Jim Lehrer’s Rules of Journalism • Hacker News Board

Re: Jim Lehrer’s Rules of Journalism

#21

Post by mc32 » Sat, Jan 25, 2020, 3:28 PM UTC

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.

Re: Jim Lehrer’s Rules of Journalism

#22

Post by aNoob7000 » Sat, Jan 25, 2020, 3:37 PM UTC

proximitysauce wrote: post #19

macspoofing wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Just yesterday George Stephanopoulos was caught on camera acting in an extremely partisan manner [1] To be fair, Stephanopoulos was a Democratic operative for years before transitioning to media. Why would you expect him to not be partisan?

I wouldn't but I also wouldn't expect a political operative to become the chief anchor and political correspondent of a major network.

The problem I see is that no one can agree on what is right or the truth any longer. What one side considers the truth might not be the same for the other, look no further than the impeachment proceedings.

I'm amazed that we've reached a point in the USA where we can't agree on some simple truths anymore.

Re: Jim Lehrer’s Rules of Journalism

#23

Post by mc32 » Sat, Jan 25, 2020, 3:42 PM UTC

proximitysauce wrote: post #16

In addition to partisanship and sensationalism, access journalism has dramatically lowered the quality of what gets reported: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Access_journalism It's also worth referencing Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent which lays out the playbook for propaganda posing as journalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent

Just want to point out that while often manufacturing consent is seen in a negative light because it’s been used to negatively manipulate people that it is also also possible to be used to the better good (vaccinations, education, etc. of course this can get abused and thus the negative aspect).

Re: Jim Lehrer’s Rules of Journalism

#24

Post by bilbo0s » Sat, Jan 25, 2020, 3:42 PM UTC

macspoofing wrote: post #20

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.…

>Interesting that none of the rules of journalism include just reporting facts. Facts are not enough because in order for 'facts' to be useful they have to be embedded in a larger structure - like a theory, or ideology, or narrative, or whatever. Here's a fact: "Sun rises in the East, and sets in the West". This fact is compatible with heliocentric and geocentric models. The fact on its own doesn't tell you which is…

>This fact is compatible with heliocentric and geocentric models. The fact on its own doesn't tell you which is which.

But the fact that the Earth revolves around the Sun does tell you which "model" is actually a fact. That's the point.

You're making an argument about which facts should be reported? The sun rising in the east? Or the phases of Venus? Or both? Or both and more?

But stating that you need an ideology or narrative to support your facts is a bit nonsensical in my own opinion. There really is only one conclusion that can be drawn from the totality of the facts. To state only a single fact, and then say, "here is an ideology or narrative so you can understand the fact I just gave you." Really is just stating an ideology or narrative.

Think of it this way, if you still need a narrative, then you didn't give anyone all the facts.

Re: Jim Lehrer’s Rules of Journalism

#25

Post by fenomas » Sat, Jan 25, 2020, 3:45 PM UTC

proximitysauce wrote: post #15

It's much more rare though and it's almost entirely absent when looking at political coverage. Two journalists I can think of off the top of my head who have acted with outstanding integrity in recent years are Ronan Farrow and Julie K. Brown (broke the Weinstein and Epstein stories respectively). Part of what makes their journalism so strong is that they had to fight the entire industry to get their stories out. Pol…

> caught on camera acting in an extremely partisan manner

I'm sorry, but even as political talking points go this makes no sense. He made a "cut" gesture during a live feed, but live news broadcasts cut from one feed to another dozens of times per hour, and the feed he was motioning to cut wasn't of any particular importance to either party (it was a Trump lawyer listening to someone off-camera asking a question). That's hardly "extremely partisan".

Re: Jim Lehrer’s Rules of Journalism

#26

Post by maxerickson » Sat, Jan 25, 2020, 3:45 PM UTC

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…

What an absurd interpretation of that tweet.

Re: Jim Lehrer’s Rules of Journalism

#27

Post by macspoofing » Sat, Jan 25, 2020, 3:46 PM UTC

aNoob7000 wrote: post #22

proximitysauce wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't but I also wouldn't expect a political operative to become the chief anchor and political correspondent of a major network.

The problem I see is that no one can agree on what is right or the truth any longer. What one side considers the truth might not be the same for the other, look no further than the impeachment proceedings. I'm amazed that we've reached a point in the USA where we can't agree on some simple truths anymore.

>I'm am amazed that we've reached a point the in the USA where we can't agree on some simple truths anymore.

I'm curious. Can you give one or two examples of the 'simple truths' that we can't agree on anymore?

>What one side considers the truth might not be the same for the other, look no further than the impeachment proceedings.

The impeachment proceedings are interesting examples because I truly believe that objectively, even if the facts are as stated by the Democrats, it would be a gross abuse to remove Trump from office for that. It's bonkers. Trump's conduct, at best, warrants a Congressional censure. But I take your point one two sides looking at the same event but interpreting it vastly differently. The Kavanaugh nomination was the same way, as well as coverage around Covington kids (could not believe as it was happening that news reports would profile children in the way they did).

Re: Jim Lehrer’s Rules of Journalism

#28

Post by degosuke » Sat, Jan 25, 2020, 3:49 PM UTC

I wonder whether the improvements in machine learning would ever be sufficient, so that for an article we could generate a quick report of how many points from the list are "checked".

Re: Jim Lehrer’s Rules of Journalism

#29

Post by proximitysauce » Sat, Jan 25, 2020, 3:52 PM UTC

mc32 wrote: post #23

proximitysauce wrote: post #16

In addition to partisanship and sensationalism, access journalism has dramatically lowered the quality of what gets reported: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Access_journalism It's also worth referencing Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent which lays out the playbook for propaganda posing as journalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent

Just want to point out that while often manufacturing consent is seen in a negative light because it’s been used to negatively manipulate people that it is also also possible to be used to the better good (vaccinations, education, etc. of course this can get abused and thus the negative aspect).

I disagree. It's not the job of journalism to manipulate people, even if they think they're doing it for a good cause. Jim Lehrer's rules are very correct here.

Re: Jim Lehrer’s Rules of Journalism

#30

Post by nickloewen » Sat, Jan 25, 2020, 3:53 PM UTC

macspoofing wrote: post #20

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.…

>Interesting that none of the rules of journalism include just reporting facts. Facts are not enough because in order for 'facts' to be useful they have to be embedded in a larger structure - like a theory, or ideology, or narrative, or whatever. Here's a fact: "Sun rises in the East, and sets in the West". This fact is compatible with heliocentric and geocentric models. The fact on its own doesn't tell you which is…

Indeed, sometimes reporting “just the facts” is more likely to lead people to the wrong conclusion than the right one. (For example, I think it would be difficult to come to an accurate understanding of social inequality if one was only ever given statistical facts, and never any interpretation or root cause analysis.)