Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Jim Lehrer’s Rules of Journalism

kottke.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 168 posts

Re: Jim Lehrer’s Rules of Journalism

#111

Post by elfexec »

mc32 wrote: post #21
kristianc wrote: post #6

Many journalists seem to have discovered that becoming noisy, performative blue tick ‘personas’, acting out journalism on Twitter, and saying things like ‘this, literally this’ a lot as a substitute for actual analysis is also good for their careers. They act out this status-dance of pretending to loathe every second of life in the toxic digital hellscape that, in the talk tracks and visibility it gives them is actua…

The problem is that on Twitter they’ve become more like activists rather than journalists/reporters. Maybe one day actual journalists will come to the conclusion that tweeting is antithetical to journalism and may only use it as a tool of discovery rather than engagement.

> The problem is that on Twitter they’ve become more like activists rather than journalists/reporters.

They've always been activists. Twitter just makes it visible to the public while in the past, their biases were shielded behind the fake PR-driven reputation of an institution.

The first newspapers in america were created to lie and spread political ideology. And that has been the case ever since.

"As for what is not true you will always find abundance in the newspapers." – Thomas Jefferson

"Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle." – Thomas Jefferson

I wish everyone was taught about the history of the news industry. Also, I wish every media company was forced to notify/warn their audience on who founded the company and why. Like how cigarette and tobacco companies have to put warning labels to notify their customers of the dangers of the product they are selling.

Re: Jim Lehrer’s Rules of Journalism

#112

Post by coldtea »

bilbo0s wrote: post #57
coldtea wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Truth" being dependent on point of view Some truths do. A lot of truths don't depend on point of view. Whether something is right or wrong, benefit or detriment etc does depend on point of view. But lots of truths just depend on what's reported matching what is the case. E.g. "whether X did Y (e.g. whether John punched Jack)" is not based on opinion. There's a universal truth there, either John did or he didn't. S…

> "whether X did Y (e.g. whether John punched Jack)" is not based on opinion. There's a universal truth there, either John did or he didn't I'm pretty sure you just conflated "truth" with fact. John punching Jack. Or John not punching Jack. Is one of the facts of the situation. At least, police and criminal courts would call it one of the facts. They certainly wouldn't call it one of the "truths".

There's no real dichotomy, it's precisely a reporting of a fact which can be either true or false -- either a direct reporting of a fact can be that, or a guess on what the facts are (speculation).

An opinion in the sense of a value judgement (moral statements, political statements, etc) can't be true or false. One can agree with it or not. At worst it can be inconsistent with its premises (wrongly arrived).

Re: Jim Lehrer’s Rules of Journalism

#113

Post by coldtea »

bilbo0s wrote: post #79
wcarey wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fascinatingly, a verdict means “a speaking of the truth”. Courts at least, consider the aim of the jury to speak the truth. So whether John did punch Jack would be an element of the truth of the matter being adjudicated.

Facts and beliefs are elements of truth. That doesn't make fact equivalent to truth, any more than it makes belief equivalent to truth. (Or, indeed, anymore than it makes belief equivalent to fact.) Juries often issue “a speaking of the truth” inconsistent with fact. (Even inconsistent with facts as presented.) That's what the Innocence Project is all about, they exist precisely because of the difference between thes…

>Juries often issue “a speaking of the truth” inconsistent with fact.

That's because they're doing speculation on facts - and can get them wrong.

That they call it "a speaking of the truth" doesn't means it's epistemologically true or that they think it is true and only true with no element of error (any judge will admit to that).

It just conveys their wish and effort for it to be true. Calling a verdict merely: "What we think is true" doesn't have the same ring to it, nor would be as respected by the public as the word of the law. So there's that.

But a verdict, at least the part that is based on a statement of facts (X killed Y), is absolutely either true or false (regardless of whatever we know it or not to be such -- only one set of events transpired in the real world, either X killed Y or he didn't).

Whether e.g. some moral judgement is neither true nor false - it depends on a system of beliefs and viewpoints, regardless of what somebody did in the world.

E.g. "you are a sinner because you wear a mini-skirt". Well, for those who don't believe in such a moral, no, you're not.

