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

91–100 of 195 posts

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

#91

Post by galkk »

I often hear that journalists are living in a bubble, but this article has many examples of obnoxious arrogance.

quote from opening:

> we should also recognize this for what it is: one more glaring data point showing that powerful people no longer think they need the mainstream press, especially critical and ethical outlets like the Washington Post.

quote from closing:

> 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. If the Post and all the other respectable media outlets lose their ability to do that, powerful people will, by extension, stop caring what the well-informed segment of the public thinks.

--------

Listen, we are used that we are IMPORTANT, that we must be listened to.

Given that the media in US is as divided as the politics, I'm happy that press loses their ability to control the narrative. As of today we clearly see (just look at recent frontpage discussions about Slate Star Codex, Jetbrains or a bit older Supermicro) that for rare gems there's too much activism, propaganda and hit pieces.

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

#92

Post by im3w1l »

analog31 wrote: post #60
nexthash wrote: post #57

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? 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…

I don't think there is a war on truth. What we are seeing is fundamentally economic. If you can't make money reporting, only activists pushing an agenda will remain. This leads to a justified decline in trust.

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

#93

Post by rayiner »

qwantim1 wrote: post #28
ahepp wrote: post #16

>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. It's interesting that they seem to consider themselves the only ones with pure hearts. I'm no…

The scary part of journalism is when it’s about activism vs. the truth. Activists can lie if the truth isn’t important. Lying for ratings, though, is also very bad. Activists lying for both activist causes and ratings is extremely bad.

Activists, at the very least, exaggerate wildly. I’m a huge fan of and regular donor to the ACLU. But I had to stop reading their newsletter because Anthony Romano (or whoever writes these newsletter updates in his name) has a loose relationship with the truth. I would read about some criminal case they were involved in, and work up the intended frothy outrage. Then I’d read the Wikipedia article on it, and find out that they’d left out hugely important facts and mischaracterized the whole story. There was one about a teenager who had gotten together with a gang of his friends and murdered a pizza delivery driver in broad daylight in front of his family. The newsletter completely left that part out, making it seem like he was simply present when his friends had unexpectedly done something. Now there was a real legal issue buried in there. The folks on the legal side are top notch—and it’s entirely right and proper to get a bad person off on a technicality to defend an important legal principle. But the ACLU PR team would just fluff up the underlying story to make the party involved seem sympathetic as well.

I can stomach this and just not read the newsletter when it comes to activist organizations. They’re in the business of leveraging outrage to further good causes. The blurring of lines between activism and journalism, however, is a total disaster. When the media whitewashes issues to further some perceived good cause, all it does is light their credibility on fire.

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

#94

Post by rHiBWMawzT »

rayiner wrote: post #85
nexthash wrote: post #57

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…

I am also afraid that the legal profession is too political and that it defeats its own purpose. Is it possible to be so disliked by people that you can't get legal representation? Could law schools stop admitting people along political lines to prevent lawyers they disagree with from existing? I believe both of those are true now and that is very bad.

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

#95

Post by rubicon33 »

nexthash wrote: post #57

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…

> quasi-independent institution holding other powerful institutions and individuals in society in check

The sentiment among an ever growing body of people is that "independant" his has never been less true.

Big media has probably always been heavily biased but had some modicum of professionalism that helped maintain a perception of objectivity. In recent years it feels like they have crossed that line and lost the trust of the people.

An interesting question to ask is WHY has big media been more and more willing to cross that line? I think it comes down to money. Big media's bottom line has been pulled away from them over the last 10 years and so they're getting desperate; More willing than ever before to lean into click bait partisan stories that rile people up.

Shame on them.

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

#96

Post by rayiner »

hesarenu wrote: post #56
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…

Interesting, what does he think of Winston Churchill. As an Indian we are not fond of that guy.

Read the history of World War II sometime, particularly how long Britain held off Nazi Germany by itself between when France fell and when the US entered the war. As a Bangladeshi I’d put a few caveats on his bio, but I’m pretty happy not to be speaking German. (Likewise, I’m not thrilled Nixon armed Pakistan during the Cold War—weapons which were used by Pakistan to gun down Bangladeshis. At the same time, I’m willing to give some slack to the US for what it felt it had to do to win the Cold War. Had it not won, the sub-continent would be Soviet vassal states today. Geopolitics is tough.)

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

#97

Post by rHiBWMawzT »

nexthash wrote: post #57

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…

> arbiter of truth

They're really not though, that's part of their marketing. It seems like there is a long history of news media being used to push agendas, being arrogant, and running politically motivated smear campaigns.

They might occasionally tell the news without opinion but that seems like an added benefit, not their main goal.

What we have now is competition. The replacement for the mainstream media will just be more media and like always, people will have to determine for themselves if something is accurate. It's weird to think you believe our government, our lives, are so fragile that without mainstream media we degenerate into fools led by a strongman.

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

#98

Post by [deleted] »

rHiBWMawzT wrote: post #94
rayiner wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I am also afraid that the legal profession is too political and that it defeats its own purpose. Is it possible to be so disliked by people that you can't get legal representation? Could law schools stop admitting people along political lines to prevent lawyers they disagree with from existing? I believe both of those are true now and that is very bad.

[deleted]

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

#99

Post by rayiner »

rHiBWMawzT wrote: post #94
rayiner wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I am also afraid that the legal profession is too political and that it defeats its own purpose. Is it possible to be so disliked by people that you can't get legal representation? Could law schools stop admitting people along political lines to prevent lawyers they disagree with from existing? I believe both of those are true now and that is very bad.

Lots of large firms (one which has long represented Philip Morris) aligned themselves with the Resistance from the outset. This was long before the election fraud stuff.

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

#100

Post by rHiBWMawzT »

rayiner wrote: post #99
rHiBWMawzT wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am also afraid that the legal profession is too political and that it defeats its own purpose. Is it possible to be so disliked by people that you can't get legal representation? Could law schools stop admitting people along political lines to prevent lawyers they disagree with from existing? I believe both of those are true now and that is very bad.

Lots of large firms (one which has long represented Philip Morris) aligned themselves with the Resistance from the outset. This was long before the election fraud stuff.

Do you mean the Resistance to Donald Trump or is that a reference to something else?

It's their right to do that I guess, but I personally believe strongly in the Constitutional rights we have even if it is unpopular or kitschy to say that. I thought lawyers were people who believed strongly in fighting for their clients' civil rights even if they despise their clients because they think the rights matter. Without them we aren't a democracy.

Dershowitz defending the rights of Nazis to have free speech is a great example of that but I guess that kind of thinking is obsolete now. At least lawyers should stop saying they care about civil rights or democracy in that case.

Post reply on HN