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

This would be a problem if the government was in charge, but it's not.

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

Without a transcript I can only address this in general terms.

Did one of the participants represent the view of NPR?

What does anti-Israel mean?

Is NPR opposed to the state of Israel? One can be opposed to the war without being anti-Israel.

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.

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

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.

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, and the various attitudes their editorials represent would be from a very different perspective from the "sides" as seen by Americans. However, when discussing the factions in their own nations, each European country would have its own particular way of approaching the issue.
By the way - Is there any reason to assume that there are only two "sides" to the American perspective on the Trump problem?

As outsiders, that European population would see the Trump issue as an American one, — Vera Mont

The world is watching Trump.

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

Yes, there would be a reason. Pro and con. But mabe you're dividing it another way.

The world is watching Trump. — Hanover

If they can't avoid it, because the damn grey cataract slides across their computer screen uninvited and unwanted, with his stupid fat smirking face.
The world is also watching Putin, but no country has the same perspective on Putin as any other, and none have the perspective that Russians have.

Yes, there would be a reason. Pro and con. But mabe you're dividing it another way. — Hanover

Several ways. And so does every every other non-American who thinks about the problem.
Pro and con are not opinions; they're automatic responses requiring no brain activity at all. In fact, pro's are divided into several factions with different motivations and cons are united only in their fear of the damage, not in their conjectures as to the extent of the damage or how it would be brought about; certainly neither pros nor cons stand all together as a bloc on any other issue. The situation is nowhere near as simple as Y/N.

Or to let 4chan (discussing Julius Evola and Aliester Crowley) speak for itself: — Count Timothy von Icarus

Most of those people are shitposting.

in Germany, historical memory is the specific target of the Neue Rechte’s campaign

I don't know how it works there because I don't quite speak German, but generally in Europe we don't see much insanity and LARPs like flat earth, traditionalism, million sexual identities, and when we do it is invariably from the people who spend most of their lives online — those that speak English better than their mother tongue.

Yet newspaper editors the world over know exactly which articles they should not publish. — Vera Mont

Charlie Hebdo disagrees.

It's a vaccuous concept that doesn't refer to anything that could be used interpersonally — AmadeusD

The society that promotes this political schizophrenia is itself founded on a collection of vacuous concepts.

Most of those people are shitposting.

Everything is "shit posting" and covered in multiple levels of irony, 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."

The stuff about Hyperboreans, Antarctic-Lemurians, Atlantis, and the Olympic race is taken as ironic, but also symbolic on a deeper level.

While a totally different set of people, the ties between Q Anon and New Age spirituality have a similar general feel. There though the link has been alternative medicine, neo-shamanism, psychics, and even yoga groups. I think this fits into the larger "politics as a substitute for religion," thesis quite well.

but generally in Europe we don't see much insanity

Well, in general I would say Neo-Reactionaries are a radical group, and thus necessarily on the fringes. Something like neocameralism is never going to be broadly popular, but it can still have its influences. You don't see them in the US unless the media goes out to find them either. Something like QAnon or the wider Evangelical "Trump is King Cyrus" theory are the types of things that can actually have broad appeal.

But the people on the fringes are more sophisticated and in some ways get closer to the levers of power.

Charlie Hebdo disagrees. — Lionino

Lots of people disagree. How does that affect an editor's responsibility for deciding what to print and what to avoid?

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

Okay, sorry to hear that these organizations have biases as well.

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

But there will be, and there is a demand for unbiased or all sides of politics.

Or do you mean there will be no "mainstream" demand?

To that I say, do not underestimate the power of the intelligentsia. They were or are in the minority, working and writing stealthily, but they get the most bang for their ideas -- they are the secret sources of the academia and scholarly studies.

I think you should stop reading pop news articles and celebrity magazines. It sounds like you have been frequenting the unsavory crowds.

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.

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

Is that the telos of the press? Advocacy?

I think the argument behind much of this is that the telos of the press is to present citizens with accurate information so that they can make informed decisions. So if there is a political dispute in society, the press is tasked with presenting both sides of the issue in order that the population can choose wisely.*

But all of this is grounded in the idea of truth as a virtue. The people are expected to choose in favor of truth, and the press is expected to provide the people with truthful and balanced information. Yet if as a society we don't care a great deal about truth then this all falls apart. Is America particularly bad? I think America's pragmatism is a threat to the virtue of truth in an indirect yet real way.

* If a European nation is homogenously anti-Trump then the press apparently has no intrinsic duty to present pro-Trump points of view. The press would only have such a duty in certain circumstances, such as the circumstance where the political homogeneity is based on lies or other unethical means.

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

But if you're distinguishing the US system, you'll have to give a counter non-American news outlet that transcends these problems. 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?

Do you turn to the Guardian for information because it's more accurate or just because it's your version of FoxNews, ready to tell you what you want to hear?

But if you're distinguishing the US system, you'll have to give a counter non-American news outlet that transcends these problems. — Hanover

"Have to"? That doesn't follow ... and apparently you don't grok my post.

That is, is Swedish and French (for example) news more accurate, — Hanover

Sweden has diverse news outlets, some politically partisan, some not, most owned privately, some government subsidized. The press there has more guarantees of freedom as well as more self-regulation than anywhere else I've heard of.

