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

From watchdogs to mouthpieces: Washington Post and the wreckage of legacy media

thejournal.ie

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 79 posts

Re: From watchdogs to mouthpieces: Washington Post and the wreckage of legacy media

#31

Post by [deleted] »

MarkusQ wrote: post #15
jauntywundrkind wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wrong. Journalists have an obligation to favor the truth. If a party is not being honest or truthful, they should disfavor that party very strongly. That party is acting against the spirit of what journalism ought to be about, and is making itself a traitor to democracy, the people, and journalists. The WaPo lost significant double digit percent of subscribers because it spiked a Kamala endorsement. That was a clear…

> Wrong. Journalists have an obligation to favor the truth. I'm not sure why you think we're disagreeing on this part. I'm explicitly asserting that they need to seek truth rather than pushing an agenda. > If a party is not being honest or truthful, they should disfavor that party very strongly. Here though, we do disagree. I think they should call out the lies and provide explicit, verifiable evidence that they are…

[deleted]

Re: From watchdogs to mouthpieces: Washington Post and the wreckage of legacy media

#32

Post by toolazytologin »

add-sub-mul-div wrote: post #25
MarkusQ wrote: post #7

The problem isn't that news outlets favor the wrong side (as TFA seems to assert) but that they favor any side at all. Once they abandon the attempt to report the facts and start trying to shape public opinion, they're going to get caught in a tug-of-war and eventually torn to shreds.

It's very cable-news-brained to believe there always have to be two sides that are equally viable and that the only respectable unbiased stance is in the middle, dragged by the Overton window wherever it happens to go.

It’s very cable-news-brained to believe there must be sides at all. Report facts and let the readers form their own opinions.

Re: From watchdogs to mouthpieces: Washington Post and the wreckage of legacy media

#33

Post by kibwen »

toolazytologin wrote: post #32
add-sub-mul-div wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's very cable-news-brained to believe there always have to be two sides that are equally viable and that the only respectable unbiased stance is in the middle, dragged by the Overton window wherever it happens to go.

It’s very cable-news-brained to believe there must be sides at all. Report facts and let the readers form their own opinions.

I'm not sure if I'd call the above comment cable-news-brained, but it's entirely possible to push a misleading or outright false narrative while only presenting factually true statements. Remember, nearly everyone who's ever died has had a history of exposure to dihydrogen monoxide.

Re: From watchdogs to mouthpieces: Washington Post and the wreckage of legacy media

#34

Post by nickdothutton »

It is now easier than ever to locate, contact, and spotlight for questioning individuals of any given movement, no matter how fringe. Yet the public still hears from the same journos, commentators, talking heads, and explainers, year after year, decade after decade. Really makes you think.

Re: From watchdogs to mouthpieces: Washington Post and the wreckage of legacy media

#35

Post by nephihaha »

It's partly because many papers have the same stories, culled from the same few press agencies, and poor writers. Most of their original content is often on non-news topics, and the Hollywood image of the roving investigative reporter is rarely mirrored in reality.

Re: From watchdogs to mouthpieces: Washington Post and the wreckage of legacy media

#36

Post by nephihaha »

4ndrewl wrote: post #30
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #3

Who coined the phrase, "legacy media?" Sounds like techy-speak to make it sound old so people move to social media bullshit.

Certainly in the UK the 'legacy' part of media orgs (print) is still far more profitable than the pennies paid for ad-clicks.

Not many people buying papers here anymore. I bought one yesterday, but it's months since I last did.

Even the Metro free sheet goes uncollected a lot of the time. I just go to its puzzle page now. Constant scare stories and manipulation.

Re: From watchdogs to mouthpieces: Washington Post and the wreckage of legacy media

#37

Post by laughing_man »

The problem with modern print journalism is the business model just doesn't work anymore. In the old days everything the paper provided was bait to get you to read the classified ads. DBAs, obits, for sale, for rent, seeking someone... all that stuff was in the paper, and you had to pay a lot of money to get your ad there.

The regular ads and the cover price paid for printing, mostly, but the classifides were what paid for the organization's fixed costs.

Now that revenue stream is gone. So most papers are in a death spiral, in which they cut costs, which causes the paper to be less attractive, causing people to drop their subs, forcing another round of cost cutting. The Sunday paper where I grew up used to be about two inches thick in half a dozen sections. Now it totals about twenty pages in one section.

Beyond that, you can't copyright news. You can copyright news copy, but there's nothing stopping other organizations from rewording your stuff and publishing without ever shouldering the cost of gathering news themselves.

Re: From watchdogs to mouthpieces: Washington Post and the wreckage of legacy media

#38

Post by laughing_man »

toolazytologin wrote: post #32
add-sub-mul-div wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's very cable-news-brained to believe there always have to be two sides that are equally viable and that the only respectable unbiased stance is in the middle, dragged by the Overton window wherever it happens to go.

It’s very cable-news-brained to believe there must be sides at all. Report facts and let the readers form their own opinions.

I would love a paper like that. Don't tell me what to think -- just tell me what happened yesterday.

Re: From watchdogs to mouthpieces: Washington Post and the wreckage of legacy media

#39

Post by maratc »

kibwen wrote: post #33
toolazytologin wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s very cable-news-brained to believe there must be sides at all. Report facts and let the readers form their own opinions.

I'm not sure if I'd call the above comment cable-news-brained, but it's entirely possible to push a misleading or outright false narrative while only presenting factually true statements. Remember, nearly everyone who's ever died has had a history of exposure to dihydrogen monoxide.

Not only that: it's impossible to report on everything that happened, so any outlet only reports on the important stuff. What is and what isn't considered important is a matter of bias, too.

Re: From watchdogs to mouthpieces: Washington Post and the wreckage of legacy media

#40

Post by laughing_man »

Animats wrote: post #20

Very few newspapers today have many reporters. This shows. Look at the front page of most newspapers, and ask, did this story start as an official announcement or press release? The answer is usually yes. There's not enough info coming in. The strongest effect of this is invisible - if nobody well-known is talking about it, it disappears from the mainstream news. Note how little is appearing about the war in Ukraine.…

Newspapers rely pretty heavily on wire services, which tend to have their own biases, but they do have reporters.
Post reply on HN