• @AllonzeeLV
    link
    19
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Journalism is more important than any journalistic organization. The NYT has clearly forgotten that reality. The best journalists often put themselves in harm’s way to shine light on ugly realities, and their country doesn’t usually need to be falling to fascism to do so.

    The NYT is good at protecting themselves at the cost of good journalism. Better to survive as a shiny brand than burn out as as journalists at a journalistic organization, I suppose.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      -19
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      So its their job to suffer and die for you?

      Yes, the ideal is that Truth matters. And plenty of journalists still firmly believe that and are targeted by corporations and hate groups for it.

      And you know what they get for it? Their employers have to lay them off because nobody is willing to pay for news and the response is usually “Fuck that, I refuse to look at anything with a paywall”. Or people start chomping at the bit to attack them for “being high on themselves”. And so forth. Anti-intellectualism is rampant throughout the world and journalism has been a target of that since long before fascists realized they could weaponize it.

      In a perfect world? Yeah. Fight the good fight. And plenty of outlets still do that (often at great personal cost). But I have a real hard time getting pissy that people are deciding that they want to have a job, or a life, after November.

      • @AllonzeeLV
        link
        7
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        We’re not going to agree on whether it’s understandable to be a self-identified journalistic organization that prioritizes self-preservation over journalism.

        I at some point tagged you as an apologist for capitalism, so we just have 2 very different world views and ethics on most issues. Have a good one.

      • @captainlezbian
        link
        410 months ago

        Do you feel the same way about the judges who are clearly responding to being threatened by giving reduced sentences? Because I don’t. Being a judge is sometimes a dangerous job. It’s a job that you should be aware may cost you your life to do right and people get to demand you do it right anyway. Just like a soldier.

        Journalism is similar. You accepted a high risk high ideal career. It’s a wonderful calling, but part of the reason we respect it is this.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          -310 months ago

          Like the soldiers who actively noped out of protecting Congress and the Vice President from the President? Or law enforcement who will actively refuse to enforce laws they don’t like?

          Like anything, it is a social contract. Journalists are meant to serve The People. The “dream” is that a corrupt government arrests a journalist and The People protest until they are released. The reality is that the journalist will be disappeared. The article they spent years of their life in hiding to write will be immediately copied and posted across social media. People will say they are liars who write clickbait and blah blah blah. And they won’t even know because they are being beaten in a windowless room. And their friends and family will, at best, be harassed for the rest of their life.

          I have MASSIVE respect for the people who fight the good fight regardless of how little support they have. I would like to think I am more on that direction than not but I also fully acknowledge that I am taking advantage of my privilege (that may not exist in a few months but…). But I am not going to be overly harsh on someone who doesn’t want to sacrifice their friends and family to stand alone and accomplish nothing.

          • @Maggoty
            link
            110 months ago

            Buddy, the soldiers went the second they were ordered to by the Civilians. Believe me, you do not want the military deciding to “protect” the capital all on it’s own. That’s the express route to dictatorship.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              0
              edit-2
              10 months ago

              Buddy, the outging president of the united states, who had already refused to follow the law and uphold democracy, was openly supporting “good people” who were trying to lynch Congress. And the Vice President, who also had the authority to call them in, was cowering in fear because he had every reason to believe that Secret Service agents would murder him.

              Rolling up and stopping the armed lunatics attacking the US Capitol Building is very much something the military can and should do.

              This is the equivalent of saying “Well. Russia/China/whoever attacked us. But they blocked the cell phone jammers and might have murdered the POTUS and VPOTUS. So… I guess we just wait until someone tells us we can fight them off?”

              But actively refusing to stop the outgoing POTUS from taking over the country with an armed mob because… the outgoing POTUS didn’t ask them to stop him? Hmmm. Why does THAT sound more like a route to a dictatorship?

              • @Maggoty
                link
                210 months ago

                There’s more than one person who can authorize that. In fact, Trump never authorized it. It was a DOD political appointee.

      • @Maggoty
        link
        4
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        You could make the same argument about Soldiers. Or firefighters. Or cops. Or electric linemen. Or North Sea fishermen.

        The job of journalism is to go find the truth and report it. Sometimes that’s dangerous. Just like any dangerous public good it does not mean they’re a sacrificial lamb.

      • @FlowVoid
        link
        English
        210 months ago

        Tell me the Times lost credibility without telling me the Times lost credibility