just 15% of people really will just go along with whatever is fed to them. This minority of non-thinkers would be more electorally important than every traditional minority.
In practice, newspapers just have different thought leaders now. Once, reporters parroted "a government spokesman confirmed that" -- this was treated as pure fact. It wasn't perfect, but in the U.S. context it generally didn't seem far off the mark.
Now the narrative is provided by the opaque party apparatus of the DNC and GOP. This leads to one result-- factual inaccuracy. Media coverage of key issues thus has become little better than the political propaganda from non-free global rivals in the 20th century. Quite a fall.
Now the narrative is provided by the opaque party apparatus of the DNC and GOP. This leads to one result-- factual inaccuracy. Media coverage of key issues thus has become little better than the political propaganda from non-free global rivals in the 20th century. Quite a fall.
>> Now the narrative is provided by the opaque party apparatus of the DNC and GOP.
No. I still get the NYT daily email briefing and it shows a clear bias and agenda every day. Which reminds me, I need to cancel that.
No. I still get the NYT daily email briefing and it shows a clear bias and agenda every day. Which reminds me, I need to cancel that.
You label the NYT as biased not because of its bias, but because you disagree with its reporting (i.e. your own bias.) instead you will go to somewhere you agree - and you will be worse off for it.
Things can be biased towards the truth just as much as the untrue. The NYT does have some truly eye-roll content for me - but they also have some very good articles. Just like the WSJ has eye roll content.
Things can be biased towards the truth just as much as the untrue. The NYT does have some truly eye-roll content for me - but they also have some very good articles. Just like the WSJ has eye roll content.
>> You label the NYT as biased not because of its bias, but because you disagree with its reporting
That's really impressive psychoanalysis on your part. NOT. I've considered that and looked at it from a number of angles and the conclusion is that they are biased.
My own biases are not partisan, but tend toward a dislike of things like hypocrisy and misconstruing facts - behavior I see often at NYT and WaPo.
That's really impressive psychoanalysis on your part. NOT. I've considered that and looked at it from a number of angles and the conclusion is that they are biased.
My own biases are not partisan, but tend toward a dislike of things like hypocrisy and misconstruing facts - behavior I see often at NYT and WaPo.
> That's really impressive psychoanalysis on your part. NOT. I've considered that and looked at it from a number of angles and the conclusion is that they are biased.
Not? Haven't heard that one since the 4th grade. Keep on "owning the libs" man.
Not? Haven't heard that one since the 4th grade. Keep on "owning the libs" man.
You are seeing one of the parties opaque view. The DNC seems to have a better handle on their operatives than the GOP. That resignation letter from a few days ago for that particular organization shows a very toxic place to work at. Where if you do not toe the line you are attacked daily. Fear and intimidation and loss of group are proven ways to make your point the loudest. Mr. Bernays should be proud of the monster he set loose upon us.
I don't disagree, I see something that looks like a bias too. But on some of the issues (wearing a mask, climate change) the GOP is so off the mark how can the NYT not come across (appearing) biased?
I've also noticed the past few months they now make an even greater effort to call out racism by some politicians. Is this an agenda or just factual observations? There are a lot of discussions on race right now and a lot of dog whistles. I go back and forth, but for the most part I think the NYT does a better job than most.
Their opinion section is atrocious.
I've also noticed the past few months they now make an even greater effort to call out racism by some politicians. Is this an agenda or just factual observations? There are a lot of discussions on race right now and a lot of dog whistles. I go back and forth, but for the most part I think the NYT does a better job than most.
Their opinion section is atrocious.
> But on some of the issues (wearing a mask, climate change) the GOP is so off the mark how can the NYT not come across biased?
Unbiased should not mean "always making it look like both parties are right". That is bias on itself. If I lie about you, really lie, objective non-biased thing is not to say "watwut and cyberlurker disagreed, the truth is in the middle".
Unbiased should not mean "always making it look like both parties are right". That is bias on itself. If I lie about you, really lie, objective non-biased thing is not to say "watwut and cyberlurker disagreed, the truth is in the middle".
I agree. I should have said "how can the NYT not come across looking biased" on the issues of masks and climate change (or any issue with a scientific consensus that one side inexplicably challenges).
Shacklz(2)
Bias which way?
Objectivity is impossible in journalism. Even if you only report facts, what facts you choose as important enough to cover or not will introduce a bias.
True. Although I found that the financial times is pretty neutral and the articles have a very high quality. You do not have to have Gell Mann amnesia to read it.
Maybe it is the target audience. If you want to make money, you do not want your information to be politically biased.
Maybe it is the target audience. If you want to make money, you do not want your information to be politically biased.
I think probably the problem there is, what is bias anyway? In the UK, Brexiters have been complaining for years that the FT is massively biased, because it isn't sufficiently complimentary of Brexit. A lot of people seem to define media bias as not being 'in the middle'; in the Brexit case, facts have a remain bias, so many people perceive the FT's largely factual reporting on Brexit as bias.
The only way to produce Brexit reporting that would satisfy the 'in the middle' people would be, frankly, either to not print most of the news about Brexit, or to outright make stuff up.
The only way to produce Brexit reporting that would satisfy the 'in the middle' people would be, frankly, either to not print most of the news about Brexit, or to outright make stuff up.
> facts have a remain bias
...
Or, FT could actually acknowledge that the remain folks have legitimate arguments.
...
Or, FT could actually acknowledge that the remain folks have legitimate arguments.
Sure, and they do. But some people interpret that as bias, because it isn't occupying a largely imaginary position equidistantly between remain and leave. When the average person talks about media bias, they do _not_ actually mean 'factual reporting', or 'independent editorial policy', or anything like that; they mean either 'agrees with me' or 'occupies a weird artificial center position'.
Some (usually public) broadcasters actually have 'equal-time' rules, which can produce fairly bizarre results.
Some (usually public) broadcasters actually have 'equal-time' rules, which can produce fairly bizarre results.
I don't think that is true - rather, objectivity is difficult. That is why it is important to have decentralized trustworthy news.
How would decentralization help with objectivity?
It's impossible for everything to be perfectly objective - having more credible sources with different points of view allows for more objectivity.
Centralized news is too easy to manipulate.
Centralized news is too easy to manipulate.
Thats interesting. It seems to me people are already overwhelmed with sources of news, unfortunately many of them are not "credible" or acting in good faith. I'm not sure I see a way to enforce credibility without a centralized authority.
Furthermore, I think the recent history would say that when presented with multiple "objective" points of view, people will merely gravitate the ones that reinforce their priors, and I don't think that is what we would deem success either.
Furthermore, I think the recent history would say that when presented with multiple "objective" points of view, people will merely gravitate the ones that reinforce their priors, and I don't think that is what we would deem success either.
