"They want to prove they are independent of liberals & their own readers—who happen to be the same people. The Times equates independence with making us unhappy. Jay Rosen spotted that dynamic years ago. That—and petulance—is what drives The Times to #ButHerEmails and now #ButHisAge." https://medium.com/whither-news/the-times-is-broken-02a4a6a27f8c
what if the reporting institutions distanced themselves as much as possible from opinion/editorial? let them blog and podcast. wouldn't that be best for everyone?
Sorry, but "the view from nowhere" doesn't work. Everybody's got a perspective, and even the decision of what to investigate and what to report involves a judgment based on how you think the world should be.
Heck, the Times' decision to flood the zone with shit about how "Biden is old" (which he is) and barely mention how "Trump is showing signs of dementia" (which he is) shows how "just the facts" can be partisanly slanted.
I agree but it's also possible to try to be less ideological/partisan. the grifters aren't just giving their honest opinion, they are playing to certain worldviews. reporting can intentionally try to avoid that. or try to present the most popular views that disagree and explain what assumptions they are based on. perfection isn't possible but what gets latched onto are the editorials. drop that. try to cover what they think is most important. acknowledge popular criticism.
> present the most popular views that disagree and explain what assumptions they are based on
> acknowledge popular criticism
The idea that current changes in the climate are not significantly influenced by human actions is popular. I hope you're advocating for a media style that reports how much this belief is driven oil company spending and astro-turfing, while the contrary position is supported by the majority of scientific research.
Also, how long do you think media need to keep chasing positions based on falsehoods?
Because the Koch foundations can keep pumping out new stuff longer than you can keep refuting it. If you're never willing to stop taking the bait you're just going to keep spinning until you fall down dizzy.
This privileges the liars, and you should make sure that your practices do not privilege the lies.
we're getting off topic but I didn't say all lies. I said the popular alternative perspectives. lots of stuff that gets pumped out doesn't gain traction, and either way, it takes a while to do so. and people who disagree are not idiots or always wrong. and again, sticking to facts not opinions limits the targets.
there should've been more of a focus on facts in the run up to Iraq instead of editorials. there should've been more reporting on Gaza for the last 20 years.
OMG I am so on board with "we've been ignoring Gaza for 20 years"!
But I gotta say that your model seems like a good one for when different sides are all acting in good faith. I take your note that we can't just assume that those we disagree with are bad faith actors, there is currently a very large and powerful grouping that is.
And we cannot ignore them. Any media practice has to decide how to engage with them - only dealing with the "good" opposition will fail.
but doesn't your concern about "privileging the lies" serve to ignore the bad faith actors?
it's off topic again but what I think we see today is lots of concern about not platforming certain people. I think that's exactly the wrong approach. they still develop a following, and now they look like warriors against the mainstream etc.
when engaged fairly by prepared experts in the subject area publicly, grifters look like fools, to good faith people who once believed them.
Add comment