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

101–110 of 195 posts

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

#101

Post by jariel »

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…

Trump is different.

He tried to stop the results of what was an overwhelmingly and systematically declared loss, by extra judicial measures. He had every right to try the courts but he lost there as well.

1) Making public declarations using the authority of the office of the president, which were inconsistent with the authoritative results.

Moreover, the claims he made were fabrications.

2) Pressured the DoJ to attack political opponents and the electoral process on spurious claims.

3) Pressured the VP and other members of Congress to use illegal manoeuvres to stop the electoral process.

4) Threatened members of the Georgia electoral committee with legal prosecution while directing them to 'find him votes' - which is interference in the electoral process.

5) Effectively incited a riot (I don't think he intended for them to go into the Capitol Building, but he effectively created that outcome) in which the assailants used violence to try to stop the process.

Most damming, during this time, Trump, after witnessing rioters in the Capitol Building continued to refuse to do anything about it including calling them off and calling the national guard.

I buy that he wasn't expecting a riot - but failing to defend Congress, his VP, the Capitol Building ... my god.

Those things are very real.

This is not "is using its institutional power as a fulcrum to advance the political viewpoints of its members." - I think it's not a political issue.

At the University of Toronto Law School, they are requiring all new grads to take Oaths along the lines of 'including diversity in representation' or whatever, implying that Intersectionalism must be at the core of their legal perspective. That is politics.

But stopping a man from a political coup is not about a political perspective, it's something else.

As to whether even he deserves a lawyer, well that's good question, but the problem is that the entire justice system is in question.

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

#102

Post by afiori »

jariel wrote: post #70
RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> what will replace the media as an arbiter of independent information and truth Lament of the Catholic Church during the Reformation: Who will replace the Church as the arbiter of truth. Maybe it is best that we not have people and institutions that claim to be the “arbiter of truth.” Anything that gives power to the people is messy. Democracy is messy and the elite wondered how people would be able to rule themselv…

Like the commenter above indicated, it does not work that way. 'The Press' is already a structure of independence and decentralization. Without integrity in those systems, someone will come along and dictate the Truth. 15% QAnon, 35% Trump (those willing to go along even if they don't fully agree), and then the rest are compelled when the President orders the press to communicate his words, verbatim, without criticis…

the press is both an idea and an institution, today it is not unreasonable to say that the institution is both showing signs of diverging from the idea of free press and is showing problematic signs of corruption.

this is not a debate of press vs no press, but one of good press vs bad press

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

#103

Post by aktenlage »

nl wrote: post #82
jay_kyburz wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>> 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, "ente…

The solution (albeit not a perfect one) is to make the decision on funding independent from political parties. For example, have a comittee (or jury) that is recruited randomly from the general public and decides on the plan for next year's budget.

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

#104

Post by hesarenu »

rayiner wrote: post #96
hesarenu wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 willi…

Those are if and buts. I am more interested if he wrote similar for Churchill. As they say winners write the history.

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

#105

Post by graycat »

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…

A small point: Congress, the House, and the Senate, are not courts or form a court. The Members of Congress are not necessarily lawyers. Strictly and literally, then, lawyers are not needed for the arguments when Congress does an impeachment. Again, Congress is just not a court of law. So, if an impeached person wants help in their defense, they don't have to hire lawyers.

My point: If a person helping with a defense is not a lawyer, then the legal profession can't disbar them.

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

#106

Post by bondarchuk »

MattGaiser wrote: post #50

Where does one go to just get information these days without having to get it from someone on a crusade? Local papers seem a lot better in this regard, but they don't cover national and international content.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events

Although of course Wikipedia is also not a perfect source when things are policitally controversial.

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

#107

Post by laurent92 »

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…

> what replaces it as arbiter of truth?

Why wouldn’t they tell the truth? Why do we need someone else to be arbiter of truth?

Take feminism. Why do we still hear this deceit statistic that women earn .73 cents on the dollar, without any list of the assumptions built into those very gross average? Barring that, why do journalists never put it into perspective? Barring that, why do journalists never interview counterpoints on this topic, when they would always have a feminist on panel if a man gets interviewed? Hence, what does anyone mean with “arbiter of truth”? They are not seeking truth in appearance, let alone in depth.

I understand that this is about power, but, when even a layman can study the underlying science and prove the journalists are blatantly “forgetting to say the big hypothesis that makes the statement a blatant lie”, then your question becomes:

“What can replace media as an arbiter of lies? Who would be capable of misleading more than they do?”

(For the record, media is now trusted even less than congresspeople, with less than 21% Americans trusting them)

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

#109

Post by itronitron »

motohagiography wrote: post #20

The article describes what's wrong with media, unless I've blanked on some ripping satire. What serious journalist would ever let themselves be quoted lamenting, "The subjects are winning." It's like her extravagance knows no bounds or something. The headline occurs mid article and it's a good choice. When writing is about power, its job becomes to deliver narrative in that power struggle, and that means it's no long…

It reinforces for me that journos still don't understand the dynamics and potential of the internet even twenty years later.

People are starved for information but have little interest in mainstream's news preference for packaging it up and waxing philosophic in order to provide their 'objective view' of events.

A social media platform that amplifies people's ability to vet information and that is also resistant to dishonest campaigning would provide an advantage to its participants.

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

#110

Post by rimiform »

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 think you are absolutely right. I can see the fallibility of 'Old World' media as well, but I think those who (actively) try to discredit them are playing with fire.
Post reply on HN