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

Yes, of course they're more accurate.
France has more than 100 newspapers and magazines, as well as radio and television broadcasting. The media there do not speak with one voice. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-17299010

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.

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.
As for the Guardian, whether it's generally more accurate than a randomly chosen American newspaper or not, it has a more objective view on American issues than the self-preoccupied American press.

The press there has more guarantees of freedom as well as more self-regulation than anywhere else I've heard of. — Vera Mont

That's what Julian Assange thought before his visit to Sweden.

That's what Julian Assange thought before his visit to Sweden. — jkop

Is this somehow relevant to the ethical responsibility of the press in general? Didn't WickyLeaks articles appear in The Guardian, The New York Times, and Der Spiegel, none of which are Swedish?

I think WikiLeaks had plans to relocate servers to Sweden because of the seemingly strong guarantees of press freedom and ethical responsibility. But it didn't turn out so well. Instead Assange was incriminated and charged by a Swedish prosecutor, as well as attacked by major but arguably politicalized newspapers. The rest is history.

Quite frankly, I wouldn't want his hacking operation in my country, either!

Truth is unpopular.

Other examples are the Panama papers and the Paradise papers that reveal how major banks and law firms participate in illegal tax evasion. I recall reading that one of the journalists was murdered.

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

Those that take those two seriously have mostly quit /lit/ — it was the mid-way from meme fascism to trad-larping Christcucking. I just checked /his/ and it is back to religious fighting. So they must have mostly retreated into their discord servers or grown out of it. Evola talk nowadays is uncommon. From today to March 3rd there have been only 24 posts mentioning Evola, in a board with in average 4000 posts a day, since January there have been less than 30 OPs bring up Evola, most of which are not even about him, only bring up his name, compare it to 2022 when there was one about him every other day.

How does that affect an editor's responsibility for deciding what to print and what to avoid? — Vera Mont

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.
But then, why? Because of Muslim extremists that would hurt them, or because it is incorrect to make fun of minority religions, or both?

major banks and law firms participate in illegal tax evasion — jkop

A shocker :razz:

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

They knew that it would offend some people. That doesn't automatically mean you shouldn't publish it. There are far more compelling criteria - at least to my mind - on which to decide whether it's right or wrong to publish something. That cartoon didn't hurt or endanger anyone but themselves: it was their risk to take.

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

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.

Making fun of anybody, whether they're a majority, minority, a church, a political party, bank, government department or institution is not 'incorrect' - it is the whole point of cartoons and satire. Associating a public figure with the organizations that act in his name is not wrong.

They didn't ruin the reputation of any living person, nor cause them financial loss or mental anguish. The cartoon merely depicted a figure that's forbidden for Muslims to look at at. They were not compelled to look at it and nobody was struck blind by Allah as a result. Nobody went to hell because of something Salman Rushdie wrote in a novel. If all publication were ruled by what might piss off an extremist, nothing would be published.

Wasn't he charged for unrelated sex crimes? He wasn't convicted if I recall, rather there was a warrant out for him to be questioned in regards to criminal claims resulting from alleged victims reporting the crimes. Nor were the crimes dredged up from the past, but from preceding months. Then he skipped bail and hid in the Ecuadorian embassy.

US charges related to conspiring with hackers came like a decade later.

Maybe these were politically motivated, but considering all the prior MeToo cases, it doesn't seem implausible to me that Assange was both a thorn in the side of the security apparatus and a legitimate sex pest with a valid warrant out for his questioning that he ran from.

In 2010 he was like a rock star for journalists and activists, women included. Allegedly he had unprotected sex with one or two women, which resulted in criminal charges. The women withdrew their part, but the charges remained and were pushed back and forth by a couple of prosecutors (one is a politician).

There's a group of UN investigators accusing the Swedish and UK authorities for deliberate misuse of power. I found a link from the Wiki article..

This rarely gets a mention in the Assange case, but hacking into protected sites and private accounts is not considered legitimate journalism.

Allegedly he had unprotected sex with one or two women, which resulted in criminal charges. — jkop

As I recall, the problem is that Assange professed innocence while utterly failing to comply with the investigation, and this in turn led to something of a forfeiture of his credibility.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

We'd have to check on a case-by-case basis, but the situation probably varies by time period, country, and continent.

What you describe is just one pattern for how a news outlet may establish itself.
For example, another pattern is that the government (a monarchy or secular) provides an official news outlet which is the only one in the country, and this news outlet exists regardless of how well it does in terms of sales.

Ethical reporting was a requirement for survival in the market.

Rather, the other way around: those which survived were deemed ethical.

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

Not at all. Getting heard nowadays is extremely difficult. Sure, publishing may be easy, but getting oneself heard is often impossible.

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.

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.

Two news outlets, like any two people, may interpret the same facts differently. They may choose different events to report on and provide more or less information regarding each event they do report. None of that is a problem, until one of them publishes non-factual information.

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

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.

I'm afraid anyone would have failed to comply with the investigation if you consider the extraordinary behavior of the Swedish prosecutors. In the article there's a short description of the events.