21–30 of 67 posts
> the takeaway for journalists here is clear: be skeptical of your sources, triple-check your facts, and don’t ever assume that your colleagues are doing the same. That should be the first thing they teach you in Journalism 101, these days. I get sick of reading news stories that are all the same AP story, with different ads around it.
>On August 14, at around 11 pm, a homeless man was crossing a street in San Francisco’s South of Market neighborhood when he was hit by a bus. Why does it matter if the man was homeless? "a duplex-owning man was crossing a street" would sound silly so why does the man's lack of home need to be mentioned?
[flagged]
So do many large corporations
> not driving benefits for the working class while crushing businesses
This also describes a number of monopolistic companies
> It is a travesty that the Biden administration is encouraging their proliferation
The Biden administration also promotes business interests at home and abroad.
Did they _really_ need to call out that the man (victim) was homeless? Is that a significant identifier important to the story?
If you have lived in SF, you understand the context this adds to the situation.
>On August 14, at around 11 pm, a homeless man was crossing a street in San Francisco’s South of Market neighborhood when he was hit by a bus. Why does it matter if the man was homeless? "a duplex-owning man was crossing a street" would sound silly so why does the man's lack of home need to be mentioned?
I think the additional context is fine. It's only an issue if you're sensitive to the word "homeless" and see the description as demeaning. Otherwise, it's additional.
Why didn't they add his hair color, since it's additional? At least they told us his gender...so that's also additional. What about his political views? It's nitpicking minor details, but that's often the problem with marginalized groups. It's subtly reinforced.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you have lived in SF, you understand the context this adds to the situation.
Then couldn’t there be more detail that would allow those of us who haven’t lived in SF to understand it too?
(Which is a bit sarcastic, perhaps, but people generally value the homeless less on various axis, whether they want to admit it or not, because when you hear "bad thing happened to man" you immediately want to know if that man could have been you, once you learn he was homeless the panic reaction subsides.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s not journalism anymore, it’s visits to your ad riddled pages. Regardless of what truth you post. That’s what it’s become now. That’s web journalism. “I heard it on TikTok” is next. There are a few institutions trying to keep it dignified but it’s become a bazaar.
>It’s not journalism anymore, The "anymore" there means something changed. I don't think there was ever a time in which journalists did not regularly print statements from officials like police and firefighters as fact not worthy of questioning. Sometimes we get into a mindset that everything is getting worse when in reality it is just that we are now more aware of how bad it has always been.
"Someone on Twitter said X"
Which is next to useless, you can find someone saying anything on Twitter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the additional context is fine. It's only an issue if you're sensitive to the word "homeless" and see the description as demeaning. Otherwise, it's additional.
> Otherwise, it's additional. Why didn't they add his hair color, since it's additional? At least they told us his gender...so that's also additional. What about his political views? It's nitpicking minor details, but that's often the problem with marginalized groups. It's subtly reinforced.