“If Trump says the sky is green, the story isn’t that the sky is now green; the story is that the sky is still blue and Trump got it wrong.” https://open.substack.com/pub/steady/p/6-principles-many-journalists-miss?r=22sb0&utm_medium=ios
@Guinnessy I think the author fails to answer his original question, even though it's a very important question to answer: How and why is journalism failing us?
It's not because the media isn't covering Trump. If anything I'd say it's because it doesn't matter if the media covers Trump because people have lost so much faith in journalists-- or to put it more functionally, journalists have burned so much faith-- that people aren't all that interested in listening anyway.
The crisis of faith in journalistic institutions is an enormous one with enormous implications.
To just sit and shout that the story is that the sky is still blue doesn't address that serious failure.
There's no point in shouting even true statements if there's no one around to listen.
@Guinnessy No, I think bothsidsm is actually a really useful tool for connecting with readers, so I think that's a point where he's particularly offbase.
SO MANY no longer respect or trust news sources. Polling and just daily life shows that. Without that respect, everything else is just recordkeeping, writing the history of a society struggling without solid, trusted journalism.
If a tool like bothsidsm helps avoid the appearance of bias and restore faith, then by all means use it.
But that conclusion relies on recognition of the importance of rebuilding that trust.
@volkris bothsidsm doesn’t work if on one side you have trying to overthrow the elected government and the other is that the candidate has a stammer he corrects for. Google the media coverage of Trump vs HRC. #butheremails
@Guinnessy again I emphasize that if people don't have trust in journalism then none of it works anyway.
The choice is between a non-ideal path and one that's unworkable from the getgo.
If journalists aren't up to trying to engage the public even with, shall we say, low brow devices like bothsidsm, then we might as well shut the remaining news rooms and go home.
If they're not meeting the people where they are, then it's all futile.
@volkris I would say at the moment quite a few places aren’t practicing good journalism. Stephen Colbert called reporters out at the Whitehouse Correspondents dinner as not a lot has changed since then, except more hedge funds have closed newspapers.i think this interview some up some of what I think you’re trying g to say well. https://www.salon.com/2024/03/05/-the-media-should-stop-treating-rural-people-like-children/
@volkris Another example of what seems to be a failure by the media is raising awareness over the stakes this election (last one, I promise! 🙂). https://newrepublic.com/article/179548/poll-voters-trump-dictator-threats
@Guinnessy I suppose the real complication is the definition of what counts as good, which brings up stuff like what the end goals are, how they might be measured, what standards to meet, etc.
So that's that's kind of what I'm going into: personally I aim for the pragmatic, saying that compositions that are the pinnacle of integrity, that aren't read by anybody, I don't consider that good while somebody focused on the integrity side would. It's not the good that I prioritize.
I think that if journalists spent more time engaging with their readers it would even promote a level of self-reflection that could even improve the integrity side of things. It makes for a system of critical feedback that is, well, critical 🙂 crucial.
So I adamantly agree that quite a few places aren't practicing good journalism. But there's probably disagreement in what that exactly means and how to move forward to improve it.
@volkris well he does give six pointers for journalists in his article, and I only highlighted the one that particularly bugs me. I think people are listening, it’s just there are now fewer places for them to get news, particularly local news. And people do notice bothsidsm (another pet peeve).