Putting the government in charge of reporting the news is a nod toward allowing propoganda. — Hanover
That was a pro-Biden, anti-Israel, anti-Trump conversation. — Hanover
What will prevail is that the supply will meet the demand, meaning that if there is no demand for unbiased or balanced reporting, it won't be in the market, at least not terribly long. — Hanover
That's why I think this is a cultural and/or philosophical problem. Is there really a great deal of demand for unbiased reporting in the U.S.? The "cost" that individuals are willing to "pay" for that kind of reporting seems extremely low. As an Aristotelian I see this as a virtue problem. Those who are not educated in a way that helps them to love the truth do not love the truth, and in America we don't place much value on love of truth. — Leontiskos
Would a European nation provide both sides of a Trump related issue or would that just not be necessary due to the homogenous view they might have on the topic? — Hanover
As outsiders, that European population would see the Trump issue as an American one, — Vera Mont
By the way - Is there any reason to assume that there are only two "sides" to the American perspective on the Trump problem? — Vera Mont
The world is watching Trump. — Hanover
Yes, there would be a reason. Pro and con. But mabe you're dividing it another way. — Hanover
Or to let 4chan (discussing Julius Evola and Aliester Crowley) speak for itself: — Count Timothy von Icarus
in Germany, historical memory is the specific target of the Neue Rechte’s campaign
Yet newspaper editors the world over know exactly which articles they should not publish. — Vera Mont
It's a vaccuous concept that doesn't refer to anything that could be used interpersonally — AmadeusD
Most of those people are shitposting.
but generally in Europe we don't see much insanity
Okay, sorry to hear that these organizations have biases as well.The problem with that is that our best example of publicly funded news (PBS and NPR) is left leaning. — Hanover
But there will be, and there is a demand for unbiased or all sides of politics.What will prevail is that the supply will meet the demand, meaning that if there is no demand for unbiased or balanced reporting, it won't be in the market, at least not terribly long. — Hanover
Is it an American thing or just a diversity of thought thing? Would a European nation provide both sides of a Trump related issue or would that just not be necessary due to the homogenous view they might have on the topic?
You don't need to use the press as a means to advocate if everyone pretty much already agrees on everything. — Hanover
IME, the manifest function of 'US corporate news media' primarily has been to inform the business class & its mandarins (i.e. shareholders) while simultaneously disinforming – infotaining/polarizing – the masses (i.e. stakeholders). This mirrors the K-12 conformative education of their respective children. — 180 Proof
That is, is Swedish and French (for example) news more accurate, — Hanover
Yes, of course they're more accurate.The Swedish media accountability system has a long, evolving history. It consists of three sets of rules:
Publicity rules:
These rules ensure fair reporting, respect for privacy, interviewee rights, the right to reply, and the treatment of images. They are the oldest part of the code of conduct.
Rules of professional journalism:
These rules govern the conduct of journalists, covering their integrity, assignments, source relationships, and more. They are established by the Association of Swedish Journalists (SJF).
Editorial advertising guidelines:
These guidelines address the relationship between advertising and editorial content. They emphasize that news should be based on news value, not advertising value, and that advertising should be distinguishable from editorial content. https://www.meltwater.com/en/blog/sweden-media-landscape
While they all may not be more accurate than their American counterparts, some are likely to be more accurate than others, just like their American counterparts.Yet the French media outlets follow the more general trend of empowering (more) autonomy from politics, most news radio channels, TV channels, and more particularly news magazines and newspapers, still express a political orientation if not a partisanship backing or sponsor.
but I've seen enough of these spaces to be quite confident that there are a decent core of people for whom Evola and Guenon are "serious business." — Count Timothy von Icarus
How does that affect an editor's responsibility for deciding what to print and what to avoid? — Vera Mont
major banks and law firms participate in illegal tax evasion — jkop
You said that editors over the world know which articles to publish or not. If I am understanding what you said correctly, the editors of Charlie Hebdo knew that they should not publish that comic mocking Muhammad. — Lionino
Why decide to publish? Because it's an individual artist's or columnist's right to express an opinion, whether everyone agrees with it or not, whether the editor agrees with it or not.But then, why? Because of Muslim extremists that would hurt them, or because it is incorrect to make fun of minority religions, or both? — Lionino
Allegedly he had unprotected sex with one or two women, which resulted in criminal charges. — jkop
Actually, democracy itself rests on taking for granted that all involved will play by certain rules that protect democracy itself, which includes censoring one's own speech and behavior and those of others.To argue that the press has a duty to provide only certain facts in order to protect democracy contradicts the idea that the freer the press, the more open the democracy. — Hanover
I don't recall a time when a particular media outlet wasn't associated with a particular political option. Sometimes, this association is more obvious, clearly spelled out, other times, less so, but it's always there.The net result of using the press as a means to promote certain viewpoints only leads to a distrust of the press even when the press has their information correct. That's exactly what you're seeing now, where no one can speak outside their echo chamber because there are no longer any accepted facts across ideological boundries.
This isn't to say there's such a thing as a view from nowhere and that objectively can be established, but balanced reporting, where competing viewpoints are presented would be the goal.
The press likes to present itself as being "objective" and "truthful". It becomes rather ironic when you see two competing newspapers have those concepts in their slogans, and then each newspaper writes views that are directly opposed to eachother.Do you see the press as a legitimate political force, rightfully empowered to promote the good as the outlet sees fit, or do you see the press as having no objective other than the presentation of facts from various viewpoints, leaving to the reader the conclusions he wishes to draw?
In 2020, several high politicians in EU countries congratulated Trump for winning the election and haven't recanted it since. Beyond that, there is a variety of views on the Trump issue.Would a European nation provide both sides of a Trump related issue or would that just not be necessary due to the homogenous view they might have on the topic? — Hanover
There is no homogenized "French news" or homogenized "Swedish news" or some such. In every EU country that I can think of, there are newspapers that are pro-Trump, those that are against him, and those that are somewhat aloof.That is, is Swedish and French (for example) news more accurate, or is it just more predictably consistent with the promotion of those countries' political ideologies? — Hanover
We'd have to check on a case-by-case basis, but the situation probably varies by time period, country, and continent.The problem is that once upon a time there were very few national news outlets, so entry into the market was difficult. You had to get your credentials and prove your worth if you wanted a microphone in front of you. Reputation was critical, so no outlet wanted to get their facts wrong or appear biased. — Hanover
Rather, the other way around: those which survived were deemed ethical.Ethical reporting was a requirement for survival in the market.
Not at all. Getting heard nowadays is extremely difficult. Sure, publishing may be easy, but getting oneself heard is often impossible.Now all you need is a keyboard and you can publish to the world.
But people, the potential readers, are not tabulae rasae, they are also not passive recipients of what they hear. They are not "the masses". They do not come to the news stand as naive little children.What sells is what people want to hear. The ethics exist, but it's not critical to follow them. And so we're left with people just as likely to listen to me or you, regardless of what malice lurks in our minds, as they are to listen to those who have agreed to a code of ethics.
It seems it has a lot ot do with calculated risks. It's seems likely that editors calculate that publishing something potentially problematic will still pay off for them even if it costs them a lawsuit.No one knows anything about 'hate speech'. They know what makes them uncomfortable. It's a vaccuous concept that doesn't refer to anything that could be used interpersonally, unless you already agree on what Hate Speech. Which is tautological and entirely incoherent.
They obviously don't, given the number of law suits journalists and institutions get into. — AmadeusD
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.