In a sense, says Michael J. Socolow, "journalism didn’t fail us — we failed journalism." https://www.niemanlab.org/2024/11/what-should-journalists-do-when-the-facts-dont-matter/
One thing I am going to do in the months ahead is wrestle with that problem: what should journalists do when the facts don't matter?
One thing I am going to do in the months ahead is wrestle with that problem: what should journalists do when the facts don't matter?
Comments
Not academic philosophy, of course. Nuts and bolts of what constitutes trustworthy info and evidence IRL. How to recognize scams, of all kinds.
Just my suggestion.
(Also facts still do matter of course.)
No pay wall. Power to the people.
https://archive.ph/pvkxE
When you hear a lie, call it a lie, and don’t ask another question until they acknowledge the lie.
Stop the interview at the first lie.
This not a rhetorical question. There are deep implications to your business strategy in the answer to this question.
If they didn't, Trump wouldn't be going after the New York Times.
Trump's rise is, as much as anything, a failure by our media ecosystem to reckon with the facts and their implications.
This problem runs deep the world over. Take The Bible for example, 2000 year old book. How can preachers in the USA ignore verse "1 John 3:17" in regard to Donald Trump + Rupert Murdoch + Elon Musk?
Tower of Babel metaphor right there, having split languages. And even within the USA you will see Church is fragmented and split with the identical same Bible book. People believe in having separate interpretations without "good" at top.
In the UK have a press trump would adore and probably say that’s a bit extreme even for me
https://bsky.app/profile/wilsoncruz.bsky.social/post/3lb6xkk5pjk2l
http://203.201.63.46:8080/jspui/bitstream/123456789/5600/35/The%20Fifth%20Risk%20-%20Michael%20Lewis.pdf
For example: "facts don't matter" is not true for everyone, right? So that begs the question: who is your audience?
Whereas virtually every successful social media or disinformation enterprise (is there a difference?) is very, very good at it.
"But if there are enough of us who think 2 + 2 should equal oranges?
"I’d rather not find out."
And here we are.
The problem he's onto here is a lot harder than it may appear. He's not dispensing with journalism's many fall downs. He's pointing to all the times when journalists do their jobs well and yet... the facts don't matter. What then?
The Truth mattered...but lies got placement.
It’s also completely undermined by the utter failure of the US media to do their job.
o Sanewashing Trump
o Bothsidesism
o Access journalism
o Foregoing journalistic integrity for eyeballs
…
The outcome is more media failure than willful ignorance.
The media could have done something AT ANY TIME to do the same with Trump.
Perhaps you should act like journalists.
Trump voters get their news from social media and cable news, there's recent work on that.
I think we need to start looking at populism of the left, and swinging demagoguery, social media and cable news left.
But the work being done to illustrate how the New York Times (for example) failed readers on Trump, is good and essential.
If that's not enough, you may want to look into a 'medium is the message' type analysis that counsels finding the truth & then also the best way to convey it?