Or would it just allow for a clearer connection between what the audience wants and what gets "printed" without an editorial influence? The problem isn't centralization, the problem is we're building confirmation bias engines.
This is such bad take.
Perfection is impossible as well. But we should all strive to better ourselves.
Objectivivity may be impossible. But journalists can still strive to be as unbiased as possible.
Perfection is impossible as well. But we should all strive to better ourselves.
Objectivivity may be impossible. But journalists can still strive to be as unbiased as possible.
It reminds me of the "All models are wrong" aphorism. It may be true, but it's still better to call the Earth a sphere than a plane or a torus.
No one would defend a flat-earther on the basis that a sphere isn't a correct model, either.
No one would defend a flat-earther on the basis that a sphere isn't a correct model, either.
Not entirely related to the article, but rather why I think we're seeing all these problems in journalism of late.
The rise of the internet gatekeepers (Google, Facebook, Twitter) has forever destroyed the old business model for journalism.
Today, in order to have any success at building an audience on these platforms, one needs to appease the algorithms that these gatekeepers employ.
Unfortunately, their algorithms are designed to bring out the sinister side of human nature; tribalism, extremes of opinion, polarization.
I suspect anyone that tries to stay on the neutral side of journalism will eventually be forced to pick a side to stay afloat. Not because of the gatekeepers themselves anymore, but because the gatekeepers have amplified qualities in all of us that have irreversibly changed individual behavior itself.
I'm not sure of what can be done to ebb the tide. The problem is you can no longer look to fixing the gatekeepers. The real problem is how to turn back the clock on individual behavior en masse.
The rise of the internet gatekeepers (Google, Facebook, Twitter) has forever destroyed the old business model for journalism.
Today, in order to have any success at building an audience on these platforms, one needs to appease the algorithms that these gatekeepers employ.
Unfortunately, their algorithms are designed to bring out the sinister side of human nature; tribalism, extremes of opinion, polarization.
I suspect anyone that tries to stay on the neutral side of journalism will eventually be forced to pick a side to stay afloat. Not because of the gatekeepers themselves anymore, but because the gatekeepers have amplified qualities in all of us that have irreversibly changed individual behavior itself.
I'm not sure of what can be done to ebb the tide. The problem is you can no longer look to fixing the gatekeepers. The real problem is how to turn back the clock on individual behavior en masse.
The algorithms are a scapegoat for them sucking at their job. The news media was already a rotten corpse who couldn't even compete with bloggers in accuracy and fact checking. Rainbow parties, breathlessly publishing grudge slang made up wholecloth, and satanic ritual panic for one.
Compounding that they were blind enough to use the youth and their hobbies as punching bags while getting the most basic details wrong. Then wonder why their demographics keep drifting older.
Compounding that they were blind enough to use the youth and their hobbies as punching bags while getting the most basic details wrong. Then wonder why their demographics keep drifting older.
Hm, I expected more of the article. I did my thesis for my bachelors degree about the agenda-setting theory, with nothing really remarkable, but learned a lot in the process. So here are my takes.
> A new generation of journalists is questioning whether, in a hyper-partisan, digital world, objectivity is even desirable.
Journalists that use their position as a way of aggressively pushing an agenda are not outliers nowadays. I'm not sure about the US, but in Spain this people reads Gramsci & Laclau and similar people, or it's familiar with their theory.
When I stumble upon news that smell like propaganda I always do the same, see who wrote the piece, look at his name in social media, and 99,9% of the times is someone who's actually very partisan of his particular ideas. I've donde this with Spanish and US news with similar success, not so much with Portuguese and French (maybe cos I have a lower understanding of the environment), but still.
This people is not even trying. You could argue that everyone defaults to his biases and we do a very good job of tricking ourselves but IMO there seems to be a conscious effort of framing and priming information, and as a broad patter of behavior in journalism.
In my particular case, when I watch or read mainstream news, I do it almost as an anthropologic exercise, what they want people to think about? How they want people to think about it?
There are so many instances of propaganda that it's not worth to filter any more. I just go to some finance, niche blogs or specialized publications when available.
> And so objectivity became journalism’s new lodestar. As Lippmann put it, the journalist should “remain clear and free of his irrational, his unexamined, his unacknowledged prejudgments in observing, understanding and presenting the news.”
And
> A study for the API in 2018 found that 75% of Americans could easily tell news from opinion in their favoured outlet, but only 43% could on Twitter or Facebook.
The problem is that people in newsrooms are perfectly aware on how news are consumed today, so they mix information and opinion in their pieces and their opt-in channels which is typically social media.
> A new generation of journalists is questioning whether, in a hyper-partisan, digital world, objectivity is even desirable.
Journalists that use their position as a way of aggressively pushing an agenda are not outliers nowadays. I'm not sure about the US, but in Spain this people reads Gramsci & Laclau and similar people, or it's familiar with their theory.
When I stumble upon news that smell like propaganda I always do the same, see who wrote the piece, look at his name in social media, and 99,9% of the times is someone who's actually very partisan of his particular ideas. I've donde this with Spanish and US news with similar success, not so much with Portuguese and French (maybe cos I have a lower understanding of the environment), but still.
This people is not even trying. You could argue that everyone defaults to his biases and we do a very good job of tricking ourselves but IMO there seems to be a conscious effort of framing and priming information, and as a broad patter of behavior in journalism.
In my particular case, when I watch or read mainstream news, I do it almost as an anthropologic exercise, what they want people to think about? How they want people to think about it?
There are so many instances of propaganda that it's not worth to filter any more. I just go to some finance, niche blogs or specialized publications when available.
> And so objectivity became journalism’s new lodestar. As Lippmann put it, the journalist should “remain clear and free of his irrational, his unexamined, his unacknowledged prejudgments in observing, understanding and presenting the news.”
And
> A study for the API in 2018 found that 75% of Americans could easily tell news from opinion in their favoured outlet, but only 43% could on Twitter or Facebook.
The problem is that people in newsrooms are perfectly aware on how news are consumed today, so they mix information and opinion in their pieces and their opt-in channels which is typically social media.
I find it odd talking about objectivity in journalism without addressing the issue of narratives that create facts rather than facts creating a narrative. When a narrative is allowed to create facts what usually happens are lies which represent bias of the author and publication (which is supposed to fact check).
The article talk both about alternative facts and value loaded language, but outside of intended bias where news paper are directly involved with a political party, narrative generated facts are likely the culprit for most alternative facts.
Looking at old news papers I think I see much less of narrative designed articles. It might still be biased for all I know, but they seems to be less about trying to tell me a coherent narrative that will draw me in and more about writing up what happened and who said what. The stories seems to generally lack narrative structure, and maybe that allows the author to avoid falling into the trap of filling in facts which does not exist.
