Jim Lehrer’s Rules of Journalism • Hacker News Board

Re: Jim Lehrer’s Rules of Journalism

#31

Post by iagovar » Sat, Jan 25, 2020, 3:54 PM UTC

maxerickson wrote: post #26

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.

This not an interpretation of that tweet but the current trend in journalism. Is pretty easy to follow actually. Do the exercise to look up for authors of inflammatory articles on Twitter.

It's like they've said: Alright, truth is impossible to reach, so let's throw everything out window.

Re: Jim Lehrer’s Rules of Journalism

#32

Post by mc32 » Sat, Jan 25, 2020, 3:54 PM UTC

proximitysauce wrote: post #29

mc32 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think we’re talking past each other. Manufacturing consent isn’t always about lying or making things up. It can be presenting a united front on something and it entails telling the truth with which you’re persuading a pop to see that POV.

Re: Jim Lehrer’s Rules of Journalism

#33

Post by proximitysauce » Sat, Jan 25, 2020, 3:56 PM UTC

mc32 wrote: post #32

proximitysauce wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think we’re talking past each other. Manufacturing consent isn’t always about lying or making things up. It can be presenting a united front on something and it entails telling the truth with which you’re persuading a pop to see that POV.

I've never heard manufacturing consent used like that. Do you have any examples of what you're talking about? Genuinely curious.

Re: Jim Lehrer’s Rules of Journalism

#34

Post by Frondo » Sat, Jan 25, 2020, 3:58 PM UTC

macspoofing wrote: post #27

aNoob7000 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 object…

One simple truth in dispute is that vaccines save lives and do not cause autism.

Re: Jim Lehrer’s Rules of Journalism

#35

Post by ajross » Sat, Jan 25, 2020, 3:59 PM UTC

iagovar wrote: post #31

maxerickson wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What an absurd interpretation of that tweet.

This not an interpretation of that tweet but the current trend in journalism. Is pretty easy to follow actually. Do the exercise to look up for authors of inflammatory articles on Twitter. It's like they've said: Alright, truth is impossible to reach, so let's throw everything out window.

> This not an interpretation of that tweet but the current trend in journalism.

You literally paraphrased it as "Before you know it, you’re claiming that Slack notifications give you PTSD symptoms". If you don't agree with that analysis (which is ridiculous: the author is making a joke about being afraid of slack notifications) then why did you give it to us just to deny it later?

Re: Jim Lehrer’s Rules of Journalism

#36

Post by specialist » Sat, Jan 25, 2020, 3:59 PM UTC

Lehrer's Rules are solid, ethical, and actionable. I agree 100%.

Alas, they are completely moot in today's ad-supported automated outrage machines. And I'm fresh out of goodwill.

Until we decide that discourse is more important than profits, forge a new consensus, we have to treat reporting like the replication crisis in science.

Just two rules apply:

Sign your work.

Share your data.

The corollaries are just as simple:

Unsigned, unsourced statements are gossip.

Unsupported data is propaganda.

Re: Jim Lehrer’s Rules of Journalism

#37

Post by detaro » Sat, Jan 25, 2020, 4:01 PM UTC

ajross wrote: post #35

iagovar wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This not an interpretation of that tweet but the current trend in journalism. Is pretty easy to follow actually. Do the exercise to look up for authors of inflammatory articles on Twitter. It's like they've said: Alright, truth is impossible to reach, so let's throw everything out window.

> This not an interpretation of that tweet but the current trend in journalism. You literally paraphrased it as "Before you know it, you’re claiming that Slack notifications give you PTSD symptoms". If you don't agree with that analysis (which is ridiculous: the author is making a joke about being afraid of slack notifications) then why did you give it to us just to deny it later?

/u/iagovar didn't make that comment

Re: Jim Lehrer’s Rules of Journalism

#38

Post by aNoob7000 » Sat, Jan 25, 2020, 4:01 PM UTC

Frondo wrote: post #34

macspoofing wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 object…

One simple truth in dispute is that vaccines save lives and do not cause autism.

Thanks that's a perfect example.

Re: Jim Lehrer’s Rules of Journalism

#39

Post by maxerickson » Sat, Jan 25, 2020, 4:01 PM UTC

ajross wrote: post #35

iagovar wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This not an interpretation of that tweet but the current trend in journalism. Is pretty easy to follow actually. Do the exercise to look up for authors of inflammatory articles on Twitter. It's like they've said: Alright, truth is impossible to reach, so let's throw everything out window.

> This not an interpretation of that tweet but the current trend in journalism. You literally paraphrased it as "Before you know it, you’re claiming that Slack notifications give you PTSD symptoms". If you don't agree with that analysis (which is ridiculous: the author is making a joke about being afraid of slack notifications) then why did you give it to us just to deny it later?

Re: Jim Lehrer’s Rules of Journalism

#40

Post by lando2319 » Sat, Jan 25, 2020, 4:03 PM UTC

degosuke wrote: post #28

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".

Journalists pick and choose facts to support the narrative, I don't think having them "checked" would matter.

What you want to know is the facts that go against the narrative that aren't mentioned.

Then take a holistic view.