Re: Jim Lehrer’s Rules of Journalism

#114

Post by einpoklum »

Knulp wrote: post #82

I feel like the conversation is lacking a journalist point of view so I'm going to pitch in :) I usually don't say anything in this kind of debate (especially on Twitter ;) ) because it's pretty useless, but I love reading the community here and it's the first time that a debate disppoints me. I feel like it's one sided and completly lacking the usual counter-argument and debate. Also, bear with me if I make english…

> if your boss asks you to do something completely stupid, you can either say no, lose that job... Or you roll with it

You can, and should, unionize. And then you can say no and keep your job.

The fact that you see the employment-at-will mentality as legitimate is a failing of professional journalistic ethos IMHO.

Re: Jim Lehrer’s Rules of Journalism

#115

Post by bsder »

djinnandtonic wrote: post #52

13. Acknowledge that objectivity may be impossible but fairness never is. The worst problem with journalism today, encapsulated in a single sentence.

Personally, I think a bigger journalistic sin is:

> Assume there is at least one other side or version to every story.

A journalist should check whether there is another side that they missed. However, there sometimes isn't. Sometimes the other side is simply flat-out wrong. More often, the "other side" is maliciously wrong.

This journalistic assumption that there are always multiple sides that are on equal footing needs to DIE.

Re: Jim Lehrer’s Rules of Journalism

#116

Post by [deleted] »

buboard wrote: post #104
40acres wrote: post #92

For me, Twitter has been the worst thing to happen to journalism. There are a lot of downsides to strong institutions and gatekeeping, but when it comes to journalism I always felt like I was reading The New York Times or The Washington Post and not an individual reporter. The shroud of not getting an up close an personal look put the institution at the forefront. With social media, Twitter specifically, the journali…

> unfortunately the biases comes out as we are all human Can you point to an example of any recent article in any US paper that even tries to be objective? Only the BBC pretends to strive for that nowadays.

[deleted]

Re: Jim Lehrer’s Rules of Journalism

#117

Post by teflodollar »

bsder wrote: post #115
djinnandtonic wrote: post #52

13. Acknowledge that objectivity may be impossible but fairness never is. The worst problem with journalism today, encapsulated in a single sentence.

Personally, I think a bigger journalistic sin is: > Assume there is at least one other side or version to every story. A journalist should check whether there is another side that they missed. However, there sometimes isn't. Sometimes the other side is simply flat-out wrong. More often, the "other side" is maliciously wrong. This journalistic assumption that there are always multiple sides that are on equal footing n…

But stories do have multiple sides, even if one side is flat out wrong.

I don't think anyone on the right or left would say that the present problem with Journalists is that they present both sides too well.

That's not to say that there's never a correct position. Assuming there is another version is different from assuming all versions are on multiple footing.

Re: Jim Lehrer’s Rules of Journalism

#118

Post by ddsea »

buboard wrote: post #104
40acres wrote: post #92

For me, Twitter has been the worst thing to happen to journalism. There are a lot of downsides to strong institutions and gatekeeping, but when it comes to journalism I always felt like I was reading The New York Times or The Washington Post and not an individual reporter. The shroud of not getting an up close an personal look put the institution at the forefront. With social media, Twitter specifically, the journali…

> unfortunately the biases comes out as we are all human Can you point to an example of any recent article in any US paper that even tries to be objective? Only the BBC pretends to strive for that nowadays.

Some will disagree with such a glorious assessment of BBC. Often they don't even pretend.

[1](https://bbcwatch.org/)

[2](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_BBC)

Re: Jim Lehrer’s Rules of Journalism

#119

Post by kevingadd »

einpoklum wrote: post #114
Knulp wrote: post #82

I feel like the conversation is lacking a journalist point of view so I'm going to pitch in :) I usually don't say anything in this kind of debate (especially on Twitter ;) ) because it's pretty useless, but I love reading the community here and it's the first time that a debate disppoints me. I feel like it's one sided and completly lacking the usual counter-argument and debate. Also, bear with me if I make english…

> if your boss asks you to do something completely stupid, you can either say no, lose that job... Or you roll with it You can, and should, unionize. And then you can say no and keep your job. The fact that you see the employment-at-will mentality as legitimate is a failing of professional journalistic ethos IMHO.

Unionization is not an absolute defense. Modern internet-era newsrooms have been unionizing recently and in at least a couple recent cases the response to unionization has been a large-scale gutting of the newsroom in order to replace them with non-union labor. Gizmodo, Gawker Media and VICE's news wings have all unionized recently as far as I know and that has not stopped ownership from making questionable decisions.

Of course, labor law violations theoretically are punished by regulators, but that doesn't happen quickly - if at all - and in the meanwhile you have no job.

Post reply on HN