LA Times owner has apparently barred his journalists from covering the scandal and uproar he caused by suppressing a Harris editorial page endorsement.
Big Journalism's bosses are killing what's left of the craft's integrity. https://www.status.news/p/los-angeles-times-2024-endorsement
🇳🇱
@dangillmor News agencies should not have endorsements for any candidate, that is contrary to what journalistic integrity stands for.
The owner made the right choice.
@freemo @dangillmor Really? Newspapers and media orgs have been making recommendations since the Federalist Papers in the late 1700s.
When did this definition of “journalistic integrity” come in, and who, exactly, gets to define what it is?
For at least a century. One such example is the 1923 ethical rules adopted by the American Society of Newspaper Editors. Though the concept, perhaps not codified, goes back much farther than that.
@freemo @dave @dangillmor They just forgot to tell every newspaper in the country?
No, newspapers that didnt follow the ethics were, at the time, called "yellow rags" and generally treated by the general public as disreputable. Obviously in modern times journalistic integrity is at an all time low, so this sort of deplorable behavior is sadly the norm now.
Remember these rules were established by the society most journalists were a part of, so it was the consensus ethically.
@freemo @dave @dangillmor But the guy who own the LAT isn't motivated by ethics, just not wanting to endorse Harris. It's still a purely political move.
@maccruiskeen Fair. I am in no way claiming his motivations are good or not, I dont know that guy. All I am saying is the choice is the correct ethical one, regardless if ethics are what motivated the choice or not.
Now if he IS endorsing Trump and **only** not endorsing Harris than as far as ethical decisions go, that wouldnt be one either.
> The notion that past newspapers were fair, balanced, and neutral is a modern concoction, not a historical one.
That wasnt the claim. The claim is that there were principles of journalistic integrity, not that all the newspapers managed to live up to that standard.
I can speak the same for the constitution. The principles were great "all men created equal". That doesnt change as a good principle or standard just because people didnt always follow it.
@freemo @DelRider 'journalistic integrity' doesn't prevent the editorial board from expressing an opinion (or allowing one to be expressed) when it is clearly labeled as such; they do it on all kinds of subjects every day. Not only is it allowed, it's expected. Objecting to a paper endorsing a candidate because of 'ethics' is just baloney.
No it doesnt, but it would be contrary to such principle when the editorial board has bias int heir narrative overall. Its fine to share an opinionated and biased article, when labeled as such, under the newspaper (editorial), so long as opposing view supporting the other candidates are equally welcomed and highlighted. So long as the overall narrative remains neutral there is no problem with individual articles having a bias, and being labeled as such.
@freemo @maccruiskeen @DelRider nobody in UK journalism now or over the last 200 years believes any of these.
this idea that newspapers (and media in general) can be objective or fair or balanced is an almost entirely American fiction.
i want my news sources to be upfront about their biases., not hiding behind a make-believe facade of fairness and objectivity.
@PaulDavisTheFirst @maccruiskeen @DelRider
Americas abandonment of tbis principle and the fact that the UK never had iynis thr very reason why journalism in both countries couldnt get a fact right ifnit bit them in the ass.
@PaulDavisTheFirst @maccruiskeen @DelRider
I jusy checked by the way. The uk code of conduct by the journalists union does, in fact, have similar languahe regarding impartiality. It uses thr term "fair" in a very similar way. There are also rules agaibst endorsements
@freemo @maccruiskeen @DelRider they may exist, but they are followed as much as the WaPo's "no endorsements" rule has been followed since the 50s i.e. not at all.
Everybody knows that the Guardian is a left-of-center ("liberal" in US terms) paper; if you want the establishment right POV you read the Telegraph; if you want the establishment pretending not to be right wing, you read the Times; if you want the moss pit soccer hooligan version of the UK right, you used to read the Sun, etc. etc.
@PaulDavisTheFirst @maccruiskeen @DelRider
Exactly my point there is a completemlack of journaliatic integrity. I agree that virtually no one anymore adhere to the fairly universally agreed to ethical expectations for a journalist.
@freemo @maccruiskeen @DelRider my point is not about journalistic integrity, because I consider that orthogonal to notions of "objectivity" and "fairness".
I'm entirely happy to have reporters who are clearly heavily biased towards a POV on a story.
The "ethical expectations" for reporters from where I sit do not include "express no bias, have no opinion", but are much more ineffable than that. I want people who *dig*, I like it more if their opinions makes them dig deep and wide.
@PaulDavisTheFirst @maccruiskeen @DelRider
Yea it 2as clear that was your point
And mine is the fact that you and others hold that opinion is exactly why moat journalists wouldnt knownamfact if it bit them in the ass.
@freemo @maccruiskeen @DelRider and I think you're completely wrong about that.
So where does that leave us?
@PaulDavisTheFirst @maccruiskeen @DelRider
In disagreement?
@freemo @maccruiskeen But that’s exactly what he IS doing.
If thats what he is doing then that is problematic.
@freemo @maccruiskeen The notion that past newspapers were fair, balanced, and neutral is a modern concoction, not a historical one. Prior to consolidation, most towns had more than one newspaper and the editors therein were biased. They frequently made endorsements for their candidates based on their read of the issues and yes, bias. For current examples see the NYT and WAPO versus their Post and Times, respectively, counterparts. The difference today is A)consolidation and B)the internet. The hometown newspaper has gone the way of the dodo and billionaires are making decisions about their personal stake in the world, not on objective issues for the population at large. Musk thanking Soon and Soon replying on Twitter is all anyone needs to see.