Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Record Breaking Number of Journalists Arrested in the U.S. This Year

freedom.press

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

511–520 of 527 posts

Re: Record Breaking Number of Journalists Arrested in the U.S. This Year

#511

Post by austincheney »

centimeter wrote: post #506
austincheney wrote: post #462

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Read the Wikipedia link. It answers your question.

This is not meant as an insult to you, but just as a warning that you should keep this in mind when you’re analyzing your own decision making; you are pretty clearly neither smart nor original. It’s very unlikely you are actually ever going to have any valuable original thoughts, at least in the way you seem to think you do. I’m sure you’ll appreciate this since your profile is all about “radical honestly”. Taking Da…

> It’s very unlikely you are actually ever...

Proven through product creation and job performance.

Re: Record Breaking Number of Journalists Arrested in the U.S. This Year

#512

Post by jazzdev »

dgritsko wrote: post #122
hilbertseries wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> On one side, the death of traditional journalism really has opened up folks' eyes to bias in reporting. Having one or two main-stream news sources really opens up the possibility for bias becoming truth. This is not what I see happening. Instead what happens is people see news they disagree with and deem it biased. So they find a news outlet that they agree with and decide that’s the real news.

So here's the dilemma I'm faced with. As someone who wishes to consume news that is as factual as reasonably possible, while also being aware that at least some bias is inevitable (no matter how well-intentioned the author may be)... how does one evaluate a news source for its trustworthiness, short of physically observing an event for yourself?

I found this book a good education in critical thinking skills when consuming news sources:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/How-Make-World-Add-Up/dp/1408712245

Video link and summary of some of the books points can be found at:

https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/risj-review/keep-...

Re: Record Breaking Number of Journalists Arrested in the U.S. This Year

#513

Post by smaryjerry »

giantrobot wrote: post #380
jimmygrapes wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Others have given great responses, but one thing not emphasized enough is recognizing the type of language used. It failed for various reasons, but The Knife used to do a textual analysis of articles and point out the manipulative language used. A quick example off the top of my head is recent reporting on the US election (all paraphrased, but I bet you can find real examples easily): "... baseless claims" "... witho…

Except those aren't example of manipulative language as they're factual descriptions of the claims. If I say the sky is made of honey without any evidence to back my claim and you report on my statement describing it as having no evidence, you've done nothing wrong. Your description of my statement is not using superfluous adjectives. Anyone making a claim of fact needs to be prepared to back it up. Far too many peop…

The real world doesn’t work like that and facts and opinions are almost always a mixed bucket. What you consider evidence or fact is not what someone else does. Implicitly there is a possibility any claim is wrong with a normal title, but some titles and articles bias the user. If you titled an article “Giantrobot claims those aren’t examples of manipulative language” that’s fine but if the same article was titled “Without evidence, giantrobot claims those aren’t examples of manipulative language” then that is bias. Because your level of what constitutes fact, opinion, and evidence is different from everyone else’s. Another example: What is evidence someone was in a specific room at a specific time? Someone seeing someone come out of it? Seeing someone with an item that came from the room? Someone else saw someone come out? Or do you yourself need to physically see it? There are just so many levels. In your example of the sky made of honey, don’t you think without evidence isn’t needed at all to let someone understand the facts. Isn’t allowing the claim to speak for itself do the same job.

Re: Record Breaking Number of Journalists Arrested in the U.S. This Year

#514

Post by tines »

skrtskrt wrote: post #107
tines wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How’s that? Seems like it’s just saying “we’re not going to treat you like a journalist if you don’t claim to be one, and you can’t claim to be one without having done any work before.”

They arrest everyone then later can say oh oopsie journalist we let him go. It's still an obvious authoritatian intimidation tactic and information suppression tactic to be throwing these people in jail and letting them wait sometimes days for the situation to get sorted out.

But that has nothing to do with it being a circular definition.

Re: Record Breaking Number of Journalists Arrested in the U.S. This Year

#515

Post by tines »

nickff wrote: post #101
tines wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How’s that? Seems like it’s just saying “we’re not going to treat you like a journalist if you don’t claim to be one, and you can’t claim to be one without having done any work before.”

> "this site will only cover individuals who self-identify as journalists and have some track record of journalistic work" They're saying that they use journalistic work as a standard of who's a journalist... that's circular.

