Journalists aren’t the enemy of the people. But we’re not your friends either
1–10 of 88 posts
Re: Journalists aren’t the enemy of the people. But we’re not your friends either
#2[deleted]
Re: Journalists aren’t the enemy of the people. But we’re not your friends either
#3Personal opinion: I think it was around 2004 when the media slowly stopped being the journalists that protect our democracy, and instead corporations and individuals with political agendas. Sure there were plenty of newspapers and outlets that leaned one way or the other, but it was never so blatantly partisan, to the point of suspect. Journalists are not the enemy of the people, but the media of today certainly doesn't act like it.
Re: Journalists aren’t the enemy of the people. But we’re not your friends either
#4Ah. The journalists and reporters. Of course. Much concern.
Never a mention of the owners, publishers, editors, boards, and personages of influence.
Never a mention of the quid pro quo of coverage for access.
We should focus all our concern on the journalists. Those dastardly story tellers using their immense power to boss around the mail clerks.
Re: Journalists aren’t the enemy of the people. But we’re not your friends either
#5I think it's unavoidable. With social media, the incentives simply aren't there to have a media that gives a balanced view of the story anymore. That doesn't sell.
Before, it used to be that you'd present side A and side B, without taking any stance. Now, people are starting to conflate neutrality with centrism. Even a 'neutral' news outlet is expected to take some sort of stance, and not to platform extremists.
If you want for something to spread, it's better for 100 people to really like it than for 1000 people to find it OK. That's the pattern we're seeing in the media right now.
Mr. Smith has a quaint notion of journalism, and one which is not shared by his publisher, who indeed see it as a reasonable endeavour to 'combat Donald Trump'.
I think that the future of media is to completely abandon the pretense of neutrality and to become blind cheerleaders for 'their side'; if you want the Republican coverage, you'll go to Fox or OAN, and hear the latest theories about how the President is morally infallible and how the libtards ought to be rounded up and shot. If you want the Democratic coverage, you'll go to CNN or the NY Times, and hear the latest theories about how the President is an evil man and how the fascists ought to be rounded up and thrown in prison.
I don't think this will be too bad. Before, you'd trust your neutral newspaper to give you both sides of the story. Now, you'll have to read two news outlets. But this isn't the end of the world, as long as people can adapt to the change.
Re: Journalists aren’t the enemy of the people. But we’re not your friends either
#6I think it's unavoidable. With social media, the incentives simply aren't there to have a media that gives a balanced view of the story anymore. That doesn't sell. Before, it used to be that you'd present side A and side B, without taking any stance. Now, people are starting to conflate neutrality with centrism. Even a 'neutral' news outlet is expected to take some sort of stance, and not to platform extremists. If y…
> Now, you'll have to read two news outlets
You already can read multiple outlets for different perspectives. Most people don't. Why would that change?
Re: Journalists aren’t the enemy of the people. But we’re not your friends either
#7I think it's unavoidable. With social media, the incentives simply aren't there to have a media that gives a balanced view of the story anymore. That doesn't sell. Before, it used to be that you'd present side A and side B, without taking any stance. Now, people are starting to conflate neutrality with centrism. Even a 'neutral' news outlet is expected to take some sort of stance, and not to platform extremists. If y…
>If you want the Democratic coverage, you'll go to CNN or the NY Times...
* MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, Wash Post, LA Times, PBS, NPR, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Google, Spotify..
Re: Journalists aren’t the enemy of the people. But we’re not your friends either
#8I think it's unavoidable. With social media, the incentives simply aren't there to have a media that gives a balanced view of the story anymore. That doesn't sell. Before, it used to be that you'd present side A and side B, without taking any stance. Now, people are starting to conflate neutrality with centrism. Even a 'neutral' news outlet is expected to take some sort of stance, and not to platform extremists. If y…
There are sides to a story, and then there's false information. But on the lines of what you're saying, I think that education should probably train students in that style of media literacy: reading both sides of an issue from neutral, partisan and extremist perspectives, and reasoning about how to synthesize them.
Re: Journalists aren’t the enemy of the people. But we’re not your friends either
#9Personal opinion: I think it was around 2004 when the media slowly stopped being the journalists that protect our democracy, and instead corporations and individuals with political agendas. Sure there were plenty of newspapers and outlets that leaned one way or the other, but it was never so blatantly partisan, to the point of suspect. Journalists are not the enemy of the people, but the media of today certainly does…
> 2004
A year or two before that you had Judith Miller at the New York Times uncritically helping the American government start a war on false pretexts. And more than a century before then, American newspapers were hard at work starting the Spanish-American War for bullshit reasons.