The article talk both about alternative facts and value loaded language, but outside of intended bias where news paper are directly involved with a political party, narrative generated facts are likely the culprit for most alternative facts.
Looking at old news papers I think I see much less of narrative designed articles. It might still be biased for all I know, but they seems to be less about trying to tell me a coherent narrative that will draw me in and more about writing up what happened and who said what. The stories seems to generally lack narrative structure, and maybe that allows the author to avoid falling into the trap of filling in facts which does not exist.
Social media disrupted journalism in a way that can only be described as a net negative. Tbh it was headed that way with news cycles getting ever shorter. Twitter and other sites like it (including this one) have shortened that to the minimum we can achieve today given the tech available. Within minutes any idiot with a megaphone can make themselves heard with a voice that is just as loud as a carefully researched piece of work, and quite possibly reach more people if the right trigger buttons are pushed.
Democracy has survived quite a few assaults, let's hope that if the 5th estate dies it will manage to hang on. I get a lot of mileage out of social media but it isn't without its problems and they're hard to solve. But TV and before it radio (and before that print) were quite disruptive in their own right and depending on who you ask the outcome was fine.
Democracy has survived quite a few assaults, let's hope that if the 5th estate dies it will manage to hang on. I get a lot of mileage out of social media but it isn't without its problems and they're hard to solve. But TV and before it radio (and before that print) were quite disruptive in their own right and depending on who you ask the outcome was fine.
> “ Over 500 at the Washington Post endorsed demands for “combating racism and discrimination” at the paper.“
I’ve always viewed journalism as a career as something very, very similar to a hated defense attorney.
A defense attorney’s job is to set aside all personal beliefs, moral points of view on racism, violence, inequality, whatever, and execute the best possible legal defense for a client.
The attorney may utterly hate rapists, but may also be highly skilled at defending them in court because the civic function of requiring evidence and due process to lead to a legal standard of a guilty verdict is an even greater moral requirement for society than punishing someone accused of crimes which elicit outrage.
It’s similar for a journalist. Your job is to set aside all beliefs about what’s right or wrong and do the best job of executing a record of eye witness observations, quotations and facts that give a holistic view of every story. If any component of your own preferences for social movements or causes has come through, you’ve failed badly.
But it seems like society is pressuring for journalism to go the other way, and largely academia too. You cannot dispassionately pursue analysis of facts and observations. You must color them with a definitive edge or stance that injects an active agenda based on the prevailing moral opinions of whatever in-group your employer belongs to (usually left vs right in America).
Journalists have some extreme self-aggrandizing view that their function is to carry out missions of morality or causes and to “do good” with their journalism. It leads to editorializing both what is newsworthy in the first place and also what discourse is allowed to be had about it.
I personally think it’s really frightening. If journalists at our most major institutions believe their work should pursue an agenda like combating racism, that’s horrific.
Racism is deplorable and despicable. Journalism ceasing to be an unglamorous job about executing observatory faculties to let others draw conclusions for themselves is cosmically worse, in the exact same way that rape is deplorable and despicable, but a situation where defense attorneys view it as their job to railroad people accused of rape without executing their best possible legal defense is cosmically, immeasurably far worse.
I’ve always viewed journalism as a career as something very, very similar to a hated defense attorney.
A defense attorney’s job is to set aside all personal beliefs, moral points of view on racism, violence, inequality, whatever, and execute the best possible legal defense for a client.
The attorney may utterly hate rapists, but may also be highly skilled at defending them in court because the civic function of requiring evidence and due process to lead to a legal standard of a guilty verdict is an even greater moral requirement for society than punishing someone accused of crimes which elicit outrage.
It’s similar for a journalist. Your job is to set aside all beliefs about what’s right or wrong and do the best job of executing a record of eye witness observations, quotations and facts that give a holistic view of every story. If any component of your own preferences for social movements or causes has come through, you’ve failed badly.
But it seems like society is pressuring for journalism to go the other way, and largely academia too. You cannot dispassionately pursue analysis of facts and observations. You must color them with a definitive edge or stance that injects an active agenda based on the prevailing moral opinions of whatever in-group your employer belongs to (usually left vs right in America).
Journalists have some extreme self-aggrandizing view that their function is to carry out missions of morality or causes and to “do good” with their journalism. It leads to editorializing both what is newsworthy in the first place and also what discourse is allowed to be had about it.
I personally think it’s really frightening. If journalists at our most major institutions believe their work should pursue an agenda like combating racism, that’s horrific.
Racism is deplorable and despicable. Journalism ceasing to be an unglamorous job about executing observatory faculties to let others draw conclusions for themselves is cosmically worse, in the exact same way that rape is deplorable and despicable, but a situation where defense attorneys view it as their job to railroad people accused of rape without executing their best possible legal defense is cosmically, immeasurably far worse.
Journalism - good journalism, anyway - is constrained by rules and best practices to do exactly what you describe. And many journalists consider that alone to be "doing good." And I agree.
Bias is inevitable, even given the constraints. Resource allocation to stories, physical space and dealing constraints, advertisers ... so many parts of the business and reality of producing journalism make the ideal unachievable. The goal is to be as close as possible.
The BIGGEST problem is journalists are now highly visible social media presences. Their casual pseudo personal accounts give an eye into the thoughts, preferences and opinions of journalists. And that brings their potential biases to the forefront
Bias is inevitable, even given the constraints. Resource allocation to stories, physical space and dealing constraints, advertisers ... so many parts of the business and reality of producing journalism make the ideal unachievable. The goal is to be as close as possible.
The BIGGEST problem is journalists are now highly visible social media presences. Their casual pseudo personal accounts give an eye into the thoughts, preferences and opinions of journalists. And that brings their potential biases to the forefront
The people with the best opinions have the most ad-blockers. So why write stuff they would click?
I agree that intellectual virtues like humility, reflection, scepticism and doubt are to be prized in journalists.
But journalism cannot escape politics. Journalists have to choose what to write about, and to do that involves an evaluative judgement about which issues are worth discussing, and which aren't.
Similar things can be said about what journalists choose to focus on within individual pieces - whose voices they elevate, what issues they emphasise, the context they include, and so on.
Journalism is not science!
But journalism cannot escape politics. Journalists have to choose what to write about, and to do that involves an evaluative judgement about which issues are worth discussing, and which aren't.
Similar things can be said about what journalists choose to focus on within individual pieces - whose voices they elevate, what issues they emphasise, the context they include, and so on.
Journalism is not science!
> I’ve always viewed journalism as a career as something very, very similar to a hated defense attorney.
This is an interesting analogy but an inversion of how I see it. The defense attorney must abandon their natural biases and behave as if they had an unconditional and irrational faith in their client's innocence. This does not come naturally.
The Economist article, tends to conflate objectivity with balance. I see objectivity as critical thinking coupled with tricks to overcome our innate biases. Objectivity is what a judge is supposed to do, to further the original analogy.
