this post was submitted on 30 Jan 2024
1755 points (95.5% liked)
Memes
45550 readers
1111 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Many issues with this headline, but one of them is the word journalist, which implies some form of neutrality. The headline should either be a L out a journalist that writes about antifa, or a pro-facism activist. I suspect from the context (Fox) that it’s the latter.
I believe that's Andy Ngo, so yes, absolutely a pro-fascist activist. He was caught on camera actively coordinating with Patriot Prayer, a far-right extremist group.
Oh, my sweet summer child
if they're not neutral, they're not journalists. A fascist journalist is just a fascist after all.
In an ideal world you'd be right
In reality that's not actually a requirement to be one
Fair point. It sucks, but it's true.
Everybody has some sort of bias towards something. It’s ultimately just an opinion.
Journalistic integrity isn’t about being non-biased, it’s about being upfront about bias and ideally the journalist actively trying to counter their own bias within their work.
The vast majority of journalists work for some sort of publication or news agency, in which they're beholden to the company owners' agenda and have to report to an editorial board, which decides what can and can not be published in accordance with their views.
You're thinking of independent journalists, of which there are very few.
And even them have their own biases, no such thing as unbiased journalism.
True, but not for the reasons that most people think.
Ok, the fact that you honestly believe this is how legitimate newsrooms work is both deeply disheartening and an indication of how little the average person knows about the news business.
Editors decide what gets published, not the editorial board which is an entirely different and unrelated body that traditionally has zero contact with the content side of things. In the business we say that there is a "firewall" between the editorial board and actual news content. The NYT or WaPo would have mass resignations of their reporters if either of their editorial boards tried to influence content.
Ownership is a bit different and obviously --as we know from the Murdoch empire-- can influence content, but in traditional operations they've always been very hands-off. It's a fact, for example, that Jeff Bezos doesn't care what the WaPo publishes and has no interest in it beyond as a business concern.
Editors do have control over content, but overwhelmingly they are concerned with doing a good job and furthering their careers and professional reputations. You're completely misunderstanding the incentive structure in mainstream news media. Outside of the extremist advocacy journalism ecosystems --mostly but not only on the far right-- no one has any incentive to push an agenda and risk ruining their career by getting something important wrong.
Ah yes, it's only the evil right wing news outlets that have issues with transparency and corruption, but don't worry, all the left wing ones are totally honest.
And all billionaires are evil exploiters... unless they own liberal newspapers, then they're totally ethical and there is no grounds for concern.
Unfortunately advocacy journalism is very much a legitimate type of journalism, just ask Glen Greenwald, who I fuckin' hate.