The Role of the Press

Hanover

This article argues that the ethical role of the media is in determining which side of a debate is most ethically correct and then promoting it:

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/york-times-facing-backlash-over-120044346.html

Implicit in this argument is the additonal argument that if a news outlet doesn't adequately promote the correct ethical side, financial pressure should be placed upon that outlet to get it to change its course.

I'd argue that it is this type of reasoning that has led to the politicalization and delegitimization of much of media where you go only to your own personal trusted news source for any information. The article makes clear that NYT readers believe the NYT has an ethical duty to promote Biden and never to provide fodder to the right.

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. 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.

My question is whether anyone disagrees with what I've said and believes that the press has a duty to stake out a preferred social objective and then to use its power to promote that objective? 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?

Vera Mont

I think all news sources should be held to a minimum standard of accuracy in the reporting of events, statistics, demographic information and quotations. I don't know how this kind of oversight could be administered, except through a professional body of their peers, such as doctors and lawyers have.
The industry should self-censor as to content: don't post inflammatory material, publish national or trade secrets, endanger the security or breach the privacy of the subjects of their articles.

Beyond factual reportage, however, the editorial position of each outlet should be free and unhindered, (short of libel, slander, incitement and hate speech, of course.) Political bias, religious leanings, ethnic, gender and class interests could all be represented by partisan media.

However, that could only work if the press were actually independent, rather than gobbled up, print, radio, television and internet, across entire regions by giant corporations with a single overriding policy that's enforced on all of its editors and reporters.

Fooloso4

Implicit in this argument is the additonal argument that if a news outlet doesn't adequately promote the correct ethical side, financial pressure should be placed upon that outlet to get it to change its course.

I'd argue that it is this type of reasoning that has led to the politicalization and delegitimization of much of media where you go only to your own personal trusted news source for any information. — Hanover

I do not think it is a question of whether financial pressure should be placed on the outlet. It is, rather, that readers, listeners, and viewers turn to those outlets that align with their own opinions. The dollars follow.

The article makes clear that NYT readers believe the NYT has an ethical duty to promote Biden and never to provide fodder to the right. — Hanover

Does it? What did I miss?

As a NYT reader who often reads the comment section attached to articles I do not think this claim is true.

My question is whether anyone disagrees with what I've said and believes that the press has a duty to stake out a preferred social objective and then to use its power to promote that objective? — Hanover

The press has a duty to the truth. To put it in terms of "a preferred social objective" is to reduce questions of truth to a matter of preference. The idea of neutrality is a myth with its own preferred social objective.

Do you see the press as a legitimate political force ... — Hanover

Yes. But only if it is free.

... leaving to the reader the conclusions he wishes to draw? — Hanover

The editorial and opinion sections are the place for making persuasive arguments from which the reader can draw his own conclusions.

Tzeentch

My question is whether anyone disagrees with what I've said and believes that the press has a duty to stake out a preferred social objective and then to use its power to promote that objective? 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? — Hanover

The former option sounds to me little different from propaganda, and I am convinced many major news outlets have degenerated into just that.

I find myself firmly in the second camp. The press should seek to provide objective coverage of events. Obviously perfectly objective coverage doesn't exist, but if a news agency genuinely pursues that goal, it will do a good enough job.

If journalism can be said to have a proper objective, it should be to scrutinize those in power through investigative journalism, and not to play as lackeys of the powerful.

Media are very powerful, and perverse incentives are everywhere. It is no coincidence that there is a 'press code', much like there is for example a hippocratic oath.

Sir2u

My question is whether anyone disagrees with what I've said — Hanover

Can't disagree with the truth. The name says it all, news. That is what any and all news outlets are supposed to provide. Their job is to provide the public with untainted, unbiased facts and accounts of the things that are happening.
They have no right to take sides in politics because that would automatically breach their pledge to provide the public with the whole, complete and impartial facts.
If they do their job properly then all sides of all events would be covered and the public will use their own methods of deciding on the best way to proceed.

This is why I do not spend too much time reading or watching the news.

jkop

I'd argue that it is this type of reasoning that has led to the politicalization and delegitimization of much of media where you go only to your own personal trusted news source for any information. — Hanover

It occurs to me that the reference to press ethics is an argument against an already ongoing politicalization in order to avoid further delegitimization of the press. You're right in the sense that it isn't effective, and that it can itself be used uncharitably as evidence of politicalization.