This is an interesting analogy but an inversion of how I see it. The defense attorney must abandon their natural biases and behave as if they had an unconditional and irrational faith in their client's innocence. This does not come naturally.
The Economist article, tends to conflate objectivity with balance. I see objectivity as critical thinking coupled with tricks to overcome our innate biases. Objectivity is what a judge is supposed to do, to further the original analogy.
> Your job is to set aside all beliefs about what’s right or wrong and do the best job of executing a record of eye witness observations, quotations and facts that give a holistic view of every story.
You're describing a robot. People don't work like that.
I believe this is sadly similar to doping. As soon as the first journalists started becoming "more entertaining to read" with salacious details or moralistic rhetoric, other outlets had to do it too to not lose readers and keep up.
The better question is why people respond more to Fox News than proper, grounded publications. Until we figure that out, said publications will either maintain a sense of duty and impartiality and inevitably go under, or just start churning out the same clickbait trash to keep the lights on.
You're describing a robot. People don't work like that.
I believe this is sadly similar to doping. As soon as the first journalists started becoming "more entertaining to read" with salacious details or moralistic rhetoric, other outlets had to do it too to not lose readers and keep up.
The better question is why people respond more to Fox News than proper, grounded publications. Until we figure that out, said publications will either maintain a sense of duty and impartiality and inevitably go under, or just start churning out the same clickbait trash to keep the lights on.
He was describing the ideal attorney. If you factor in human failure in your ideals from the start, what you get is the lowest common multiple, so you limit any aspiration and potential from the start.
No, the ideal would be an attorney that can almost perfectly differentiate between his emotions plus opinion against true justice.
No, the ideal would be an attorney that can almost perfectly differentiate between his emotions plus opinion against true justice.
Defence attorneys may not know if someone is guilty. Some clients may say "Yes, I did it, get me out of here" but some won't - possibly because they didn't.
Clients may be implicated by false confessions extracted under pressure. They may even believe those confessions, because hours of stressful interrogation can confuse people with limited ego strength.
There may be some other narratives, other circumstances, complex family or business relationships which are a relevant back story to the crime, and/or may incriminate someone else - and so on.
There are exceptions - including lawyers who specialise in defending organised crime, and are really just covert employees of criminal organisations.
But generally, it's just plain incorrect to assume that defence attorneys invariably know their client is guilty and are really just trying to cover that up.
Clients may be implicated by false confessions extracted under pressure. They may even believe those confessions, because hours of stressful interrogation can confuse people with limited ego strength.
There may be some other narratives, other circumstances, complex family or business relationships which are a relevant back story to the crime, and/or may incriminate someone else - and so on.
There are exceptions - including lawyers who specialise in defending organised crime, and are really just covert employees of criminal organisations.
But generally, it's just plain incorrect to assume that defence attorneys invariably know their client is guilty and are really just trying to cover that up.
I had a friend who worked for 15 years as a public defender. I asked her how she dealt with cases where it was completely obvious that her client was guilty. Her answer (paraphrased): we have a system of justice that requires that there is a process to locking someone up, or even just fining them. That process needs to be followed all the time, whether the person is "obviously guilty" or not. My job in those cases was to make sure that the prosecution, and the court system, dotted all their i's, crossed all their t's before rendering a judgement on my client. I wasn't trying to keep them out of prison, I was trying to make sure that only people who deserve to be there actually end up there.
>It’s similar for a journalist. Your job is to set aside all beliefs about what’s right or wrong and do the best job of executing a record of eye witness observations, quotations and facts that give a holistic view of every story. If any component of your own preferences for social movements or causes has come through, you’ve failed badly.
The implication you're making here is that the current reporting is neutral/objective.
>I personally think it’s really frightening. If journalists at our most major institutions believe their work should pursue an agenda like combating racism, that’s horrific.
Biased newspapers have existed for a long time[0]. I'm not quite sure why "Racism is bad" is considered a political agenda though
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%27Argo
The implication you're making here is that the current reporting is neutral/objective.
>I personally think it’s really frightening. If journalists at our most major institutions believe their work should pursue an agenda like combating racism, that’s horrific.
Biased newspapers have existed for a long time[0]. I'm not quite sure why "Racism is bad" is considered a political agenda though
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%27Argo
Reading news in multiple languages has taught me that all publishers editorialise, some are just more aware that they're doing it than others.
"The collected news of any modern country contains more truth each day than any one man can could read in a lifetime. The reporters, editors, writers, announcers who collect truth not only collect it; they select it. ... If they select it to "affect the minds and emotions of a given group for a specific purpose," it is propaganda. If they report that a little girl fell out of bed and broke her neck—with the intent of frightening parents among their listeners into following the Safe Homes Week Campaign—that is propaganda. But if they report it because it is the only death in the community, and because they might as well fill up the program, it is not propaganda. If you put the statement on the air, "An American negro workman in Greensboro, N. C., got eighty cents for a hard day's work last week," that can be presented and interpreted as:
(a.) simple news, if there is something more to the story, about what the man said, or how he spent the eighty cents on corn meal to feed his pet tarantula;
(b.) anti-capitalist propaganda, if you show that eighty cents is mighty little money for American business to pay its workers;
(c.) pro-capitalist propaganda, if you show that the eighty cents will buy more than two weeks' wages of a worker in the city of Riga, when it comes to consumer goods;
(d.) anti-White propaganda, if you show the man got only eighty cents because he was a Negro.
And so on, through a further variety of interpretations. The facts—man, happening, amount, place, time—are true in each case. They could be sworn to by the whole membership of an interfaith conference. But the interpretation placed on them—who communicates these facts to whom? why? when?—makes them into propaganda."
"If you agree with it, it's truth. If you don't agree, it's propaganda. Pretend that it is all propaganda. See what happens on your analysis reports."
My rag of choice attempts objectivity.
Yours is biased.
Theirs are state controlled.
"The collected news of any modern country contains more truth each day than any one man can could read in a lifetime. The reporters, editors, writers, announcers who collect truth not only collect it; they select it. ... If they select it to "affect the minds and emotions of a given group for a specific purpose," it is propaganda. If they report that a little girl fell out of bed and broke her neck—with the intent of frightening parents among their listeners into following the Safe Homes Week Campaign—that is propaganda. But if they report it because it is the only death in the community, and because they might as well fill up the program, it is not propaganda. If you put the statement on the air, "An American negro workman in Greensboro, N. C., got eighty cents for a hard day's work last week," that can be presented and interpreted as:
(a.) simple news, if there is something more to the story, about what the man said, or how he spent the eighty cents on corn meal to feed his pet tarantula;
(b.) anti-capitalist propaganda, if you show that eighty cents is mighty little money for American business to pay its workers;
(c.) pro-capitalist propaganda, if you show that the eighty cents will buy more than two weeks' wages of a worker in the city of Riga, when it comes to consumer goods;
(d.) anti-White propaganda, if you show the man got only eighty cents because he was a Negro.
