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

Journalism, particularly at the highest level, is about raw power

cjr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 195 posts

Re: Journalism, particularly at the highest level, is about raw power

#41

Post by the_local_host »

young_unixer wrote: post #29

> As journalists, we all view this as a horrifying assault on the public’s right to know, and on our own status as brave defenders of the public good. And that is all true, for what it’s worth. But this is about power. We need to take some back, lest the rich and powerful run away from one of the last forces restraining them. I don't want the same arrogant, self-unaware journalist that pushes pernicious narratives to…

> As journalists, we all view this as a horrifying assault on the public’s right to know, and on our own status as brave defenders of the public good. And that is all true, for what it’s worth.

The author really should have left this perspective out of the essay; it's vain and distracts from the valid larger point.

If powerful people can "no comment" the Washington Post and other significant outlets because the media can no longer extract a penalty for doing so, then they only really have to worry about crossing each other. The public interest is likely to suffer as this trend continues.

(edited for clarity)

Re: Journalism, particularly at the highest level, is about raw power

#42

Post by RcouF1uZ4gsC »

> We need to take some back, lest the rich and powerful run away from one of the last forces restraining them.

What this neglects is that journalism is many times in bed literally and figuratively with the rich and powerful. Anderson Cooper of CNN is the son of Gloria Vanderbilt one of the oldest monied families in America. While Andrew Cuomo the New York governor, was doing policies that resulted in high number of elderly nursing home deaths, CNN was showing segments with him chumming with his brother CNN anchor Chris Cuomo telling each other how they loved their brother. Andrea Mitchel of NBC is married to Alan Greenspan, former head of the Federal Reserve.

Many of the high level journalists are family members of the "rich and powerful". Many of them went to the same Ivy League schools. Many times, they live in the same neighborhoods and send their kids to the same private schools.

If you expect the mainstream media or journalism to hold the rich and powerful in check, you will be just like a medieval peasant, expecting the bishops and cardinals of the Church, to hold the nobles and kings(who were often the older brothers, fathers, or uncles of these same bishops and cardinals) in check.

Re: Journalism, particularly at the highest level, is about raw power

#43

Post by sillysaurusx »

young_unixer wrote: post #29

> As journalists, we all view this as a horrifying assault on the public’s right to know, and on our own status as brave defenders of the public good. And that is all true, for what it’s worth. But this is about power. We need to take some back, lest the rich and powerful run away from one of the last forces restraining them. I don't want the same arrogant, self-unaware journalist that pushes pernicious narratives to…

Hehe. I try not to jump on bandwagons and leave empty comments that say "this," but, c'mon. The NYT just did our Slate Star buddy dirty, and now they're saying they need more power. Yeah, your perspective is ... quite valid.

Re: Journalism, particularly at the highest level, is about raw power

#44

Post by ardy42 »

undefined1 wrote: post #2

"All I know is that there is only one way the press maintains its power in society: by metaphorically putting the heads of powerful people on pikes." this is what just happened with Scott Alexander. they tried to put his head on a pike, because he's a high value node in the tech community that's eroding the power of the legacy press.

> this is what just happened with Scott Alexander. they tried to put his head on a pike, because he's a high value node in the tech community that's eroding the power of the legacy press.

Put his head on a pike? They? Come on now.

It will be interesting to see what will happens with this. Ever since the Scott Alexander NYT story, there's been a parade of old media criticism articles getting dredged up and making it to the front page, as well as a lot of broad-brush "I'm done with journalism, those fuckers" sentiment. It frankly sounds a lot like conservatives who are mad that the media wrote so many negative stories about Trump, and think it should have focused instead on positively covering stuff like the Trump administration's self-authored list of great accomplishments. Some people don't want journalism, they just want myside PR.

I mean, the media's not perfect; but it's pretty unreasonable to get mad when your favorite band new album gets a bad review or a newspaper writes articles that fail to abide by the commenting norms of your favorite online message board.

Re: Journalism, particularly at the highest level, is about raw power

#45

Post by slibhb »

Barrin92 wrote: post #14
phkahler wrote: post #6

>> They felt that way because papers like the Post could offer the carrot of great exposure to those who needed it, but also, always, the stick of negative coverage to those who spurned them. There is nothing devious or ignoble about this; a powerful press, for all its flaws, is good for democracy No, doing hit pieces on anyone is a flagrant exercise of power that deserves no respect and destroys the credibility of t…

I'd suggest to read Hunter S. Thompson's obituary on Nixon https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1994/07/he-was-... "It was all gibberish, of course. Nixon was no more a Saint than he was a Great President. He was more like Sammy Glick than Winston Churchill. He was a cheap crook and a merciless war criminal who bombed more people to death in Laos and Cambodia than the U.S. Army lost in all of World War II, an…

I love that obit because it's so funny. But to take it seriously? To look for guidance there, from Hunter S. Thompson? Bad idea.

> Facts you can find on Wikipedia or in the phone book

This is the problem. For the most part, journalists are using the same facts everyone has access to (from wikipedia, google searches, or...twitter). So why do we need journalists? To tell us what to think about the facts?

