Live data from Hacker News

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

cjr.org

81–90 of 195 posts

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

#81
post #52

> 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…

Since you’re defaming Hamilton Nolan from a position of anonymity, be specific. Who did he dox? This is a total lie. And it’s the top rated comment. And you have the gall to complain about the press. dang does nothing. The community upvotes you. You hold yourself to not ONE TENTH of the standard you hold the news media you so despise. Your comments are as buggy as your industry’s infamously shitty software. You are a…

I'm sorry if my wording was unclear and prone to misinterpretation. I'm not saying that Hamilton Nolan doxxed anyone.

I'm talking about mainstream journalists in general, since that's what the article talks about: mainstream journalism, and I'm pointing out a specific example of wrongdoing in mainstream journalism (but I could name many more), and how they're really not "defenders of the public good".

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

#82

A lot of people here are arguing that mainstream media had it coming for them because of bias, arrogance, pushing an agenda, etc. But I want to ask all of you: what replaces it as arbiter of truth? For all of the media's problems and imperfections, they have acted as a quasi-independent institution holding other powerful institutions and individuals in society in check. They have focused popular attention where it wa…

>>> But I want to ask all of you: what replaces it as arbiter of truth? If "journalism" is entertainment, but nobody wants to pay for it, then it has no use and we should let it die. If it's an important resource required by our society, (so that we are not ignorant of whats going on in our neighborhood and world), then it's not entertainment, it's an essential service, and it should be publicly funded like our other…

While publicly funded news works well in some places, there is an inherent conflict of interest when the publicly funded journalists start investigating the source of their funding.

This is especially the case when a proto-strongman is attempting to consolidate power.

Publicly funded journalism cannot be the only way it works.

(I say this as a left-learning person generally supportive of public funding).

(Also, "entertainment" vs "an essential service" is a false dichotomy)

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

#83
post #79
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nixon bombed more people to death in Laos and Cambodia than the U.S. Army lost in all of World War II. Nixon connived to have Kent State students attacked and slain by the National Guard. These are both facts that can easily be reported and are more than damning enough on their own without editorializing. The editorializing actually makes the case weaker. It does a good job of riling up people who already agree with…

You've contradicted yourself in your own comment though. First - Nixon inherited a war that others started, and put in place a strategy to end it, which he did. Second - Your statement "killed more people in Laos and Cambodia than the US Army lost in WW2" is technical factual, but also kind of nonsense. It's pointless to compare civilian casualties in one war, with Army casualties in another. Eisenhower definitely ki…

Fair point, and good journalism is hard. It takes a lot of knowledge and skill to put things into the appropriate context. As much as I like Hunter S Thompson's writing, I don't think the answer is to throw all that out the window and just rant about your own personal viewpoints.

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

#84

A lot of people here are arguing that mainstream media had it coming for them because of bias, arrogance, pushing an agenda, etc. But I want to ask all of you: what replaces it as arbiter of truth? For all of the media's problems and imperfections, they have acted as a quasi-independent institution holding other powerful institutions and individuals in society in check. They have focused popular attention where it wa…

> But I want to ask all of you: what replaces it as arbiter of truth? The decentralized model. Aka everybody has to think for themselves, like responsible grown ups are supposed to do. The fact that some people think a central authority of truth is necessary is terribly sad.

Don't think of popular news sources as sources of news, and instead of communication channels large numbers watch.

"decentralized" doesn't seem so different to what we have now through that lens.

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

#85

A lot of people here are arguing that mainstream media had it coming for them because of bias, arrogance, pushing an agenda, etc. But I want to ask all of you: what replaces it as arbiter of truth? For all of the media's problems and imperfections, they have acted as a quasi-independent institution holding other powerful institutions and individuals in society in check. They have focused popular attention where it wa…

I suspect the answer will be that nothing will replace it, at least for awhile, and that will cause society a great deal of pain in the short term. That there is a lesson in it doesn’t make it easier to stomach, but people should at least get the lesson out of it.

Media isn’t alone here, though they are the cannery in the coal mine. In the legal field, there has been growing pressure to harass and blacklist attorneys who represented Trump and his associates (beyond the ordinary universally applicable ethical rules for making misrepresentations in court or filing frivolous suits). Now the legal profession has a long-standing set of ethical codes, in which helping a murderer get off in a technicality is deemed virtuous. There is pressure to draw a line and say “well but Trump is different.” I’ve been watching these efforts with horror because, while attorneys don’t exactly have tons of trust and credibility, there isn’t a widespread belief that the profession is using its institutional power as a fulcrum to advance the political viewpoints of its members. The way to shred whatever credibility attorneys have is to “draw a line” and put the former President of the United States, who secured the second highest vote total in American history, on the “untouchable” side, while putting Exxon, Philip Morris, etc. on the “will happily represent so long as they pay their bills” side.