And so on, through a further variety of interpretations. The facts—man, happening, amount, place, time—are true in each case. They could be sworn to by the whole membership of an interfaith conference. But the interpretation placed on them—who communicates these facts to whom? why? when?—makes them into propaganda."
"If you agree with it, it's truth. If you don't agree, it's propaganda. Pretend that it is all propaganda. See what happens on your analysis reports."
People mistake a desire for politically moderate journalism with objective journalism.
How do you objectify atrocities, corruption, lying etc without coming across as politically opposite the perpetrators? The simple act of reporting becomes political.
How do you objectify atrocities, corruption, lying etc without coming across as politically opposite the perpetrators? The simple act of reporting becomes political.
It died in a wave of post-modernist thought crashing on the west. Post-modernists genuinely believe that objectivity is impossible. You'll see it in this very comment section, I'm sure.
And, interestingly, at the core of it they're right. It's impossible for a human being to be truly objective. The value is in the pursuit of that ideal though, like many others, not in expecting to perfectly attain it. People seem to have lost that idea.
And, interestingly, at the core of it they're right. It's impossible for a human being to be truly objective. The value is in the pursuit of that ideal though, like many others, not in expecting to perfectly attain it. People seem to have lost that idea.
Are you saying that the impossibility of objective truth is objectively true but effectively useless?
I don't think I said anything objective truth, if it read that way I did a poor job.
I am pretty far from believing that there is no objective truth. I was simply saying that there is merit to the idea that human beings themselves can not communicate objectively. Wittgenstein talked about it in a way I tend to agree with. Post-modernism runs wild with his ideas and ends up at things like "there is no objective truth".
I am pretty far from believing that there is no objective truth. I was simply saying that there is merit to the idea that human beings themselves can not communicate objectively. Wittgenstein talked about it in a way I tend to agree with. Post-modernism runs wild with his ideas and ends up at things like "there is no objective truth".
I can’t seem to load this page (getting infinite redirects from https://www.economist.com/books-and-arts/2020/07/15/how-obje... <-> https://www.economist.com/books-and-arts/2020/07/16/how-obje...)
Also looks like Wayback Machine is experiencing these redirects as well: http://web.archive.org/web/20200716120005/https://www.econom... http://web.archive.org/web/20200716120005/https://www.econom...
Also looks like Wayback Machine is experiencing these redirects as well: http://web.archive.org/web/20200716120005/https://www.econom... http://web.archive.org/web/20200716120005/https://www.econom...
Works for me, see http://archive.is/3Nn1P
I think it's an adblock issue
It worked for me until I logged in, which is depressing.
[deleted]
The increasing integration of the news cycle and social media serves to opinionize objectivity. If the notion of social media is tribes, and tribal adherence/management/connectivity managed by upvotes and downvotes one can logically assume "engagement" on social media if tracked by upvotes just exacerbates this example.
It would be more interesting if engagement on the newsroom side were met by the combination of actions (i.e up, down, retweet, reads, etc). At the same time that ultimately means that articles are now aiming for engagement - at the very least confrontational opinions and thoughts would be measured as "interesting".
This is dangerous thought control popularized.
It would be more interesting if engagement on the newsroom side were met by the combination of actions (i.e up, down, retweet, reads, etc). At the same time that ultimately means that articles are now aiming for engagement - at the very least confrontational opinions and thoughts would be measured as "interesting".
This is dangerous thought control popularized.
I wonder how we’re going to teach kids about goods sources. When the real news comes from blogs and tweets and the garbage comes from “news” agencies. I don’t think it’s really possible to filter out what’s real and what’s fake -perhaps it never was.
Of course we have to get rid of objectivity, otherwise people couldn't claim obviously false assertions like publishing an op-ed “puts black @nytimes staff in danger.”
In the spirit of the new AP guidelines which say “Do not use racially charged or similar terms as euphemisms for racist or racism when the latter terms are truly applicable,” let's have the same criteria for "Stalinism".
What's going on is pure Stalinism.
In the spirit of the new AP guidelines which say “Do not use racially charged or similar terms as euphemisms for racist or racism when the latter terms are truly applicable,” let's have the same criteria for "Stalinism".
What's going on is pure Stalinism.
The concept of objectivity is being attacked as being of white-supremacy culture or whiteness.
https://nypost.com/2019/05/20/richard-carranza-held-doe-whit...
https://nypost.com/2019/05/20/richard-carranza-held-doe-whit...
> The final reason for the turn against objectivity is commercial. The shift away from partisanship a century ago was driven partly by advertisers. Today, as ad revenues leak away to search engines and social networks, newspapers have come to rely more on paying readers. Unlike advertisers, readers love opinion.
Readers love opinion? How do they know this? Is it because Ezra Klein said so in the following sentences, that people want to be coddled by their media?
Readers love opinion? How do they know this? Is it because Ezra Klein said so in the following sentences, that people want to be coddled by their media?
It seems obvious. Hannity, Carlson, and Ingraham are the top rated “news” programs. All are opinion shows, not straight news.
Just because some opinion shows "top rated" it doesn't necessarily mean that "news reader" audience like to be treated the same way. Right? Somewhere I would like to have a little more qualification to that a "reading audience likes to read opinions".
Publishing opinions and assumptions has always been cheaper than proper research. Obviously a large part of the content is also a "reuse" of other content (in plain language "copied"). The peak of this development is, in my opinion, when journalists even interview each other (instead of the actual sources). I no longer read the newspapers for this reason. The trees could be saved for better things.
This article is really interesting, but I think an important part of this that it didn't discuss is misinformation.
The Chinese[1] and Russian[2] governments are known to be engaging in misinformation at a scale never seen before, and across geographic boundaries. Many other misinformation operations are also in force.
Meanwhile, the primary source of news for a significant portion of the globe does little to combat it[3]. In fact it has an explicit policy of treating falsehoods the same as truth.
That was never possible before the age of information, and I think it changes the landscape of news enough that it merits a place in this discussion.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Cent_Party
[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/world/national-...
[3] https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/akz7qa/facebook-finally-a...
The Chinese[1] and Russian[2] governments are known to be engaging in misinformation at a scale never seen before, and across geographic boundaries. Many other misinformation operations are also in force.
Meanwhile, the primary source of news for a significant portion of the globe does little to combat it[3]. In fact it has an explicit policy of treating falsehoods the same as truth.
That was never possible before the age of information, and I think it changes the landscape of news enough that it merits a place in this discussion.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Cent_Party
[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/world/national-...
