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
Back in the day, news organizations could make money by just presenting the facts first ahead of any other news organization. Just being the first to collect and disseminate information was the key to success. Collecting and disseminating information is now a commodity and the way to be the first in front of someone to make money off add impressions requires virality, and the most clickbait biased content is how you produce profitable content.

Not saying that this problem never existed in the past, but it is far far worse now.

Go watch Walter Cronkite's reporting on the Kennedy assassination. He and his news room is just reporting the facts as they get them with no editorialization or agenda.

>>maland+Kn
Back in what day specifically?

>>Dubiou+pt
Back before collecting and disseminating information rapidly became a commodity. So basically before CNN approximately and definitely before blogs.

There's not a specific moment in time. There are specific innovations that accelerated and commodified the dissemination of facts, which each contributing to this decline in journalistic integrity and greater faithfulness to facts.

>>maland+6u
So I watched the Cronkite stuff and it seems pretty similar to this.

https://youtu.be/VDv3_KfdBs4

So is your gripe generally applies to all contemporary journalism or specifically with CNN and Fox News? Isn't it just as likely that legacy news sources are still doing the news pretty much the way they always have but that the availability of alternative sources has allowed people to diverge their opinion from a mainstream one more than they could before? (Which I'm not saying is good or bad. I think it likely has benefits and drawbacks.)

>>Dubiou+4w
CNN is certainly doing things far differently than it did in the early days. It might not have been Reuters, but it was still quite neutral and of good journalistic quality. (These days it seems more reminiscent of Jerry Springer.)