So, something the better journalists have to be careful with, is using neutral language even in certain clearly one-sided situations. That’s not just to not upset people on both sides; it helps to inform the truth to those who want to read carefully and critically.
If I read, “beware! The right-wingers are conspiring to make a fascist government!” then all I can do is shrug at another sensationalist conspiracy clickbait.
If I read factual details of things said, done and published by said right-wingers: it turns out I’m capable myself of seeing something is bad or good. Sure, it’s still the journalist’s job to interpret the facts to a degree, but those facts should be as transparent as possible and attaching inflammatory language, even if appropriate, often obscures that.
There is a place for opinion writers. But we need, I think, more of the less-opinioned honest truth for honest people. Even if that scares you that readers might not take up your call to arms as quickly as you think they ought.
Sorry, that went a bit off the rails, because I’m not quite sure how to express - though I still think it’s true - the important place for journalism that doesn’t call a spade a spade but tells you its shape so you can understand.
Absolutely - and I agree entirely. However - there are a lot of choices that get made with regards to words and context indicators when writing a piece (Video is a whole other box of frogs but similiar things apply).
Just sticking to text, let’s say, I’m not suggesting that the NYT should write a front page article entitled Watch Out: Crazy Trump Will Kill Us All (although, that’s upsettingly not a zero-percent chance either.)
What I am saying is that they need to stop giving trump the benefit of neutrality. That was a typical and to a small-extent-reasonable excuse they made in 2016. “Let’s see what kind of President he’ll be” and “maybe he’ll grow into it” and sorts of rationalizations that I ranted against at the time and I think was extremely validated by the subesquent nightmare of an administration.
So that’s over. Now, we know who he is - he’s the kind of guy who lies at the drop of a hat. He’ll do it by force of habit. He’s incapable of empathy. He’s so singularly focused on grabbing money (not ‘making money’ now, he doesn’t care about that), and weilding power over his perceived enemies that he’s an absolutely dismal choice for president. He staged a failed coup right in front of us. And still remains unrepentant. Anyone who’s not a complete cult member can see that.
So the NYT writing their article can use that to leverage his latest outrageousness and limit the faux-respect (he deserves none) such as “former President”. Fuck that - that’s not a “fact” as much as it is an “editorial position”. He’s also a former game show host. He’s also gone bankrupt five times. (four? five, whatever) He’s never been a billionaire. These are facts. They don’t use those. Why not.
Because. The tenor of the NYT is that they are “supposed” to be lofty - distanced - respectful. Well, they’re failing us with that. Trump is using that against them and us.
Maggie Haberman’s mom used to be trump’s publicist. And she’s the trump-whisperer? Fuck.
Same can be applied to any of the video-based services. (Minus the sniffly air of old money). I’ll try to use a future post to dive into one of the articles and really highlight it because once you see it, it’s pretty blatant they’re tipping the scales towards trump. It shouldn’t be close at all. It is because they’re doing that. On purpose.
Both sides is a falacy since for most human subjects it’s incredibly rare for there to be only two options.
Real Journalism is discussing the situation on its own implications, merits and demerits, and presenting options and explaining their pros and cons.
The whole “both sides” reporting is an artifact of it being Propaganda in a system with a Power Duopoly, so mainstream media frames all human subjects with political implications to match that polical system’s own artificially reduced set of choices so as to make it seem like that political system is well suited to deal with human subject with political implications.
(I’ve actually lived in a couple of countries with different levels of actual political freedom, from the UK which is a lot like US and arguably in some ways even less representative, to The Netherlans which has Proportional Vote, and it’s pretty much guaranteed that the way the established Press frames news closelly matches the limitations in political choices in that system)
Then if you go out of mainstream media and look at amateurs (i.e. social media posts) the way they frame subjects is also almost invariably like the Propaganda they grew up with, IMHO not because of them trying to be manipulative but because that’s all they’ve ever known and seen all around them, though the result is still that in their parroting of a sometimes more sometimes less rationalised version of somebody else’s talking points, they follow the same falacious structuring.
There are a handfull of less mainstream media who actually mostly practice Journalism and a few diamond-Journalist amongst the muck which is mainstream media, but generally well established news media will not stray away from a framing that justifies the very system that made them “established”.
Real Journalism is discussing the situation on its own implications, merits and demerits, and presenting options and explaining their pros and cons.
Agreed
The whole “both sides” reporting is an artifact of it being Propaganda in a system with a Power Duopoly
Both sides is a falacy since for most human subjects it’s incredibly rare for there to be only two options.
‘Both sides’ is also a shorthand for both or more. I like your description of “discussing the situation on its own implications…” but I think it’s common in human discourse to frame things in two main perspectives and discuss from there.