[3] https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/akz7qa/facebook-finally-a...
It's ironic that you listed the Wikipedia entry as evidence the 50 cent army is engaging in disinformation at an international scale. The only cited source for this describes a Huffington Post commenter disagreeing with an article and the author claiming that the commenter is a paid Chinese shill.
Here are some more sources:
https://www.propublica.org/article/how-china-built-a-twitter...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/a-wuhan-writers-life-...
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/23/world/asia/china-hong-kon...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/05/1...
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-twitter-disinformat...
https://www.propublica.org/article/how-china-built-a-twitter...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/a-wuhan-writers-life-...
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/23/world/asia/china-hong-kon...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/05/1...
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-twitter-disinformat...
I don't disagree that China engages in global disinformation. I wouldn't have any problem with your comment if you had originally listed any of the sources above instead of the Wikipedia entry for the 50 cent army. My issue is that people on Hackernews and Reddit claim that anyone who says something that can remotely be interpreted as defending China must be a 50-cent shill. These supposed fighters of disinformation don't even bother to check whether is any evidence that the CCP is paying people to comment on English websites.
The age of information (and knock-on misinformation) started around 1440. It's quantitatively easier these days, but the qualitative techniques remain recognisable. Remember the Maine!
Linebarger's Psychological Warfare (1948) has a history of tradecraft that goes back to biblical episodes.
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/48612/48612-h/48612-h.htm
flame wars in the seventeenth:
"The vocabulary of seventeenth-century propaganda had a strident tone which is, perhaps unfortunately, getting to be characteristic of the twentieth century. The following epithets sound like an American Legion description of Communists, or a Communist description of the Polish democrats, yet they were applied in a book by a Lutheran to Quakers. The title of the tirade reads, in part:
... a description of the ... new Quakers, making known the sum of their manifold blasphemous opinions, dangerous practices, Godless crimes, attempts to subvert civil government in the churches and in the community life of the world; together with their idiotic games, their laughable action and behavior, which is enough to make sober Christian persons breathless, and which is like death, and which can display the lazy stinking cadaver of their fanatical doctrines....
In its first few pages, the book accuses the Quakers of obscenity, adultery, civil commotion, conspiracy, blasphemy, subversion and lunacy. Milton was not out of fashion in applying bad manners to propaganda. It is merely regrettable that he did not transcend the frailties of his time."
(europe's wars of religion were both extremely polarising and far less effective at determining who was right than who was left.)
Linebarger's Psychological Warfare (1948) has a history of tradecraft that goes back to biblical episodes.
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/48612/48612-h/48612-h.htm
flame wars in the seventeenth:
"The vocabulary of seventeenth-century propaganda had a strident tone which is, perhaps unfortunately, getting to be characteristic of the twentieth century. The following epithets sound like an American Legion description of Communists, or a Communist description of the Polish democrats, yet they were applied in a book by a Lutheran to Quakers. The title of the tirade reads, in part:
... a description of the ... new Quakers, making known the sum of their manifold blasphemous opinions, dangerous practices, Godless crimes, attempts to subvert civil government in the churches and in the community life of the world; together with their idiotic games, their laughable action and behavior, which is enough to make sober Christian persons breathless, and which is like death, and which can display the lazy stinking cadaver of their fanatical doctrines....
In its first few pages, the book accuses the Quakers of obscenity, adultery, civil commotion, conspiracy, blasphemy, subversion and lunacy. Milton was not out of fashion in applying bad manners to propaganda. It is merely regrettable that he did not transcend the frailties of his time."
(europe's wars of religion were both extremely polarising and far less effective at determining who was right than who was left.)
I have been search for quite a while for a service that I could subscribe (pay) to get a list of high quality, information dense, writing, about current world events.
I haven't yet found anything that I would be satisfied with. I looked at Substack but most journalist there seem to be basically running blogs.
I haven't yet found anything that I would be satisfied with. I looked at Substack but most journalist there seem to be basically running blogs.
I mean, that's the Economist, literally the publication this article is from.
There's literally no other English-language news publication for a general educated readership that is higher quality, denser, and focused on the whole world rather than any single country.
There's literally no other English-language news publication for a general educated readership that is higher quality, denser, and focused on the whole world rather than any single country.
I read the Economist from time to time, never subscribed, but always seems to be a bit longer, trying to give some sort of opinion even if very politically unbiased then I would want.
I straight up just want to get a list of things that happened and some context information. I can do research on the topic if I find worth the time.
I straight up just want to get a list of things that happened and some context information. I can do research on the topic if I find worth the time.
I stopped getting my news from social media, and started subscribing to The Economist and the Financial Times.
[deleted]
Reuters doesn't make you pay, but it's pretty good. I'm not sure how it is for UK news, but for world and US news it seems to be pretty straight.
Supposedly https://www.britishpathe.com/ was an icon of journalistic objectivity in it's day.
Today it looks like an icon of British Imperialist jingoism.
Today it looks like an icon of British Imperialist jingoism.
When journalism is paid for primarily by corporate sponsors, the premise of "objective journalism" is absurd. People have to pay for their news if they wish to have the slightest hope of it being objective, but with the ubiquity of free content, paying for journalism now seems like an unwelcome deviation from the norm in the eyes of many. Ad sponsored journalism, and media in general, has poisoned the well. When you are used to getting something for free, it feels wrong when you have to pay for it. This cripples alternative media that isn't reliant on corporate sponsors...thus the ecosystem for "objective journalism" is weak.
The current environment, with respect to the aforementioned incentives, makes objectivity difficult -- not to mention the political/economic instability which adds tons of fuel on this fire.
The current environment, with respect to the aforementioned incentives, makes objectivity difficult -- not to mention the political/economic instability which adds tons of fuel on this fire.
I sometimes wonder what the authors of the U.S. constitution would think about the modern "press". I wonder whether in some alternate universe the constitution could have been interpreted in such a way that special protections for the "press" only apply to the LITERAL press, i.e., to those who physically print news onto paper with a printing press. The world could be a lot different today if that's how our interpretation of the constitution had turned out (such a world would be better in some ways, maybe worse in others).
A physical newspaper has a natural tendency to incentivize payment models where the reader pays for the paper; a physical newspaper is much harder to alter after-the-fact; and a physical newspaper lends itself to a daily news cycle which gives writers time to think more carefully about what they write (with "Extra" editions being reserved for truly rare occasions like war breaking out or presidential assassinations).
A physical newspaper has a natural tendency to incentivize payment models where the reader pays for the paper; a physical newspaper is much harder to alter after-the-fact; and a physical newspaper lends itself to a daily news cycle which gives writers time to think more carefully about what they write (with "Extra" editions being reserved for truly rare occasions like war breaking out or presidential assassinations).