However, what leads to the politicalization in the first place?

Normally political interests buy advertisement in the press and participate in debates arranged by the press. But since a decade or so political interests also buy and control entire news stations and may decline to participate in debates. Political debates are becoming pointless.

Furthermore, the press doesn't seem to suffer too much from letting go of principles of objectivity and ethics, and here I wonder whether some might even approve of the loss. The influence that postmodern "thought" had on some journalists and other half-baked intellectuals from the 1990s and onwards, now they're chief editors etc. What can we expect from these radical relativists who were taught to abhor anything objective? Politicalized journalism and chatter about feelings, anything but facts.

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. — Hanover

For meaningful debate about different viewpoints the principle of charity is helpful, perhaps necessary, yet it is systematically violated by many politicians and journalists.

NOS4A2

↪Hanover

I don’t have much to add, but it’s reminiscent of Orwell’s essay “Through a glass, rosily”.

Whenever A and B are in opposition to one another, anyone who attacks or criticises A is accused of aiding and abetting B. And it is often true, objectively and on a short-term analysis, that he is making things easier for B. Therefore, say the supporters of A, shut up and don't criticise: or at least criticise "constructively", which in practice always means favourably. And from this it is only a short step to arguing that the suppression and distortion of known facts is the highest duty of a journalist.

Journalism today is the suppression and distortion of known facts, not to mention the propaganda wing of government agencies, corporations, and political parties.

Vera Mont

They have no right to take sides in politics because that would automatically breach their pledge to provide the public with the whole, complete and impartial facts. — Sir2u

I'm not familiar with this pledge as a requirement for journalists, editors or publishers. As far as I know, every publication is free to express an editorial position, as well as to choose which aspect of the news they cover and in how much detail.
Various publications have always been open about their political and economic affiliations, and that's not a problem, as long as those affiliations are known and distributed fairly - i.e. media outlets with different points of view are equally available to the audience.
However, when whole blocs of outlets are controlled by a monopoly, that freedom no longer exists.

Hanover

I think all news sources should be held to a minimum standard of accuracy in the reporting of events, statistics, demographic information and quotations. — Vera Mont

I do think there should be journalistic ethics, but this seems to go beyond that. The debate in the article referenced what was reported versus what should be covered up. The report was that a high percentage of the population thought Biden too old to be President, so NYT subscribers were angry that the true report were published because it offered support for the Republican position. They were mad the truth was published because the truth didn't help their cause.

Vera Mont

The debate in the article referenced what was reported versus what should be covered up. — Hanover

Some faction is always mad about something, whether it's done by doctors, teachers, lawyers or climate scientists. The disgruntled/offended/irate portion of the public is not the arbiter of professional ethics.
(They're obviously both too old, but at least one of the geezers is sane.)

AmadeusD

and hate speech, of course. — Vera Mont

I think this is where it gets messy.

"hate speech" is not a very good descriptor of anything, despite its legal use.. which is equally as muddy and controversial. This has an extremely ethics-driven overtone, no matter what your position is - so I think, just excluded anything YOU think comes under that title is tantamount to the same arbitrary restrictions posited in the OP. It is a subjective measure, and so there is no 'accuracy' issue.

If you are merely making the positivist point that journalists shouldn't break the law - fair enough. I took this to be a more wide-scoped convo starter.

Wayfarer

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 agree with you in principle, but in the specifics of Trump v Biden, I understand the angst directed at the NYT. In my view, the fact that Trump is even considered a candidate, given his well-documented attempts to subvert the 2020 election and his consistent refusal to concede, is gravely disfunctional. As I've often said, you wouldn't even be allowed into a tennis tournament if you refused to acknowledge the umpire's rulings. And I too was dissappointed by the particular story the article highlights about concerns of Biden's fitness for office, which are routinely exagerrated. Biden has never been a very good public speaker, but he's an effective politican and leader who actually observes the conventions of his office and 'plays by the rules'.

My question is whether anyone disagrees with what I've said and believes that the press has a duty to stake out a preferred social objective and then to use its power to promote that objective — Hanover

Obviously a difficult question, but sometimes there are not 'two sides to every story'. In this case, it's not a contest between two equally qualified and worthy candidates, and that is a matter of objective fact. It's a contest between a regular politician, even if a mediocre example in some eyes, and a candidate who demonstrates contempt for democratic norms every time he opens his mouth and who openly threatens to institute a police state to persecute his rivals.

