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

71–80 of 168 posts

Re: Jim Lehrer’s Rules of Journalism

#71

Post by Balgair »

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…

Honestly mate, you need to find better news then. It's out there, but it's not 24/7 stuff. The GP is right, there are vastly more good, professional journalists than the celebrity-style 'It-girls' on the networks.

Re: Jim Lehrer’s Rules of Journalism

#72

Post by mturmon »

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…

> ...White House itself is hardly faultless...

Are you referring to the difficulty the White House had acknowledging their client, Saudi Arabia, murdered a Washington Post journalist in their embassy?

Or are you referring to the spectacle Trump incites at his rallies toward the reporters who are covering them? (E.g.: “Rope. Tree. Journalist. Some Assembly Required")

My point: If you survey political journalism and come away with a sorrowful conclusion that "both sides of the aisle" have problems with accurate reporting, then you're not really acknowledging that Trumpists have an agenda of demonizing any reporter or organization that reports uncomfortable facts.

The media still don't know how to respond to this asymmetrical warfare, and that's the real story for anyone who believes that facts matter in political reporting.

Re: Jim Lehrer’s Rules of Journalism

#73

Post by proximitysauce »

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]

I think the problem is that you're associating people calling out media bias and corruption with Trump. I explicitly said the white house has issues too. Major issues, tons of them. That doesn't absolve the mainstream media, there are a lot of valid things to critique there.

Re: Jim Lehrer’s Rules of Journalism

#74

Post by jc01480 »

mannykannot wrote: post #13

I think the author unintentionally misspoke in calling him "one of the last". The growth of journalism in which Lehrer's standards are not observed should not distract us from the fact that there are many journalists reporting with integrity, and in some cases, great courage.

Can you reference some?

Re: Jim Lehrer’s Rules of Journalism

#75

Post by AndrewKemendo »

mannykannot wrote: post #13

I think the author unintentionally misspoke in calling him "one of the last". The growth of journalism in which Lehrer's standards are not observed should not distract us from the fact that there are many journalists reporting with integrity, and in some cases, great courage.

Journalism is in the same boat as websites are.

There are more fantastic ones than ever before but the number of crappy ones and major players that have entered the market in the past 20 years have overshadowed them by orders of magnitudes.

I think this is pretty much happening everywhere as access to the middle class and knowledge worker/white collar jobs are becoming the norm.

A small cadre of experts still exist but the number of amateurs, scammers and grifters is aggressively growing.

Re: Jim Lehrer’s Rules of Journalism

#76

Post by salimmadjd »

Even the "newspaper of record", the NY Times has lost its journalistic process.

This is just one recent example that comes to mind. See why Harvard Professor is suing the NYT [1] for completely twisting his post about MIT and Jeffrey Epstein [0]

I found this so outrageous how NYT would completely twist words and not make the appropriate corrections when given the evidence.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D135DBWfabM

Re: Jim Lehrer’s Rules of Journalism

#77

Post by endorphone »

thu2111 wrote: post #70
endorphone wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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 se…

"but if you consider all right wing people to be bizarre"

Let's again define the terminology here. I'm a conservative. Many of my friends and peers are conservatives. We traditionally would be "right wing". Only what has been co-opted as the right wing are an absolutely bizarre collection of group-thinkers who have circled the wagons around the abomination that is Donald Trump and tied their ego and identity to defending the same. It is absolutely bizarre, and hopefully will be studied for decades, in the same way that we study other maladies.

Never before has conservatism been so absolutely...deplorable. To be something to rightly be ashamed of.

"Here's an article that covers a series of severe factual errors in the New York Times"

A small selection of articles about Britain. See, I don't expect the NYT to have perfect coverage about Britain, nor do I expect Wired to have technically correct coverage of neural networks. Nor, for that matter, do I expect the NYT to be faultless -- thousands of articles a day, every day. Some of them are going to be wrong.

Re: Jim Lehrer’s Rules of Journalism

#78

Post by endorphone »

proximitysauce wrote: post #73
endorphone wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I think the problem is that you're associating people calling out media bias and corruption with Trump. I explicitly said the white house has issues too. Major issues, tons of them. That doesn't absolve the mainstream media, there are a lot of valid things to critique there.

If one were to draw a Venn diagram of people who are sure that everything in mainstream media is fake news, it'd have a close to 1:1 relationship with Trump supporters (reality, it seems, has an anti-Trump bias). For that matter, they'd all be climate change deniers as well, unsurprisingly. They probably get their kicks blocking or vandalizing superchargers because...reasons.

Re: Jim Lehrer’s Rules of Journalism

#79

Post by bilbo0s »

wcarey wrote: post #66
bilbo0s wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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.

Facts and beliefs are elements of truth.

That doesn't make fact equivalent to truth, any more than it makes belief equivalent to truth. (Or, indeed, anymore than it makes belief equivalent to fact.)

Juries often issue “a speaking of the truth” inconsistent with fact. (Even inconsistent with facts as presented.) That's what the Innocence Project is all about, they exist precisely because of the difference between these adjudicated "truths" and real world facts.

Re: Jim Lehrer’s Rules of Journalism

#80

Post by claudiawerner »

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.

It's hard to see what you're actually saying. The tweet is clearly a joke, and makes no reference to PTSD, triggering, or anything else. The Slack notification sound also makes me freeze up.
Post reply on HN