I suppose we would have to reason about the intention/function of the press. As far as I understand, freedom of the press was about the dissemination of ideas. In a democratic republic, the people must have a means of circulating information about various issues so that voters can cast informed votes.
It could be argued that the modern press spreads confusion and is less about the dissemination of ideas for the purpose of informing the voting public; however, the history of the press is not a glorious one. The press has always been a mess.
Nonetheless, I think, as you say, the "slow press" is more in line with the idea of informing the public. The "continuous press" is more about pushing propaganda and conditioning the public...in my view.
It could be argued that the modern press spreads confusion and is less about the dissemination of ideas for the purpose of informing the voting public; however, the history of the press is not a glorious one. The press has always been a mess.
Nonetheless, I think, as you say, the "slow press" is more in line with the idea of informing the public. The "continuous press" is more about pushing propaganda and conditioning the public...in my view.
The constitution doesn't have any special protections for the "press".
Generally, the courts have fairly consistently held that there is no constitutional differentiation between journalists and non-journalists in protection of free speech.
Special privileges and rights for the press are granted by means other than the constitution.
Generally, the courts have fairly consistently held that there is no constitutional differentiation between journalists and non-journalists in protection of free speech.
Special privileges and rights for the press are granted by means other than the constitution.
Gosh, thanks. I never cease to be amazed at my own ignorance. So I guess that makes all the rhetoric about "the fourth branch of government" even sillier than I already thought it was. (If journalism were to be a fourth branch, then it ought to have some "checks and balances", but right now it seems to have about as many "checks and balances" as Xerxes the God-King of Persia...)
Well of course it lacks checks and balances - it doesn't have any legislative power. To pretend otherwise is to conflate state power with personal rights. States don't have rights.
There is bias in selection of what news to print/air as well, I think that is more of a problem than objectivity inside of articles. Balance should come from covering sides of an issue, presenting facts, but from maybe multiple angles.
Social media has brought about a factor of being first. First to report that so-and-so athlete signed with a team will trend better than an in depth or behind the scenes analysis on what happened.
Maybe news companies should form a scoring system of sorts that they will hold themselves and each other to regarding journalistic integrity/objectivity. A certification of some kind.
They could offer that to social media companies as a way to filter the un-certified junk. Some people might pay for that.
Social media has brought about a factor of being first. First to report that so-and-so athlete signed with a team will trend better than an in depth or behind the scenes analysis on what happened.
Maybe news companies should form a scoring system of sorts that they will hold themselves and each other to regarding journalistic integrity/objectivity. A certification of some kind.
They could offer that to social media companies as a way to filter the un-certified junk. Some people might pay for that.
It's not new that news outlets aren't very objective. It is new that so many no longer aspire to be so. That aspiration has a lot of value, particularly where we fail to attain it.
Two other areas where the same is true: color blindness and meritocracy. These things are worth striving for, especially where we fail at them. The recent trend of dismissing these things even as worthy goals is damaging to our collective pursuit of virtue.
Two other areas where the same is true: color blindness and meritocracy. These things are worth striving for, especially where we fail at them. The recent trend of dismissing these things even as worthy goals is damaging to our collective pursuit of virtue.
This exact same URL was submitted 13 hours earlier here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23853239
Why wasn't the second submission redirected to the first? There's something about Hacker News submissions I don't understand. :(
Why wasn't the second submission redirected to the first? There's something about Hacker News submissions I don't understand. :(
And like that, an unholy alliance between left-wing and right-wing agitators and ad-buyers puts objectivity in the press at stake, and with it the future of democracy.
I've thought a lot about the plight of newspapers, but still struggle to get my thoughts into black and white. I apologise if this ends up overly wordy and/or makes no sense at all.
The way I see it the newspapers are now facing an existential crisis, and I personally see no easy way forward for them. Print sales have been on the decline for the last 20 years and with it a decline in their ability to sell valuable advertising. I think we all know that newspaper prices are subsidised by advertising, so falling advertising sales, will inevitably lead to a rise in newspaper prices.
With online advertising dominated by the big internet companies that leaves a small slice of the pie for the newspaper publishers, and correspondingly a need to chase the algorithms to try to get clicks. This, inevitably, is leading to a race to the bottom to chase every last penny of advertising.
The only way to save themselves is to get people to pay for journalism, but this presents many obstacles. Nobody wants to pay for anything on the internet - we have all been trained to expect everything for free. Even those of us who are willing (and financially able) to pay for journalism now have an expectation of being able to access a variety of sources and won't necessarily want to pay for subscriptions to a variety of publications. Far too expensive. Unfortunately, a paid news aggregation site seems like a pipe dream right now. No publication wants to lose their brand under someone else's banner; and you can't really blame them for that.
Even if you could find a way, no one would be able to agree how payment should work. A payment per article click would just lead to a similar situation to today, with click-bait headlines designed to draw you into clicking on poor quality articles. We all know that micro-payments haven't managed to make any kind of traction.
So we have the current situation where those publications that do have quality journalism have a hard time getting reader attention away from a deluge of click-bait articles designed to stir base emotions so they will be shared widely by incensed readers, thus earning more money. Those that can are having a hard time finding funding, usually relying on a mixture of advertising, begging for reader donations, and paywalls.
Meanwhile, the industry as a whole is on a slow death spiral whilst readers are begging for ways to get articles from a wide variety of sources at a fair price, but no one can think of any feasible way to offer this.
That's my own personal, probably biased and non-objective, view on the situation. What do you all think? Am I right? Wrong? A complete idiot? I'd love some feedback.
Something else I'd love to know: how many of you out there have subscriptions to one or more news publications or make donations to a small news publication?
The way I see it the newspapers are now facing an existential crisis, and I personally see no easy way forward for them. Print sales have been on the decline for the last 20 years and with it a decline in their ability to sell valuable advertising. I think we all know that newspaper prices are subsidised by advertising, so falling advertising sales, will inevitably lead to a rise in newspaper prices.
With online advertising dominated by the big internet companies that leaves a small slice of the pie for the newspaper publishers, and correspondingly a need to chase the algorithms to try to get clicks. This, inevitably, is leading to a race to the bottom to chase every last penny of advertising.
The only way to save themselves is to get people to pay for journalism, but this presents many obstacles. Nobody wants to pay for anything on the internet - we have all been trained to expect everything for free. Even those of us who are willing (and financially able) to pay for journalism now have an expectation of being able to access a variety of sources and won't necessarily want to pay for subscriptions to a variety of publications. Far too expensive. Unfortunately, a paid news aggregation site seems like a pipe dream right now. No publication wants to lose their brand under someone else's banner; and you can't really blame them for that.
Even if you could find a way, no one would be able to agree how payment should work. A payment per article click would just lead to a similar situation to today, with click-bait headlines designed to draw you into clicking on poor quality articles. We all know that micro-payments haven't managed to make any kind of traction.