Not at all. That's like saying that "a boxer is someone who does boxing" is circular. It's only circular if you define boxing as "that which is done by a boxer", instead of "striking an opponent with such-and-such ruleset, this equipment, etc. in an event sanctioned by such-and-such organization."

Re: Record Breaking Number of Journalists Arrested in the U.S. This Year

#516

Post by tines »

chrisseaton wrote: post #181
Bjartr wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where "journalistic work" means "has published an article or video that at least purports to be reporting facts, or something equivalent to that". If you claim to be a journalist, but can't point to something you've published, then you're not included. If you claim to be a journalist, and can go "here's three articles I published in a local newspaper (for example)", then you're included.

So how can you be a journalist in order to write your first articles if you're not allowed to be a journalist until you've written your first articles?

> be a journalist in order to write your first articles

Says who? Writing an article is what makes you a journalist. You don't need to be a journalist to write.

This whole "the definition is circular" argument is bizarre, it's like something from Zeno trying to prove that movement is impossible because first you have to move. "So how can you be a mover in order to make your first movements if you're not allowed to be a mover until you've made your first movements?"

Re: Record Breaking Number of Journalists Arrested in the U.S. This Year

#517

Post by tines »

chrisseaton wrote: post #134
tines wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How’s that? Seems like it’s just saying “we’re not going to treat you like a journalist if you don’t claim to be one, and you can’t claim to be one without having done any work before.”

If someone asks you for a definition of 'rabbit' and you tell them it's 'something that is rabbity' then they're going to ask you what is 'rabbity'... and likely you'd reply 'it's like a rabbit'. Goes in a circle, see? A journalist is someone who does journalistic things. What are journalistic things? Well they're things a journalist does.

No one defines journalism as "what a journalist does," so there is no cycle.

If you ask Google to define "journalism," you get, "the activity or profession of writing for newspapers, magazines, or news websites or preparing news to be broadcast." See, no use of the word "journalist" in that definition, so no circle.

Re: Record Breaking Number of Journalists Arrested in the U.S. This Year

#518

Post by dagav »

wnevets wrote: post #308
dagav wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's just what people who belong to a team think. It's actually possible to think for yourself

everyone loves to believe they think for their self, especially those who belong to teams and it is everyone else who are sheep(le).

Well if you question your beliefs then you can arrive at your first principles, and then you can start questioning things people tell you by ensuring that you understand them as derived from your first principles. That's called thinking for yourself and one benefit of doing so is that when other people tell me I'm not thinking for myself, I know that they're wrong because I know that I have direct access to the truth. People who don't think for themselves rely on others for access to the truth.

Re: Record Breaking Number of Journalists Arrested in the U.S. This Year

#519

Post by suifbwish »

the_only_law wrote: post #362
suifbwish wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty simple. Most of us have jobs, follow the law and do not recommend others break it either.

Except when it comes to things that directly benefit them ofc (i.e piracy)

Honestly piracy is something that most people with jobs don’t have time for. Keeping up with where to get what is a chore. Netflix and Spotify do it for me thanks

Re: Record Breaking Number of Journalists Arrested in the U.S. This Year

#520

Post by jjeaff »

lawnchair_larry wrote: post #441
jjeaff wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I took it to mean that the "cop's boys club" is racist, not all cops. But if you want to see real world examples of racism in policing, talk to a handful of Black men and ask about their experiences dealing with the cops. You will very likely hear many stories that you have never heard of happening to white people. And the individual cops don't have to be racist for the -system- of policing to be racist.

That’s backwards. The “system” quite obviously has no racial element. It’s possible (but uncommon) for racist individuals to get jobs as officers, but absolutely nothing about “the system” itself is racist.

Of course systems can have a racial element. How could a system that originated to catch runaway slaves -not- have a racial element?

Because systems are designed by individuals. If you put a bunch of not-racist police officers patrolling the Black part of town all day, guess what? They are going to arrest more Black people than white people even if white people are committing just as many crimes.

If your system has "stop and frisk" laws, then you are going to be stopping and frisking people who are walking and ignoring most everyone else that drives or takes a taxi (i.e. people with money and white, on average).

If your system rewards citations and arrests, then cops are going to tend towards neighborhoods where they can find more people out and about, i.e. urban centers, where people of color live and population is more dense. You aren't going to get many citations in the white suburbs where everyone gets in their cars to go anywhere and the population is all spread out.

Post reply on HN