Jim Lehrer’s Rules of Journalism • Hacker News Board

Re: Jim Lehrer’s Rules of Journalism

#41

Post by bilbo0s » Sat, Jan 25, 2020, 4:05 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.

Universal truth, is, in fact, a bit of an impossibility. ("Truth" being dependent on point of view.) That said, "truth" is also unnecessary. That is, it's unnecessary if a journalist is just reporting the known facts of a situation.

If what a journalist really wants to do is tell their own "truth". Then yeah, facts and hard evidence aren't really necessary and putting out their "truth" becomes entirely possible.

Re: Jim Lehrer’s Rules of Journalism

#42

Post by specialist » Sat, Jan 25, 2020, 4:05 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 of the publishers, producers, and editors? Do they lack agency in the face of journalistic perfidy?

What of public relations, think tanks, and campaigns? Those legions of people paid to push a point of view?

It's amusing (tragicomically) that your sole criticism is for the people with least power in a corrupt media ecosystem.

Re: Jim Lehrer’s Rules of Journalism

#43

Post by nickloewen » Sat, Jan 25, 2020, 4:10 PM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #7

macspoofing wrote: post #4

If you take the present journalism climate as the norm, these rules are radical. Can you imagine CNN reporting on Trump voters and following rule #6? Or reporting on Trump and following rule #5, #11?

#5 and #7 are a problem - they can be exploited by bad actors. That's how you get the "views on shape of Earth differ" reports.

It seems to me that #5 (two sides) needs more nuance. It is often the case, as you point out, that one side is just wrong. But even then it is worth considering why they are wrong, and whether that analysis should be included in the story. I agree that we shouldn’t be re-litigating basic historical or scientific facts, but I have learned a lot about other people (how they think, what motivates them, how to communicate with them) from this kind of analytical reporting. And I suspect some preemptive debunking has helped me to avoid some bad takes of my own.

Re: Jim Lehrer’s Rules of Journalism

#44

Post by bilbo0s » Sat, Jan 25, 2020, 4:13 PM UTC

lando2319 wrote: post #40

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.

Exactly.

Something that gathers all of the known facts in one place for review. That used to be what journalists did, not so much any longer.

Re: Jim Lehrer’s Rules of Journalism

#45

Post by celticmusic » Sat, Jan 25, 2020, 4:20 PM UTC

probably a silly complaint, but it would've been really nice to put the asterisk on the left side of the numbers so that one could immediately see by scanning which are the refined 9.

Re: Jim Lehrer’s Rules of Journalism

#46

Post by coldtea » Sat, Jan 25, 2020, 4:21 PM UTC

mc32 wrote: post #21

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.

>The problem is that on Twitter they’ve become more like activists rather than journalists/reporters.

The upside though is that it's easier to tell they're activists / non-objective on Twitter - compared to supposedly 'serious' outlets pushing all kinds of agendas as "objective" journalism.

Re: Jim Lehrer’s Rules of Journalism

#47

Post by celticmusic » Sat, Jan 25, 2020, 4:23 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".

people would just game it, you can't solve this with technology.

Re: Jim Lehrer’s Rules of Journalism

#48

Post by jellicle » Sat, Jan 25, 2020, 4:24 PM UTC

Somewhat amusingly, the list highlights the Achilles heel of journalism by omitting one simple rule: "tell the truth".

Not lying is not at all the same as telling the truth.

Modern journalism, at best (very rarely seen), tells you something that is, narrowly taken, true. Even this version of journalism does not attempt to tell you what the actual truth of the matter is.

Narrowly true statement: "Republican Senator Blarg said today on the floor of the Senate "these charges are nonsense, fake news, totally made up"."

That's a true statement! It was said! But it's also misleading about the whole matter to convey it to your readers.

Telling your viewers the real truth of the situation: "The charges levied in the Senate are obviously accurate and serious, but Republican Senators are lying about them in an attempt to obfuscate and downplay the situation."

Re: Jim Lehrer’s Rules of Journalism

#49

Post by coldtea » Sat, Jan 25, 2020, 4:27 PM UTC

bilbo0s wrote: post #41

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.

Universal truth, is, in fact, a bit of an impossibility. ("Truth" being dependent on point of view.) That said, "truth" is also unnecessary. That is, it's unnecessary if a journalist is just reporting the known facts of a situation. If what a journalist really wants to do is tell their own "truth". Then yeah, facts and hard evidence aren't really necessary and putting out their "truth" becomes entirely possible.

>"Truth" being dependent on point of view

Some truths do.

A lot of truths don't depend on point of view.

Whether something is right or wrong, benefit or detriment etc does depend on point of view. But lots of truths just depend on what's reported matching what is the case.

E.g. "whether X did Y (e.g. whether John punched Jack)" is not based on opinion. There's a universal truth there, either John did or he didn't. Speculation about what happened (when the journalist speaks without evidence) and whether "it's good that X did Y", sure, are based on opinion.

Media, all too often, fails to report correctly on things that fall on universal truths (in a famous case, saying someone had WMDs when they didn't). It fails to look for evidence, and it even often blatantly lies or distorts the universal facts.

Re: Jim Lehrer’s Rules of Journalism

#50

Post by nickloewen » Sat, Jan 25, 2020, 4:31 PM UTC

proximitysauce wrote: post #18

pjc50 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

#5 and #7 are a problem - they can be exploited by bad actors. That's how you get the "views on shape of Earth differ" reports.

It's the job of journalists to vet the stories. No journalist ever has or ever will suggest that the earth is flat. That's a strawman.

The concern as I understand it is not that a journalist would just straight-up defend a conspiracy theory. Rather, the concern is that if you give any airtime to conspiracy theorists, even in the form of a debate, some viewers/readers will conclude that there must be some nugget of legitimacy in the conspiracy (why else would it be on the news?). Indeed, conspiracy theorists have relied on this to gain support, especially before they had the internet, when strategically baiting the media was the only way to get their bullshit noticed.