That’s because journalism has more or less lost all semblance of integrity, so it’s turned into “what cheap clickbait can I crap out today to maximize my clicks?” That’s why instead of the hard-hitting investigation and journalism we got with Watergate, we get “TRUMP = LITERAL NAZI, CLICK HERE TO FIND OUT WHY”
So, something the better journalists have to be careful with, is using neutral language even in certain clearly one-sided situations. That’s not just to not upset people on both sides; it helps to inform the truth to those who want to read carefully and critically.
If I read, “beware! The right-wingers are conspiring to make a fascist government!” then all I can do is shrug at another sensationalist conspiracy clickbait.
If I read factual details of things said, done and published by said right-wingers: it turns out I’m capable myself of seeing something is bad or good. Sure, it’s still the journalist’s job to interpret the facts to a degree, but those facts should be as transparent as possible and attaching inflammatory language, even if appropriate, often obscures that.
There is a place for opinion writers. But we need, I think, more of the less-opinioned honest truth for honest people. Even if that scares you that readers might not take up your call to arms as quickly as you think they ought.
Sorry, that went a bit off the rails, because I’m not quite sure how to express - though I still think it’s true - the important place for journalism that doesn’t call a spade a spade but tells you its shape so you can understand.
Absolutely - and I agree entirely. However - there are a lot of choices that get made with regards to words and context indicators when writing a piece (Video is a whole other box of frogs but similiar things apply).
Just sticking to text, let’s say, I’m not suggesting that the NYT should write a front page article entitled Watch Out: Crazy Trump Will Kill Us All (although, that’s upsettingly not a zero-percent chance either.)
What I am saying is that they need to stop giving trump the benefit of neutrality. That was a typical and to a small-extent-reasonable excuse they made in 2016. “Let’s see what kind of President he’ll be” and “maybe he’ll grow into it” and sorts of rationalizations that I ranted against at the time and I think was extremely validated by the subesquent nightmare of an administration.
So that’s over. Now, we know who he is - he’s the kind of guy who lies at the drop of a hat. He’ll do it by force of habit. He’s incapable of empathy. He’s so singularly focused on grabbing money (not ‘making money’ now, he doesn’t care about that), and weilding power over his perceived enemies that he’s an absolutely dismal choice for president. He staged a failed coup right in front of us. And still remains unrepentant. Anyone who’s not a complete cult member can see that.
So the NYT writing their article can use that to leverage his latest outrageousness and limit the faux-respect (he deserves none) such as “former President”. Fuck that - that’s not a “fact” as much as it is an “editorial position”. He’s also a former game show host. He’s also gone bankrupt five times. (four? five, whatever) He’s never been a billionaire. These are facts. They don’t use those. Why not.
Because. The tenor of the NYT is that they are “supposed” to be lofty - distanced - respectful. Well, they’re failing us with that. Trump is using that against them and us.
Maggie Haberman’s mom used to be trump’s publicist. And she’s the trump-whisperer? Fuck.
Same can be applied to any of the video-based services. (Minus the sniffly air of old money). I’ll try to use a future post to dive into one of the articles and really highlight it because once you see it, it’s pretty blatant they’re tipping the scales towards trump. It shouldn’t be close at all. It is because they’re doing that. On purpose.
Both sides is a falacy since for most human subjects it’s incredibly rare for there to be only two options.
Real Journalism is discussing the situation on its own implications, merits and demerits, and presenting options and explaining their pros and cons.
The whole “both sides” reporting is an artifact of it being Propaganda in a system with a Power Duopoly, so mainstream media frames all human subjects with political implications to match that polical system’s own artificially reduced set of choices so as to make it seem like that political system is well suited to deal with human subject with political implications.
(I’ve actually lived in a couple of countries with different levels of actual political freedom, from the UK which is a lot like US and arguably in some ways even less representative, to The Netherlans which has Proportional Vote, and it’s pretty much guaranteed that the way the established Press frames news closelly matches the limitations in political choices in that system)
Then if you go out of mainstream media and look at amateurs (i.e. social media posts) the way they frame subjects is also almost invariably like the Propaganda they grew up with, IMHO not because of them trying to be manipulative but because that’s all they’ve ever known and seen all around them, though the result is still that in their parroting of a sometimes more sometimes less rationalised version of somebody else’s talking points, they follow the same falacious structuring.
There are a handfull of less mainstream media who actually mostly practice Journalism and a few diamond-Journalist amongst the muck which is mainstream media, but generally well established news media will not stray away from a framing that justifies the very system that made them “established”.
Agreed
‘Both sides’ is also a shorthand for both or more. I like your description of “discussing the situation on its own implications…” but I think it’s common in human discourse to frame things in two main perspectives and discuss from there.
That’s because journalism has more or less lost all semblance of integrity, so it’s turned into “what cheap clickbait can I crap out today to maximize my clicks?” That’s why instead of the hard-hitting investigation and journalism we got with Watergate, we get “TRUMP = LITERAL NAZI, CLICK HERE TO FIND OUT WHY”