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

61–70 of 168 posts

Re: Jim Lehrer’s Rules of Journalism

#61

Post by Reedx »

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…

This is the result of the attention economy and the fact that nothing generates engagement like anger. That's what gets the most clicks and does so much cheaper than real journalism. So performative outrage is what becomes incentivized, both in the news and on twitter in a self-reinforcing cycle. Those who generate and harness the most outrage are the winners of the game.

How do we fix this?

That's an open question. But I think we need to change the game and the incentives. We probably need a new business model and/or for this kind of news to become widely understood as the junk food entertainment it is. Maybe put a nutrition label or cancer-like warning on them, heh...

Re: Jim Lehrer’s Rules of Journalism

#62

Post by unishark »

specialist wrote: post #42
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.

whataboutism?

The article is about a journalist so we're thinking about how other journalists compare.

Re: Jim Lehrer’s Rules of Journalism

#63

Post by unishark »

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.

> The problem I see is that no one can agree on what is right or the truth any longer.

I don't think this is a new problem in politics at all. In my earliest memories of observing politics I remember being outraged at the convenient redefinition of words. Politicians are basically advocates for an agenda (most of them are even trained attorneys). And most everything they do and say is designed to further that agenda. Character is secondary and will not be what gets them elected/re-elected.

Re: Jim Lehrer’s Rules of Journalism

#64

Post by pbourke »

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.

See also “anthropogenic climate change is real”

Re: Jim Lehrer’s Rules of Journalism

#65

Post by [deleted] »

defterGoose wrote: post #58
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?

Maybe in the universe where CNN is capable of doing these things, Trump wouldn't have become President.

[deleted]

Re: Jim Lehrer’s Rules of Journalism

#66

Post by wcarey »

bilbo0s wrote: post #57
coldtea wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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. S…

> "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 I'm pretty sure you just conflated "truth" with fact. John punching Jack. Or John not punching Jack. Is one of the facts of the situation. At least, police and criminal courts would call it one of the facts. They certainly wouldn't call it one of the "truths".

Fascinatingly, a verdict means “a speaking of the truth”. Courts at least, consider the aim of the jury to speak the truth. So whether John did punch Jack would be an element of the truth of the matter being adjudicated.

Re: Jim Lehrer’s Rules of Journalism

#67

Post by pbourke »

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?

Yes, do mention CNN without the context of Fox News and AM radio.

Due to social media, we know more of the unfiltered thoughts of Trump and his supporters that any other president and political movement ever.

My opinion of both has been formed by direct exposure to their utterances.

Re: Jim Lehrer’s Rules of Journalism

#68

Post by specialist »

unishark wrote: post #62
specialist wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

whataboutism? The article is about a journalist so we're thinking about how other journalists compare.

Then the correct criticism of journalists is that they don't uphold their integrity in the face of the outrage tsunami. Or, more accurately, most who did are no longer employed as journalists.

Re: Jim Lehrer’s Rules of Journalism

#69

Post by endorphone »

fenomas wrote: post #25
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). Th…

[flagged]

Re: Jim Lehrer’s Rules of Journalism

#70

Post by thu2111 »

endorphone wrote: post #69
fenomas wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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). Th…

[flagged]

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 severe factual errors in the New York Times, caused by the political biases of the institution:

https://unherd.com/2020/01/what-has-the-new-york-times-got-a...

It's by no means complete. I've seen total falsehoods be printed in the NYT about Britain quite a few times and they didn't make the list.

Post reply on HN