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

181–190 of 195 posts

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

#181

Post by dang »

apmcduck wrote: post #154
rayiner wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The ACLU went off the deep end sometime in the last 20 years.

Ok, but can you please stop posting unsubstantive comments, and please not use HN primarily for political battle? We're trying to avoid those things here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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

#182

Post by dang »

phjesusthatguy3 wrote: post #151
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…

It's interesting that you read that article and came up with the idea that they seem to consider themselves the only ones with pure hearts. I'm not sure why I should assume some random HNer -- who can read that article and come up with the phrase "they seem to consider themselves the only ones with pure hearts" when that wasn't what I read at all -- has any sort of reading comprehension. If anything, TFA is proof tha…

Please don't post flamewar comments to HN. It's emphatically not what this site is for.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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

#183

Post by dang »

fatsdomino001 wrote: post #162
phjesusthatguy3 wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's interesting that you read that article and came up with the idea that they seem to consider themselves the only ones with pure hearts. I'm not sure why I should assume some random HNer -- who can read that article and come up with the phrase "they seem to consider themselves the only ones with pure hearts" when that wasn't what I read at all -- has any sort of reading comprehension. If anything, TFA is proof tha…

no offense, but you come across as a dick. I mean that in a constructive way.

Personal attacks aren't allowed on HN. We ban accounts that post them, so please don't do that again.

If you'd please stop posting unsubstantive comments too, we'd be grateful. You've done that repeatedly, and we're trying for something different here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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

#184

Post by gumby »

pochamago wrote: post #172
gumby wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> more often than not nowadays the mainstream journalists ARE the rich and powerful. Really? Very few, if any. People like Tucker Carlson have wealthy contracts but they don’t even consider themselves journalists, but entertainers (in his case he’s not part of the news division, for example).

Twenty percent of NYT writers attended an Ivy League school, which seems significant to me. https://www.journalofexpertise.org/articles/volume1_issue1/J...

I do t know how many reporters you know but an Ivy League education doesn’t automatically make you rich. Especially if you become a reporter, social worked, public defender, or painter.

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

#185

Post by watwut »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #150
watwut wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I dont know what you mean by principle here. He is partizan for his tribe arguing against other tribe. And by partizan I mean strong clear partizan. There is nothing wrong with consistency, but there is also nothing interesting or special here.

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

#186

Post by fatsdomino001 »

dang wrote: post #183
fatsdomino001 wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

no offense, but you come across as a dick. I mean that in a constructive way.

Personal attacks aren't allowed on HN. We ban accounts that post them, so please don't do that again. If you'd please stop posting unsubstantive comments too, we'd be grateful. You've done that repeatedly, and we're trying for something different here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Sure, no problem. I didn't mean it as a personal attack, just helping the other poster out by bringing it to their attention.

In regards to the other unsubstantive comments, is it possible to know which ones you are referring to? I do add some comments which are short, is that what you are referring to? I know I should write longer comments to substantiate them.

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

#187

Post by CountDrewku »

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 media hasn't been an independent arbiter of truth for quite some time now and this last year has exposed it for what it was. For all Trump's faults at least his presidency showed the media's true intentions. All you need to do is look at Biden's inauguration and their fawning over it to see what who/what they support. The guy completely ignores tough questions and reporters bend down to lick his boots.

The only fix I see right now is to get information from as many sources as you can and stop listening to media outlets when you catch them lying about things. For me CNN/MSNBC are completely off the table because they're just propaganda machines.

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

#188

Post by CountDrewku »

jay_kyburz wrote: post #68
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? 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…

Publicly funded news will never be independent or truthful. You can't give tax money to the government and let them control money flow to media outlets and expect them report truthfully and honestly. That's a recipe for disaster. All you need to do is look at totalitarian governments and how they control their media. You will NEVER have a free and independent media if it's money is coming from public funding.

I have no idea why people think the answer to fixing a shitty government is handing more money over to them and hoping they'll do the appropriate thing with it when they prove the opposite time and time again.

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

#189

Post by CountDrewku »

aktenlage wrote: post #103
nl wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Or you can just put your own money towards media outlets that you think are providing more truthful content. Why would I want to give my money to someone else to decide what they feel is objective news? No thanks.

What you want is control over what other people think.

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

#190

Post by CountDrewku »

AmericanChopper wrote: post #72
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? 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.

People that want a central authority just want control over what other people think. The reality is that this problem with main stream media will fix itself as people drop it to find sources they deem more truthful. A central authority loses the ability to have checks and balances of opposing news sources and it's a terrifying idea. Disagreement is A GOOD THING. This keeps these outlets in check. Anyone asking for this needs to realize they're advocating for the real life Thought Police.
Post reply on HN