To the extent that journalists are doing that, we no longer need them. There's a place for journalism, but it involves uncovering new facts, not telling us what to think about publicly available information.

Also, badgers don't actually fight best on their backs.

Re: Journalism, particularly at the highest level, is about raw power

#46

Post by stubish »

nickysielicki wrote: post #15
bcherny wrote: post #9

This piece makes the case that the only way traditional media can hold powerful people accountable is by being the arbiters of their distribution, by controlling who gets published and how their story is told. The way things used to be before the internet. It’s a good thing this is not the case anymore. Big media is essential for democracy, but controlling distribution is not democratic. Big media has two options now…

Big media is essential for democracy? Democracy literally predates the printing press.

Before the printing press, you constructed your own media by hiring people to proclaim your message. "Criers" of various sorts predate democracy.

Re: Journalism, particularly at the highest level, is about raw power

#47

Post by mushbino »

young_unixer wrote: post #29

> As journalists, we all view this as a horrifying assault on the public’s right to know, and on our own status as brave defenders of the public good. And that is all true, for what it’s worth. But this is about power. We need to take some back, lest the rich and powerful run away from one of the last forces restraining them. I don't want the same arrogant, self-unaware journalist that pushes pernicious narratives to…

CJR just recently did a hitpiece on another journalist that was filled with provable lies. Once shown irrefutable evidence that they got many of the facts wrong they refuse to do a retraction.

I would love to see real truth to power journalism again but these folks need to look in the mirror.

Re: Journalism, particularly at the highest level, is about raw power

#48

Post by dragonwriter »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #37
Barrin92 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd suggest to read Hunter S. Thompson's obituary on Nixon https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1994/07/he-was-... "It was all gibberish, of course. Nixon was no more a Saint than he was a Great President. He was more like Sammy Glick than Winston Churchill. He was a cheap crook and a merciless war criminal who bombed more people to death in Laos and Cambodia than the U.S. Army lost in all of World War II, an…

Here's Matt Taibbi's writings on White Fragility : https://taibbi.substack.com/p/on-white-fragility It's plenty opinionated. But it's interesting because Matt Taibbi is not a Republican, in the same way that Reason (not Democrats) is interesting when it criticizes Republican ideas. CNN saying anything about Trump or Fox News saying anything about Biden is by comparison of insignificant (if not negative) value, becaus…

> It's very opinionated. But it's interesting because Matt Taibbi is not a Republican, in the same way that Reason (not Democrats) is interesting when it criticizes Republicans.

Well, except Reason is a platform with a right-libertarian that is generally supportive of similar things to the Republican Party and favorable to Republicans, whereas Taibbi, however leftist his editorial position might be, is generally not aligned with Democratic policies or politicians and spends disproportionate time targeting them, often presenting the exact same arguments are are being used by the Right on the exact same issues, but with a few negative references to “Corporate America” or some Republican (usually, Donald Trump) to mark it as a Genuine Left-Wing Critique. It's not at all a parallel scenario.

Re: Journalism, particularly at the highest level, is about raw power

#49

Post by bArray »

> [..] mainstream press still needs powerful people—quite literally, in the case of the Post, as it’s owned by the world’s richest man, Jeff Bezos, who is no fonder of difficult stories about his companies than any other billionaire.

There's your first problem. MSM got into bed with the people they are supposed to report on. In the recent case of the GME stocks story, the MSM literally reported fake news about WallStreetBets (WSB) pushing silver. This story didn't come from Reddit, it can only have come from sources close to the hedge funds, and then it was uncritically pushed out across the board.

The MSM often work closely with political parties, specifically the Democrat party. The recent Time article on the so called 'shadow campaign' was written by the author (Molly Ball) of Pelosi's 2020 biography. That job was not just given to anybody, she was heavily vetted. These people all run in the same circles. How on earth could you ever trust Molly to report unbiased on Trump or the Republican party? How could ever trust her to report critically on Nancy Pelosi or the Democrat party? She's not going to bite the hand that feeds her.

> When Elon Musk can say whatever he wants to forty million Twitter followers at any time with no filter, it is little surprise that he does not feel compelled to listen to unpleasant questions from some reporter who wants to know why he busts unions and wildly accuses people of pedophilia.

They do realize that journalism still happened before Twitter? It just actually required hard work, instead of spending time on Twitter all day watching hash tags. It was called 'investigative journalism'. There is absolutely nothing stopping them from doing this again.

I also suggest that every other company shutdown their social media accounts immediately. You cannot make a political statement without alienating some of your customers, no matter what the subject. Most high-profile interactions will likely be very negative. Few people logging into Twitter to say "thank you, it worked exactly as it should, for the n'th time in a row". There was a time when customer service was dealt with privately, rather than having all of your mistakes aired publicly. Currently, the only way possible to get issues resolved regarding Youtube for example is to publicly shame them on Twitter - _this_ is the system they have actively encouraged.

> Donald Trump, unfortunately, looms large in this. His imperviousness to the usual blows from the press was evident five years ago.

The damage to your publications were done long ago, you just only realized it then. You can't convince Republicans that Trump is bad, if no Republicans consume your media. They have switched to alternatives and you need to figure out why.

Post reply on HN