Journalism is not about presenting “both sides” of an issue.
-
yes as the journalist understands it. and we should choose who to follow etc based on how well they do that. how often they end up being proven correct, not whether we agree with them.
but on some issues, the uncertainty lingers strongly. or it's a policy dispute that we want to understand the most widely held/supported perspectives on.
@wjmaggos why would the popularity of a perspective on policy be more relevant than its effects? Is every perspective equally justified? I’m not convinced that “this person said x and this person said y” has any net positive impact on society
-
@wjmaggos why would the popularity of a perspective on policy be more relevant than its effects? Is every perspective equally justified? I’m not convinced that “this person said x and this person said y” has any net positive impact on society
I agree that effects are more relevant. it would be nice to know the likely effects of all possible policy choices but that's probably impossible, so I'd favor those most likely to happen, which usually comes down to popularity. but maybe reporting on an option that the reporter thinks is great could make it more popular. IDK.
-
I agree that effects are more relevant. it would be nice to know the likely effects of all possible policy choices but that's probably impossible, so I'd favor those most likely to happen, which usually comes down to popularity. but maybe reporting on an option that the reporter thinks is great could make it more popular. IDK.
@wjmaggos Do you think this comes down to a lack of subject matter education/expertise? I would think that some knowledge of the issues would be required to cover them, along with the experience of following a particular beat long term. Or maybe the whole thing is just cynical posturing at this point
-
Journalism is not about presenting “both sides” of an issue. It’s about finding the truth and telling it. And doing so regardless of whether or not it’s popular, profitable, or in the interests of the powerful.
@benlockwood hear-hear!! When a counterpoint **deserves** voicing, that’s ok. “Folks want ___, but it’ll have ___ side-effect” is a healthy conversation. Not insisting on putting wind into the sails of zealots, propping billionaires’ propaganda, etc.
-
@wjmaggos Do you think this comes down to a lack of subject matter education/expertise? I would think that some knowledge of the issues would be required to cover them, along with the experience of following a particular beat long term. Or maybe the whole thing is just cynical posturing at this point
not sure I follow. we absolutely need reporters well paid to be knowledgeable on the subject and follow the latest reporting in order to do their journalism.
-
not sure I follow. we absolutely need reporters well paid to be knowledgeable on the subject and follow the latest reporting in order to do their journalism.
@wjmaggos I guess "it's impossible to know the outcomes of policy ahead of time" is a position I just fundamentally disagree with so that's probably where the disconnect is.
-
Journalism is not about presenting “both sides” of an issue. It’s about finding the truth and telling it. And doing so regardless of whether or not it’s popular, profitable, or in the interests of the powerful.
@benlockwood the truth doesn't really have a meaning. But it's context that counts: both sides woul be the majority of scientists thin vaccines worked based on numerous medical studies. A few people refutes, but have not been able to backup their claims with data.
Here where I live we had issues with immigrants. The left said there are no problems, which was not true and lead to a lot of support for rightwing parties. A statement like the majority of immigrants are well integrated but a small minority causes problems (add numbers) I think would have been better.
Truth can change, look at the old views of radiation or smoking being recommended. I feel it's important to show the full spectrum. But Iif you do, you need to report the numbers to create a picture
-
Journalism is not about presenting “both sides” of an issue. It’s about finding the truth and telling it. And doing so regardless of whether or not it’s popular, profitable, or in the interests of the powerful.
@benlockwood In fact, believing that there are exactly two sides to every issue and that in most cases those sides are represented by Democrats and Republicans is utterly disqualifying from being a journalist as it demonstrates a complete lack of critical thinking and intellectual curiosity.
-
Journalism is not about presenting “both sides” of an issue. It’s about finding the truth and telling it. And doing so regardless of whether or not it’s popular, profitable, or in the interests of the powerful.
@benlockwood Hold on a sec there Ben, lets be balanced and hear the liar's side now.
-
@benlockwood In fact, believing that there are exactly two sides to every issue and that in most cases those sides are represented by Democrats and Republicans is utterly disqualifying from being a journalist as it demonstrates a complete lack of critical thinking and intellectual curiosity.
Or even believing that the Democrats and Republicans are separate parties. Probably the single most destructive obligatory conclusion of our times.
-
R ActivityRelay shared this topic