So we have the current situation where those publications that do have quality journalism have a hard time getting reader attention away from a deluge of click-bait articles designed to stir base emotions so they will be shared widely by incensed readers, thus earning more money. Those that can are having a hard time finding funding, usually relying on a mixture of advertising, begging for reader donations, and paywalls.
Meanwhile, the industry as a whole is on a slow death spiral whilst readers are begging for ways to get articles from a wide variety of sources at a fair price, but no one can think of any feasible way to offer this.
That's my own personal, probably biased and non-objective, view on the situation. What do you all think? Am I right? Wrong? A complete idiot? I'd love some feedback.
Something else I'd love to know: how many of you out there have subscriptions to one or more news publications or make donations to a small news publication?
What is up with this nihilism?
Ofc there is no such thing as perfect objectivity, democracy, justice, etc. But it's critical to strive for all these things!
"Media has never been objective or impartial so might as well go for my political/moral stance and destroy everything else." Fight wrong with wrong, eh? No wrong tactics only wrong targets? This is progressive and "on the right side of history"?
Don't go down that path, this is not what US ideals stand for. And yes, they are ideals, dreams, I know, but they make a huge difference when compared to what I lived under communism in eastern EU. The world is watching and copying everything it sees in the US. What you do matters more than you think.
Ofc there is no such thing as perfect objectivity, democracy, justice, etc. But it's critical to strive for all these things!
"Media has never been objective or impartial so might as well go for my political/moral stance and destroy everything else." Fight wrong with wrong, eh? No wrong tactics only wrong targets? This is progressive and "on the right side of history"?
Don't go down that path, this is not what US ideals stand for. And yes, they are ideals, dreams, I know, but they make a huge difference when compared to what I lived under communism in eastern EU. The world is watching and copying everything it sees in the US. What you do matters more than you think.
> but to many the distinction between right and wrong now seems obvious. A new generation of journalists is questioning whether, in a hyper-partisan, digital world, objectivity is even desirable.
They are part of the polarization because they profit from it and I think they are entertainers instead of journalists. They know how to channel the hysteria and lust to condemn. Maybe not by experience, but their metrics certainly would show it. Some moderately serious youtube channels are more in line with facts and many online articles became profoundly lacking. Granted, it was the users that clicked them. And certain topics were clicked by all political factions. Racism and sexism are popular topics here. Having an opinion doesn't need any qualification, so those topics can reach anyone. Engagement shows these articles are much more popular than boring politics.
Of course the more left or libertarian inclined journalists deliver the better content than their conservative contemporaries with few exceptions. But I think it is the older generation that created that image.
> American view-from-nowhere, ‘objectivity’-obsessed, both-sides journalism is a failed experiment,” tweeted Wesley Lowery, a Pulitzer-winning 30-year-old now at CBS News
This price is probably given by click rate. So the most outrageous claim wins. Again, I can name bloggers that could compete... no, that are vastly more poignant to the matter at hand. Seriously, read the articles, they aren't really good, but judge yourself.
> unconscious bias
gas-lighting, original sin or completely useless information. It is like discussing free will where the quality of the wine is important, not the result. I think to have bias is completely fine, but I can still separate my perception of facts from my opinion. That isn't actually too hard. Won't ever be perfect, but beating online journalism isn't hard.
> One is Donald Trump’s rise and the challenges it has posed to traditional reporting.
I think the press is vastly responsible here too. It may actually be a good idea to vote a president the "4th estate" is critical of. An angle I would think is beyond Pulitzer price winners of today.
> Objectivity has been “turned into a cartoon”, he said. Better to aim for values such as fairness, independence and empathy.
Sure, here bias wouldn't matter...
A few journalists still try at least. They often don't have large twitter followings but you are always shown a new perspective if you read their editorials, which indeed do give context to their articles. The perspective of the conventional journalist is utterly mundane in contrast.
> Amid more diverse recruitment
More racist recruitment is the objective description. Because race matters here. For most people it doesn't.
> The final reason for the turn against objectivity is commercial
Back to the start. Why did some journalists condemn Fox News for being a scam? Ah yes, none of you are in a position to do so anymore...
They are part of the polarization because they profit from it and I think they are entertainers instead of journalists. They know how to channel the hysteria and lust to condemn. Maybe not by experience, but their metrics certainly would show it. Some moderately serious youtube channels are more in line with facts and many online articles became profoundly lacking. Granted, it was the users that clicked them. And certain topics were clicked by all political factions. Racism and sexism are popular topics here. Having an opinion doesn't need any qualification, so those topics can reach anyone. Engagement shows these articles are much more popular than boring politics.
Of course the more left or libertarian inclined journalists deliver the better content than their conservative contemporaries with few exceptions. But I think it is the older generation that created that image.
> American view-from-nowhere, ‘objectivity’-obsessed, both-sides journalism is a failed experiment,” tweeted Wesley Lowery, a Pulitzer-winning 30-year-old now at CBS News
This price is probably given by click rate. So the most outrageous claim wins. Again, I can name bloggers that could compete... no, that are vastly more poignant to the matter at hand. Seriously, read the articles, they aren't really good, but judge yourself.
> unconscious bias
gas-lighting, original sin or completely useless information. It is like discussing free will where the quality of the wine is important, not the result. I think to have bias is completely fine, but I can still separate my perception of facts from my opinion. That isn't actually too hard. Won't ever be perfect, but beating online journalism isn't hard.
> One is Donald Trump’s rise and the challenges it has posed to traditional reporting.
I think the press is vastly responsible here too. It may actually be a good idea to vote a president the "4th estate" is critical of. An angle I would think is beyond Pulitzer price winners of today.
> Objectivity has been “turned into a cartoon”, he said. Better to aim for values such as fairness, independence and empathy.
Sure, here bias wouldn't matter...
A few journalists still try at least. They often don't have large twitter followings but you are always shown a new perspective if you read their editorials, which indeed do give context to their articles. The perspective of the conventional journalist is utterly mundane in contrast.
> Amid more diverse recruitment
More racist recruitment is the objective description. Because race matters here. For most people it doesn't.
> The final reason for the turn against objectivity is commercial
Back to the start. Why did some journalists condemn Fox News for being a scam? Ah yes, none of you are in a position to do so anymore...
The names of once-trusted news companies has stayed the same, but it's about the only thing about them that has.
I believe the tipping point was smartphones, and find it very ironic that Steve Jobs showed off iPhone's ability to load up The New York Times in its reveal keynote in 2007.
This was the exact topic of my first substack piece on Monday if anyone is interested. https://benlumen.substack.com/p/thank-god-i-never-went-into-...
I did feel a little vindicated reading Bari Weiss' NYT resignation letter the next day saying that "Twitter has become its ultimate editor".