But then also consider the role of Fox Media in the American Political landscape. They make no secret of being a propaganda channel for right-wing political views. I never watch it, but I read reports to the effect that they routinely denigrate and belittle Biden and make no pretence whatever at impartiality in their coverage of presidential politics, never mind the almost billion-dollar penalty they received for their outrageous bias in coverage of the last Presidential election. And if that could be reigned in, it would definitely be a good thing.

Hanover

But then also consider the role of Fox Media in the American Political landscape. — Wayfarer

That is actually what I had in mind when I read the NYT story. Fox is transparently lopsided, which makes it an entertainment source, but not a news source. As long as the headline says "Opinion," I think it's fair game to say as you want.

My concern is when those who claim objectivity give up on the idea and instead join the fray, or worse yet, pretend to be fair and balanced but instead have an agenda. It's at that point the Fox News channels of the world get vindicated, proving what they've said all along, which is that the news isn't the news, but it's part of the political process.

Biden has serious age issues. It's not worth denying at this point. To the extent admitting that helps Trump, I'd argue that denying it helps him more, especially when the denying is by people who everyone knows knows better. It's better to admit a flaw than deny it and lose all credibility.

Wayfarer

As long as the headline says "Opinion," I think it's fair game to say as you want. — Hanover

It’s said that intelligence is ‘the ability to make distinctions’. I’m afraid that the distinction between news and opinion is one the general Fox audience may not have the intelligence to make.

Secondly Trump undermines the idea of there being objective facts. He creates a ‘permission structure’ in which facts are what he says they are, and hundreds of millions will believe it. The so-called progressive media have given up on fact-checking him, because his followers believe him and deny the facts. That is of the essence of his threat to democracy.

Vera Mont

"hate speech" is not a very good descriptor of anything, despite its legal use.. which is equally as muddy and controversial. — AmadeusD

It may be controversial, but encouraging people to oppress, rape and kill other people should still be illegal, as far as I'm concerned. The legal language can be made clear enough to penalize deliberate harm perpetrated by public media.

Lionino

Do you see the press as a legitimate political force, rightfully empowered to promote the good as the outlet sees fit, — Hanover

Yes, but only if the press agrees in full with my political position, otherwise they must be censored.

Secondly Trump undermines the idea of there being objective facts — Wayfarer

Oh, right, Trump, the anti-realist philosopher. Meanwhile in reality:

AmadeusD

The legal language can be made clear enough to penalize deliberate harm perpetrated by public media. — Vera Mont

Oh, sure. But it isn't currently.

I don't think the concept is coherent enough. I think you'd have to specific the things you've specified (which i agree with) and prohibit specific acts. Not a catch-all. Way too slippery and subjective. It also lets lawyers be lawyers. Which we should reduce the opportunity for :P

Vera Mont

I don't think the concept is coherent enough — AmadeusD

Okay. The Supreme Court agrees with you. Yet newspaper editors the world over know exactly which articles they should not publish.

AmadeusD

↪Vera Mont

They don't.

This is what my objection boils down to. 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. "Women are not men" is hate speech on some platforms.

It takes a hard R on others. There is no universal that could be applied.

I personally don't think anything should be considered 'hate speech' because that's a cudgel and not relevant to whether an utterance is worth hearing.

Sir2u

I'm not familiar with this pledge as a requirement for journalists, editors or publishers. — Vera Mont

Your right, it is not a requirement and few would sign or abide by it if it was.

https://www.change.org/p/commitment-to-ethical-journalism-sign-the-pledge-and-join-the-movement

http://www.watchdogcity.com/custompage/Watchdog-City-Journa/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalist%27s_Creed

https://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

https://americanmediacouncil.org/pledge/

https://www.nuj.org.uk/about-us/rules-and-guidance/code-of-conduct.html

Leontiskos

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. 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. — Hanover

Yep.

My question is whether anyone disagrees with what I've said and believes that the press has a duty to stake out a preferred social objective and then to use its power to promote that objective? 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? — Hanover

I think viewpoint neutrality is important, and objectivity with respect to important stories is important; but on the other hand is the fact that there is no truly objective vantage point when it comes to news, at the very least insofar as story selection goes.

The question seems to be: What is the telos of the press?

See also: "All reporting is biased."

Vera Mont

Your right, it is not a requirement and few would sign or abide by it if it was. — Sir2u

How could they, knowing that Boss Murdock can overrule it at any time?