Doctors and public health professionals similarly shredded their credibility in the past year by taking nakedly political stances on protests in the middle of a pandemic.

There are professions which form the “social and political infrastructure” of our country. The political debates of the day are often played out through them—factions sue each other in court, bring to bear medical knowledge and science to support their positions, and leverage the media to cover it all. But there has to be a modicum of trust amongst the political factions that this infrastructure itself isn’t trying to stack the deck in favor of one side or the other. And I think historically there has at least been this baseline level of trust that this was true.

In reality, of course, even Walter Cronkite had his biases. And lawyers and doctors have used their professions to advance their political interests in various ways. But there was at least the pretense of objectivity, and for most people it was a sincerely held end-goal even if it was imperfectly achieved in practice. These old belief systems are being abandoned today. The media is at the forefront, but it’s happening throughout the educated professions. And I fear that we’re going down a dangerous road. If people begin to perceive the system and our institutions as being overtly tilted against them, they’ll simply lose trust. And society simply can’t work if the various political factions don’t have institutions that they all trust.

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

#86
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…

How often though, now, is journalism speaking truth and doing it "to power," which is to say those on top? I recall the journalists who decided to make an online map of all of the registered gun owners in the area. A furious strike against ... the little guy?

It might be a good idea for journalism to speak truth to power, but it must then make sure that it is truth, and that it is aiming at the powerful. Too often it has been a very slanted truth and often aligned with the interests of the real powers in the world.

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

#87

A lot of people here are arguing that mainstream media had it coming for them because of bias, arrogance, pushing an agenda, etc. But I want to ask all of you: what replaces it as arbiter of truth? For all of the media's problems and imperfections, they have acted as a quasi-independent institution holding other powerful institutions and individuals in society in check. They have focused popular attention where it wa…

They have already been replaced in fact and popularity and slowly they will be in form and power. Social media, with more fine grained approach to information is better for anyone who knows what to look for, but the problem remains the same the biggest platforms are concentrated power and power is always used against truth.

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

#88
post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But I want to ask all of you: what replaces it as arbiter of truth? The decentralized model. Aka everybody has to think for themselves, like responsible grown ups are supposed to do. The fact that some people think a central authority of truth is necessary is terribly sad.

Don't think of popular news sources as sources of news, and instead of communication channels large numbers watch. "decentralized" doesn't seem so different to what we have now through that lens.

It is substantially different.

The “problem” we have today is that too many different commentators, and the people who consume their commentary, are free to make their own decisions about credibility, motive, interpretations of events... Which of course leads to people disagreeing about those things.

Some people would say this is a fundamental feature of a liberal democracy. Others will look at those they disagree with, and say they are spreading misinformation, that every avenue they have for expression must be restricted, and controlled by a central authority responsible for determining what is true and what is not true.

I would say that having a free democracy, and having an arbiter of truth are mutually exclusive states. The people who see the need for a truth arbiter, and try to implement solutions for the problem of lacking one, can only ever do so at the expense of democratic freedoms.

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

#89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>> But I want to ask all of you: what replaces it as arbiter of truth? A strongman. An idea that I attribute to Imre Lakatos, is that if you strip people of the ability to debate and discern facts, you create a power vacuum that can only be filled by those who can act in the absence of debate and facts, notably thugs and tyrants. I believe this is the actual motivation behind the "war on truth" and the flood of misi…

This is my biggest fear about the media. If they don't come clean and reclaim their integrity (this goes for both left and right outlets), the public will reject them. Discourse will move to blogs, podcasts, private networks, etc. In the process, the laws and protections for journalism will be weathered and may be abolished altogether (who needs those pompous journalists, right?). Then we'll be no better than a propa…

This has already happened.

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

#90

A lot of people here are arguing that mainstream media had it coming for them because of bias, arrogance, pushing an agenda, etc. But I want to ask all of you: what replaces it as arbiter of truth? For all of the media's problems and imperfections, they have acted as a quasi-independent institution holding other powerful institutions and individuals in society in check. They have focused popular attention where it wa…

The Sinking of the USS Maine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_of_the_Spanish%E2%8...

That's over 100 years ago. We can stop pretending that the media has ever been some selfless arbiter of truth and protector of the downtrodden. There is nothing to replace it in that role because it was never in that role. It has always been a tool for one group of powerful people to spar with other groups of powerful people and the truth rarely enters into it.

Maybe in another 100 years historians will figure out what the truth was, but for us today, the truth is whatever gets the most clicks. 20 years ago it was whatever got the most people at home to tune in. 50 years ago it was whatever sold the most newspapers.

The saving grace is that for the vast majority of people it just doesn't matter. Whoever the President is, you'll still have to go to work, pay the bills, buy groceries etc. Not much about your day to day life will change.

Post reply on HN