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

141–150 of 195 posts

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

#141

Post by [deleted] »

hesarenu wrote: post #104
rayiner wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

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

#142

Post by afiori »

AmericanChopper wrote: post #88
nl wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wi…

this is true, but on the other hand a society needs to be coherent (at least insofar as it is needed to support social interactions).

a society built on several isolated nucleuses can vary wildly, a society where we expect people a thousands kilometers away to campaign in social media for local elections needs to be more uniform not to split

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

#143

Post by gonzo41 »

Wolfenstein98k wrote: post #140

I am no longer on the journalists' sides here. They are right that "raw power" is being wrestled from them by social media. I am glad to see it, after seeing one-too-many hitjobs and too much activism all emanating from a singular and rapidly narrowing worldview.

You know how everyone rolls their eyes and are skeptical of the police policing themselves. My feelings are the same with the media. I never see the media fight, hard against themselves, like other professions. It just seems a bit to chummy inside the establishment. But Social Media is no panacea either. It's lots of people not moderating each other.

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

#144

Post by jonathanstrange »

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…

Nothing will replace the media, and it's ridiculously easy to get to the truth nowadays insofar as it is known already - very often the truth is merely a few mouse-clicks away, as opposed to the past where you had to study for hours in the National Library, interview experts and witnesses if necessary, and scan through old microfiches if past events were involved.

We're over-informed nowadays and spend too much time on news without even distinguishing properly betweens news, editorials, and infotainment.

> Now, the media is completely being driven to the sidelines.

I still see zero evidence for that. As far as I can see, there is a bunch of political zealots who for various political and personal reasons state something like the following (roughly and deliberately polemically paraphrased): "The 'mainstream' media are crooked and wrong. Everybody is mislead by them and a victim, except for me, I am a victim but also know everything better than hordes of journalists. I am reluctant to back up any of my claims, though, because my sources are mostly opinion websites and blog posts, but if I must and you pressure me, I am willing dig through the Internet to selectively chose a few random articles to back up any claim I made, no matter how unfounded it might be. I do not really know any 'non-mainstream' media that would hold up to superficial scrutiny but I'm hell-bent on insisting these exist. The reasons why I do this are psychological and irrational, I feel uneasy in a complex world and spend too much time online."

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

#145

Post by rayiner »

hesarenu wrote: post #104
rayiner wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And if Hitler had been the winner?

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

#146

Post by everdrive »

imgabe wrote: post #90
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…

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…

I don't think you're being very fair. There's no single entity that is "the media." Individual journalists and yes, publications have been at various times principled arbiters of truth. Obviously, there has been quite a bit of sensationalism and yellow journalism as well.

There is currently very well written and researched fact-based reporting. What we lack is consensus. So, the truth is out there currently. But many people don't believe, or haven't heard it. (and, not relevant to the point you're making, but I believe that many people cannot understand the truth in the first place, unless the truth happens to be a simple moral narrative. ie, "one person was bad, and another person was good.")

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

#147

Post by mellavora »

rubicon33 wrote: post #95
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 tr…

I agree with your observation about the growing sentiment of distrust, but not your causal claim.

There has been a well-organized and well funded campaign to get people to not trust. It started with the cigarette lobby realizing that they couldn't argue the science, but that science was hard to understand. So they spread doubt and confusion.

that strategy is now well known and practiced globally.

Fox News didn't just happen.

I know a few journalists, and many of them do take their professional ethics very seriously.

And yes, many of them are struggling. And watching others in their field able to make a living selling clickbait.

Who does the shame go to? The people who are tired of starving for upholding standards, or the people who starve them for upholding those standards?

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

#148

Post by coldtea »

coldtea wrote: post #133
dash2 wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The vast majority of essential services (e.g. food, housing) are not publicly funded, so the analogy doesn't really work. Also, there are obvious reasons why government-funded news might have problems, if its essential service involves investigating the government.

> The vast majority of essential services (e.g. food, housing) are not publicly funded, so the analogy doesn't really work Those aren't "services", so there's that. In many countries, however, power companies, the water company, central banks, rails, the hospital system, universities, etc, are, or were before the neoliberal attack, public.

And, of course, to the point, many have a state paid public broadcaster for news and other programs (BBC, France does, Germany iirc does, Italy, etc) - and it's not some niche channels delegated to upper middle class viewers (like, I think, NPR is, if that's indeed public).

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

#149

Post by ardy42 »

haberman wrote: post #80
ardy42 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 t…

Is there any more toxic label you can attach to a person in contemporary America than "racist?" Is there any accusation -- outside of actual crimes -- more likely to cause a person to lose opportunities, social connections, or standing in their community? I can't speak to this reporter's motivations, but if a reporter wanted to metaphorically put someone's head on a pike, I can't think of any more effective way to do…

> Is there any more toxic label you can attach to a person in contemporary America than "racist?"

The actual article did not in fact label him as racist, and I don't think you could read it that way without being sloppy.

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

#150

Post by AnthonyMouse »

watwut wrote: post #124
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Matt Taibbi's is however very consistenly against sjw/racial justice advocetes/feminists or what have you. This is not Taibbi arguing against own, it is Taibbi arguing against his long term ennemies.

> Matt Taibbi's is however very consistenly against sjw/racial justice advocetes/feminists or what have you.

Which is fine; being consistent is not a vice. They're still people in the same major tribe.

Also, people are still arguing against the example rather than the principle.

Post reply on HN