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

161–168 of 168 posts

Re: Jim Lehrer’s Rules of Journalism

#161

Post by thu2111 »

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…

Disagree completely. Journalists to a great degree aren't smart enough to determine the correctness of a viewpoint. When they try they make themselves look foolish and reduce trust in not just themselves but institutions more greatly.

For instance, they keep reporting the results of dodgy scientific studies as if it's the unquestionable truth. Their evaluation of "is it true" is nothing fancier than "does the person telling me this have a PhD from a university I've heard of". Then more studies that come out and contradict the first set, and they get reported in the same way. Pretty soon people figure out that these stories can't all be right.

If journalists insist on interpreting the news to try and give context, which they don't have to do, then they should be far more skeptical than they really are, and give far more time to people who disagree with any given idea of view. That would pretty quickly put a stop to things like this:

http://kill-or-cure.herokuapp.com/

NB: this site tries to make the Daily Mail look stupid because some objects are classified as both cures and causes cancer. But if you check the stories, they're all reporting on actual scientific results. The problem is the underlying medical science isn't reliable enough to determine truth.

Re: Jim Lehrer’s Rules of Journalism

#162

Post by thu2111 »

iudqnolq wrote: post #103
busterarm wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you do when it's the NYT Editorial Board themselves writing the Op-Ed that gets facts wrong? The older I've gotten, the more I've read news stories that are directly related to me, my industry or people I'm in regular contact with. The percentage of these stories that are demonstrably false even on a basic fact checking level is 100%. In most instances, the reporting tells the exact opposite story from the ev…

FYI, all the articles I clicked on in the link that started all of this were opeds by people not associated with the nytimes.

Does it matter? What separates some random blog on blogspot from an op-ed in the NYT? If it's anything at all it should be that the op-ed is higher quality and more likely to have its facts in order. That clearly isn't the case at all, and that correctly degrades the brand of the entire newspaper. If they're willing to publish claims that are transparently false in their op-eds section why would it be any different in their news section? They already established that factual accuracy is optional.

Re: Jim Lehrer’s Rules of Journalism

#163

Post by thu2111 »

endorphone wrote: post #77
thu2111 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You think you never encountered them, but if you consider all right wing people to be bizarre then they're probably not going to talk to you about politics, are they? HN isn't brigaded. It's just a place where you're exposed to more of what people really think without caring if you attack them. As for demonstrations of media bias, well, do you think the media isn't biased? Here's an article that covers a series of se…

"but if you consider all right wing people to be bizarre" Let's again define the terminology here. I'm a conservative. Many of my friends and peers are conservatives. We traditionally would be "right wing". Only what has been co-opted as the right wing are an absolutely bizarre collection of group-thinkers who have circled the wagons around the abomination that is Donald Trump and tied their ego and identity to defen…

OK, so you consider some people to be bizarre, and you claim you don't see them in real life. Well, they're there. You know they're there because the turn up and vote. They just aren't talking to you. My point about HN stands.

By the way, Trump isn't all that conservative, is he? He doesn't seem to care about deficit reduction for instance.

I don't expect the NYT to have perfect coverage about Britain, nor do I expect Wired to have technically correct coverage of neural networks.

Then your standards are much lower than mine. I do expect that if a news outlet writes about a topic, basic facts which can be checked using 5 minutes on Google have been checked. Otherwise what's the justification for that companies existence? Why should I subscribe? I can get blogging anywhere.

Re: Jim Lehrer’s Rules of Journalism

#164

Post by pelliphant »

contingencies wrote: post #110
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…

In defense of social media, the first two weeks of the revolution in Tunisia (the start of the Arab Spring) were completely absent from international media. That taught me a lot about journalism. In the current crisis in China, social media is a very important element in interpreting official reports. It's also important for unpicking PR and marketing fantasies. As we say in Australia, keep the bastards honest .

what's wrong with it taking 2 weeks for news to be reported in other parts of the world?

Do we really need to know what is going on on the other side of the planet right now? Isn't it better to have correct information rather than fast information?

Re: Jim Lehrer’s Rules of Journalism

#165

Post by iudqnolq »

thu2111 wrote: post #162
iudqnolq wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FYI, all the articles I clicked on in the link that started all of this were opeds by people not associated with the nytimes.

Does it matter? What separates some random blog on blogspot from an op-ed in the NYT? If it's anything at all it should be that the op-ed is higher quality and more likely to have its facts in order. That clearly isn't the case at all, and that correctly degrades the brand of the entire newspaper. If they're willing to publish claims that are transparently false in their op-eds section why would it be any different i…

> If they're willing to publish claims that are transparently false in their op-eds section why would it be any different in their news section?

Because op-eds are for controversial positions that are of public interest but aren't supported well enough or neutral enough for a news article. That's the definition. If it's clearly true you won't find it in an op-ed in general in any newspaper.

I'm sick of people who can't be bothered to look up terms they don't know using them to spuriously attack institutions that are crucial to our liberty in America.

Re: Jim Lehrer’s Rules of Journalism

#167

Post by thu2111 »

iudqnolq wrote: post #165
thu2111 wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does it matter? What separates some random blog on blogspot from an op-ed in the NYT? If it's anything at all it should be that the op-ed is higher quality and more likely to have its facts in order. That clearly isn't the case at all, and that correctly degrades the brand of the entire newspaper. If they're willing to publish claims that are transparently false in their op-eds section why would it be any different i…

> If they're willing to publish claims that are transparently false in their op-eds section why would it be any different in their news section? Because op-eds are for controversial positions that are of public interest but aren't supported well enough or neutral enough for a news article. That's the definition. If it's clearly true you won't find it in an op-ed in general in any newspaper. I'm sick of people who can…

OK, let's rephrase. Why have op-eds at all? I understand why 30 years ago. But today anyone can publish online. The op-ed appears to be an obsolete institution that's now seriously degrading trust in news outlets.

If bias and inaccuracy was random then "it's just interesting blogs" might be an acceptable way for op-ed sections to go. When the problems trend obviously in one direction it becomes clear that the entire organisation has an agenda.

crucial to our liberty in America

As you may have guessed, I'm not American, and I'm sick of meeting Americans who have completely bizarre and distorted views of the UK because of the factually inaccurate nonsense they read in this supposedly high quality "newspaper".

Re: Jim Lehrer’s Rules of Journalism

#168

Post by dredmorbius »

bilbo0s wrote: post #14

Interesting that none of the rules of journalism include just reporting facts. In fact, it says that journalists should be disciplined for "reckless" reporting of any fact. It kind of explains why we live in the fact light environment of quotes and spin. Presumably, if a hard fact proves unpopular with a large enough group, then those facts, even when backed by hard evidence, can likely land you in a lot of trouble.…

I ran across one of dang's guidelines for HN decorum recently:

There are infinitely many facts. They don't select themselves. Humans do that, for reasons of their own, and sometimes their reasons don't match the intended use of this website, which is curious conversation. So while facts are a nice-to-have, they're not sufficient to make for a good HN post. Other things are needed also.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22016653

Post reply on HN