L'éléphant

This article argues that the ethical role of the media is in determining which side of a debate is most ethically correct and then promoting it: — Hanover

The news organization does not have to listen to that article if the news organization is truly independent.

Implicit in this argument is the additonal argument that if a news outlet doesn't adequately promote the correct ethical side, financial pressure should be placed upon that outlet to get it to change its course. — Hanover

Public funding should be in place to support the unbiased news organization in cases of threats like that.

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. — Hanover

If the news organization believes in professionalism, they know what to do. Their judgment should prevail.

Hanover

Public funding should be in place to support the unbiased news organization in cases of threats like that. — L'éléphant

The problem with that is that our best example of publicly funded news (PBS and NPR) is left leaning. Putting the government in charge of reporting the news is a nod toward allowing propoganda. I think the fears here are lessened by the fact that Biden is President, but what would a publicly funded media look like that was ultimately answerable to a Trump administration?

The news organization does not have to listen to that article if the news organization is truly independent. — L'éléphant

If the news organization believes in professionalism, they know what to do. Their judgment should prevail. — L'éléphant

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.

Vera Mont

The problem with that is that our best example of publicly funded news (PBS and NPR) is left leaning. — Hanover

That can't be helped: public services tend to concentrate on serving the public, not special interests. It's biased toward educating the public, regardless of party politics.

Putting the government in charge of reporting the news is a nod toward allowing propoganda. — Hanover

Only, the government and arm's-length public funding agencies in general are not in charge of the reporting, any more than they're in charge of medical services through the CDC or of law enforcement through the FBI. The government, whether the prevailing administration is liberal or conservative, can control the financing of these organizations, but not their day-to-day functioning.

but what would a publicly funded media look like that was ultimately answerable to a Trump administration? — Hanover

The right wing doesn't need a publicly funded platform for its propaganda: it has plenty of very large commercial platforms. If a Trump, or any of his ilk gained sufficient power, all public information outlets - along with public schools, clinics and libraries - would cease to exist.

Hanover

That can't be helped: public services tend to concentrate on serving the public, not special interests. It's biased toward educating the public, regardless of party politics. — Vera Mont

I was listening to public radio last night and the issue being discussed was how to dissuade the Biden protest voters who have said they won't vote for Biden as long as he is supportive of Israel. They acknowledged the genocide that was occurring at the hands of the Israelis, but they were concerned that a Trump administration would be far worse, so the solution is not to refuse to vote for Biden.

Maybe you agree with these sentiments. Maybe you don't. That conversation was not about educating the public regardless of party politics. That was a pro-Biden, anti-Israel, anti-Trump conversation.

The government, whether the prevailing administration is liberal or conservative, can control the financing of these organizations, but not their day-to-day functioning. — Vera Mont

This strikes me as naive.

Trump unilaterally got hydroxychloroquine approved as a Covid medication, over-ruling CDC protocol. That's just one example, but the idea that there's some invisible wall that blocks the influence of Congress, individual representatives and Senators, and the President from administrative decisions just isn't a real possibility.

The right wing doesn't need a publicly funded platform for its propaganda: it has plenty of very large commercial platforms. If a Trump, or any of his ilk gained sufficient power, all public information outlets - along with public schools, clinics and libraries - would cease to exist. — Vera Mont

Except they didn't cease to exist when he was in power.

In any event, I'm not trying to discuss whether Trump poses a threat to democracy. I'm asking what role the press should have in controlling it. I think it's clear that both sides of the political spectrum have their media advocates, from FoxNews to MSNBC. The question is whether that is what the media ought to do.

Hanover

↪Sir2u

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. Ethical reporting was a requirement for survival in the market.

Now all you need is a keyboard and you can publish to the world. 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.

Vera Mont

I was listening to public radio last night and the issue being discussed was how to dissuade the Biden protest voters who have said they won't vote for Biden as long as he is supportive of Israel. — Hanover

Is this news reportage, editorial comment, or an open discussion? Who were "they"?

That was a pro-Biden, anti-Israel, anti-Trump conversation. — Hanover

And this conversation is broadcast 24 hours a day, exclusively? Or is it part of a spectrum of opinions and one of many discussions on diverse topics? (BTW, Is it "anti-Israel" to tell the truth about Israel's current leadership or disapprove of what it's doing? Is it "anti-Israel" to let someone express disapproval of those action? If so, should all "anti-Israel" opinion be censored on news media?)

