zlacker

>>minima+(OP)
All I wanted to do was read the memo and I couldn't find the link. I'm not sure if I missed it or what but this is a common problem I run into on "news" sites. They quote (often out of context) parts of something but give no links to the actual source.

>>chowar+M6
That's very much by design, in order to paint a certain picture, generate outrage, and ultimately clicks. Recall when the James Damore story was breaking? Many outlets like Motherboard (owned by Vice, authors of this story) circulated quotes and even modified documents that didn't show the full list of research references quoted by Damore, in an attempt to paint a certain picture.

Unfortunately this is the low bar set by a lot of modern journalism. We need a way out of it back to neutral, factual reporting.

>>throwa+k7
> Unfortunately this is the low bar set by a lot of modern journalism. We need a way out of it back to neutral, factual reporting.

Creating fact focused journalism is a laudible goal but I'd be curious of what specific time in history you think that this was generally the case?

>>Dubiou+I8
Not OP, but it was my impression that quality journalism was generally the case in the 1980s (in the US at least). What I was reading then certainly seemed to be. Separation of church and state was taken very seriously.

These days, you can't start with the assumption that a story is written to J standards. Rather, you need to start with the assumption that it's pushing narrative, and hope to be surprised.

>>downer+Gb
I think you should consider the possibility that the news wasn't necessarily any better just more people had faith in a few sources such as broadcast news and national papers, leading to less contention of the facts.

>>Dubiou+ae
There definitely was bias then, but it was far more limited (with a few scandalous exceptions). As an example, TV news couldn't strongly push an agenda lest they risk losing their broadcast license. Mixing church and state at the NYT was a great way to get fired.

More personally, I took a J class during this period and wrote for a school newspaper. The instructor talked about J standards the way NRA instructors talk about gun safety--it was practically a religion.

These days, if you want facts, you have to plumb the cesspools of the right and the left and work it out for yourself.

>>downer+2l
You really don't think they teach the same high-minded stuff in journalism classes these days? I would bet you that if you sat in on meetings at the NYT or broadcast news outlets you would hear the exact same kind of intent as you attribute to them in yesteryear.

I could be wrong but I think the far bigger difference from then to today is not the quality of the journalism out of mainstream outlets but that the plethora of outlets available has removed the necessity of consensus myth making. Instead of a collected national myth that Americans share they can now choose their own myth.

They used to have to bend their views somewhat towards the major news because people seek to resolve their cognitive dissonance. Now they can change the channel. As an example, my parents are conservative and when Walter Cronkite criticized the Vietnam War and journalists put direct images of the conflict on TV they praised that. Yet when mainstream news which had generally backed the war in Iraq began to report on things going wrong there my parents were livid. When news outlets began reporting on soldiers dying and reading the names of the dead they were even angrier. Nevermind that the news was unable to air the kinds of direct footage of war they had in the 60s because the military had become much savier about the kinds of situations they let reporters into.

I think major news had almost the exact same, pro establishment, upper middle class ivy league bias it has today. I just think it's easier to confirm a contrary opinion. If Fox News existed in the sixties I think it would've run with slander stories about MLK for example and might've hampered Civil Rights. But they didn't exist and general regard for MLK as a hero became the default myth.

Again, I could be wrong but I think it's a perspective worth putting up against the common narrative.