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
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
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
Do you see the press as a legitimate political force ... — Hanover
... leaving to the reader the conclusions he wishes to draw? — Hanover
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
My question is whether anyone disagrees with what I've said — Hanover
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
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
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.
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 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
The debate in the article referenced what was reported versus what should be covered up. — Hanover
and hate speech, of course. — Vera Mont
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
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
But then also consider the role of Fox Media in the American Political landscape. — Wayfarer
As long as the headline says "Opinion," I think it's fair game to say as you want. — Hanover
"hate speech" is not a very good descriptor of anything, despite its legal use.. which is equally as muddy and controversial. — AmadeusD
Do you see the press as a legitimate political force, rightfully empowered to promote the good as the outlet sees fit, — Hanover
Secondly Trump undermines the idea of there being objective facts — Wayfarer
The legal language can be made clear enough to penalize deliberate harm perpetrated by public media. — Vera Mont
I'm not familiar with this pledge as a requirement for journalists, editors or publishers. — Vera Mont
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
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 news organization does not have to listen to that article if the news organization is truly independent.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
Public funding should be in place to support the unbiased news organization in cases of threats like that.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
If the news organization believes in professionalism, they know what to do. Their judgment should prevail.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
Public funding should be in place to support the unbiased news organization in cases of threats like that. — L'éléphant
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
The problem with that is that our best example of publicly funded news (PBS and NPR) is left leaning. — 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.Putting the government in charge of reporting the news is a nod toward allowing propoganda. — 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.but what would a publicly funded media look like that was ultimately answerable to a Trump administration? — 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
This strikes me as naive.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
Except they didn't cease to exist when he was in power.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
Is this news reportage, editorial comment, or an open discussion? Who were "they"?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
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?)That was a pro-Biden, anti-Israel, anti-Trump conversation. — 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 question is whether that is what the media ought to do. — Hanover
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
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.
Oh, right, Trump, the anti-realist philosopher. Meanwhile in reality
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
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.