I'm not commenting - I'm asking, since I don't listen to radio. But I have watched quite a lot of PBS television and found it far more factually accurate, as well as representative of more points of view - as well as airing far more informative content than commercial television.

Trump is a clear and present danger to America and the world. Whatever happened to the Republican Party to allow the Trump anomaly to occur at all was national and international tragedy of massive proportions. I don't think you have to lean too far left to see this.

The question is whether that is what the media ought to do. — Hanover

What you or I think the media ought to do is a very moot point. Of course news media should report factual news and dispense useful information. If the press were free, as is wistfully hoped in the constitution, the various outlets would represent every shade of opinion under the sun.
The reality is: money controls both politics and information: nothing is free.

flannel jesus

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 — Hanover

I don't see this implied in the article you linked.

Count Timothy von Icarus

On one of my first days at The New York Times, I went to an orientation with more than a dozen other new hires. We had to do an icebreaker: Pick a Starburst out of a jar and then answer a question. My Starburst was pink, I believe, and so I had to answer the pink prompt, which had me respond with my favorite sandwich. Russ & Daughters’ Super Heebster came to mind, but I figured mentioning a $19 sandwich wasn’t a great way to win new friends. So I blurted out, “The spicy chicken sandwich from Chick-fil-A,” and considered the ice broken.

The HR representative leading the orientation chided me: “We don’t do that here. They hate gay people.” People started snapping their fingers in acclamation. I hadn’t been thinking about the fact that Chick-fil-A was transgressive in liberal circles for its chairman’s opposition to gay marriage. “Not the politics, the chicken,” I quickly said, but it was too late. I sat down, ashamed.

Related, I found the opening here quite funny. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/02/tom-cotton-new-york-times/677546/

:rofl:

Count Timothy von Icarus

↪Lionino

Oh, right, Trump, the anti-realist philosopher. Meanwhile in reality

My favorite Gilliani soundbite:

"But truth is truth right?"
"No, truth isn't truth."

I also found the title for: "Post-Truth and the Controversy over Postmodernism. Or, was Trump Reading Foucault?" quite amusing.

Unfortunately, while Newman has some very good analysis in there, he is too concerned with defending his own philosophical "school," and seemingly biased against the "Trump crowd," and so misses some important nuances. He paints supporters of the former President with a broad brush, and misses the small, but influential radical set who have swam in the waters of continental philosophy and identity movements, and adapted them to the Trumpian mileue.

https://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/items/acbe140d-c732-4842-940d-754b6d063ef6

It's an interesting area:

Moreover, tactics of information warfare initiated by so-called “postmodern” terrorists of the 1990s would, by the 2010s, take an epistemological turn, sewing global anxiety about the instability of knowledge and truth itself. Throughout the 1990s the Neue Rechte increasingly aimed its rhetorical ammunition at the stability of historical truth and the German culture of remembrance by engaging in historical revisionism. Epistemic chaos was further deepened by a trend of left-wing apostasy to the Neue Rechte, culminating in recent years in a lateral politics that uses the instability of truth to its advantage. In an intellectual turn referred to in this dissertation as “right-wing postmodernism,” the Neue Rechte of the 1990s and beyond has successfully weaponized anxiety concerning the knowability of facts, from its attack on the liberal media to its online disinformation campaigns in recent years. While other nations such as the US and Britain have experienced their own “post-truth” climates in which concepts such as “alternative facts” and “fake news” abound to discordian effect, in Germany, historical memory is the specific target of the Neue Rechte’s campaign

Someone with more time than me would do well to look at the cross over between esotericism and these trends, because they seem to be a pathway towards a full blown anti-realism. Or to let 4chan (discussing Julius Evola and Aliester Crowley) speak for itself:

Actually, the whole evolution of "post-religion" esotericism is very interesting. It's an area where tradition reigns supreme as a source of authority, and yet one cannot delve into pre-19th century Western esoterica without seeing Jewish, Christian, and Islamic conceptions of God and divine love/unity everywhere, at the very core. So, the shift to a largely areligious, even anti-religious frame is interesting and I've never seen it explained. The old frames are very much absolute, but the replacement of Absolute Spirit with the Absolute Individual in magical idealism totally shifts the focus, while the anti-rationalism and view of discursive knowledge as chains, barriers to freedom, radically alters the ground.

The Role of the Press

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions