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

111–120 of 195 posts

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

#111

Post by rimiform »

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.

I don't think that idea even works in theory, let alone in practice. In lieu of making a longpost about why this doesn't seem like a good idea to me, I'm just going to defer to the story of the Tower of Babel. You could also see Lippman's 'Public Opinion' on the problem.

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

#112

Post by pelliphant »

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…

I think the solutiion is that both are needed.

corporate funded news can investigate the government, and government funded news can investigate corporations.

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

#113

Post by rimiform »

bcherny wrote: post #32
nickysielicki wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Big media is essential for democracy? Democracy literally predates the printing press.

Yeah, that’s been the thinking at least since Lippmann’s time. If you only vote on local issues, you don’t need media to inform you since you can see it first hand. But as soon as the average citizen is expected to keep up with state, national, intl politics you need a media capable of informing them.

What's even more interesting is that Lippman proposed a separate entity which was meant to inform the media!

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

#114

Post by AmericanChopper »

rimiform wrote: post #111
AmericanChopper wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I don't think that idea even works in theory, let alone in practice. In lieu of making a longpost about why this doesn't seem like a good idea to me, I'm just going to defer to the story of the Tower of Babel. You could also see Lippman's 'Public Opinion' on the problem.

Freedom to speak and think for yourself is a fundamental element of any democratic system. If you like, you can make a long post about why you think those values aren’t a good idea, but you can’t undermine them without also undermining the entire basis of democracy.

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

#115

Post by PixyMisa »

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?

That's like asking what you replace your cancer with once you are cured.

Nothing. You're cured.

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

#116

Post by jtvjan »

nexthash wrote: post #63
analog31 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>> 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…

This is my biggest fear about the media. If they don't come clean and reclaim their integrity (this goes for both left and right outlets), the public will reject them. Discourse will move to blogs, podcasts, private networks, etc. In the process, the laws and protections for journalism will be weathered and may be abolished altogether (who needs those pompous journalists, right?). Then we'll be no better than a propa…

In the first paragraph, you argue for freedom of expression. Then, at the end of the second paragraph, you call for regulation against it. Huh?!

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

#117

Post by srean »

hesarenu wrote: post #56
Barrin92 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd suggest to read Hunter S. Thompson's obituary on Nixon https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1994/07/he-was-... "It was all gibberish, of course. Nixon was no more a Saint than he was a Great President. He was more like Sammy Glick than Winston Churchill. He was a cheap crook and a merciless war criminal who bombed more people to death in Laos and Cambodia than the U.S. Army lost in all of World War II, an…

Interesting, what does he think of Winston Churchill. As an Indian we are not fond of that guy.

Tharoor wrote a couple of blog posts on him that are easy to find. In fact they were discussed on HN recently after I had posted

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

#118

Post by etripe »

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…

> The “problem” we have today is that too many different commentators

No, the problem is the so-called "democratisation" of journalism and the corresponding cross-fade between "shill", "pundit" and "journalist". It's not the diversity in voices, but rather the lowering of the bar. Any random YouTube hack can proclaim themselves a "journalist" or "commentator", regardless of their credentials or affiliation.

Meanwhile, traditionally trustworthy media channels are trying to be "fair and balanced" by including both sides in a debate, regardless of whether both sides are sane. Think anti-vaxxers, Holocaust deniers or flat earthers versus their rational counterparts. Then there are more complex issues like "stolen" elections and Brexit.

This "both sides", "marketplace of ideas" approach also stimulates polarisation, making everything a partisan issue, especially in politically bipolar countries like the US or the UK. Suddenly, even well-accepted facts are "controversial", generating clicks because all that matters is engagement.

> Others will look at those they disagree with, and say they are spreading misinformation

That's a very modern (as in, post-modern) take. There is no denying there is a lot of actual misinformation on "both sides". It's not so much who you disagree with, but journalistic integrity, of which I frankly don't see a lot, regardless of whether we're talking about the Guardian, New York Times, Washington Post, the Independent, Fox News, Newsmax or OAN. They're all mainly pushing an agenda, during which they at least lie by omission. What's more, they no longer distinguish between OpEds and news reporting.

> free democracy, and having an arbiter of truth are mutually exclusive states

That's a false dichotomy. There doesn't need to be a single arbiter ("Ministry", if you will) of Truth. The purported added benefit of the fourth estate is its many voices would each do their part in verifying the veracity of claims and elucidating the context of events.

It's required for a functional liberal democracy because powerful voices can otherwise dominate the narrative and peddle messages like "regulation is at odds with a functional economy" or "fact checking our statements implies bias". With the number of journalists decreasing by 75% in the US since the advent of the Internet, the fourth estate has obviously become increasingly dysfunctional and shallow.

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

#119

Post by MikeUt »

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…

> if you strip people of the ability to debate and discern facts

If you dare to debate and discern the wrong facts, you get a hit piece published on you like Slate Star Codex. Or you get fired like the NY Times reporter Donald McNeil Jr.

It seems some of the media play an enthusiastic part in stripping people of that ability, not in protecting it.

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

#120

Post by dash2 »

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 read grandparent as saying the media is selfless or perfect, just as saying that it did play an important role in uncovering scandals, and that nothing seems able to replace that role. I don't see that (indisputable) past examples of propaganda and fake news harm that argument.

Your last paragraph seems to imply a kind of quietism, as if it just isn't important whether a country's rulers face constraints and challenges. That isn't true: eventually, bad politics screws the economy, which is why Russia is a poor country.

Post reply on HN