The entire subscription/patronage model that journalism is trying (well, forced) to move towards is predicated on the idea that journalism is a public good. But I think the nature of that public good is becoming clearer in this moment. 1/n
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
The conventional view is that journalism is about *information*. Journalism is *not* about toppling governments, it is about providing information that enables citizens to make good choices. Therefore, journalism must not choose in advance, bc that's a kind of usurpation of their reader's choice.
Except, it's kinda disingenuous. Stories are framed and written to get people to care. Every story is, in some sense, an effort to persuade the reader that its subject is worth at least their attention, if not their outrage. The craft of journalism is fundamentally an act of persuasion.
Individual news providers will have an angle, but they can still pursue that angle in a principled way, and *collectively* they provide a broad set of information, as long as many different angles are represented.
I didn't even notice, but I completely avoided the use of "bias" in there. Bias implies a deviation from "the truth", and the truth implies completeness and absoluteness - and neither is ever true.
I think it's better to describe it as an interpretation of a collection of fact...
Yeah I agree with all that although I tend to frame it more as “bias is an inevitable part of human cognition and is therefore okay as long as it’s managed”
And you can honestly arrive at different interpretations, and also dishonestly arrive at interpretations. But what I mean about disingenuous how journalism describes those interpretations, as if they just follow rules like machines, rather than *their* judgements.
It's true that you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. But come on, if you lead a horse to water you are pretty clearly *trying* to make it drink. You are not neutral on the outcome. Just own it!
It come back to the question of "public good". "Information" short changes what journalism actually does: it focuses attention, it directs outrage, it sets other actors into motion which affects events.
Journalists already do this! They know they're doing it! Just own it!
Patronage for an individual journalist/team can usefully take the form of “this story won’t get heard without me!” - playing the bias/angle as a benefit rather than a curse.
Has anyone established a registered charity that undertakes journalism as its primary activity?
People understand the public good as the outcomes: power is checked bc consequences hit those who hold power. That's not the same as "and then stuff was printed in ink". And if you keep telling people you're the latter, you're going to have a shit time convincing them that you're a public good.
All of this. and I'm sorry, but I've seen too many (usually the bad ones) journalists tooting their own horns in terms of importance to society while their reporting is just stenography, and it's like "I know you didn't become a journalist just to write down what people say, right?"
* Related: journalism hates to see itself as wielding power, even when it uses terms like the Fourth Estate denoting an entire goddamn domain of power. I think that's why they prefer to see themselves as neutral functionaries of Journalistic Judgement.
I've worked with journalists for many years, and imho the best have a sense of outrage — and can understand statistics. In a firehose of shit, we rely on people with those two traits.
much of this thread overlooks the publishing model. we could say that journalism was a public good in the past because our societies (global north) rested on expertise. neither service or knowledge economies nor late capitalism needs that.
Comments
I think it's better to describe it as an interpretation of a collection of fact...
Journalists already do this! They know they're doing it! Just own it!
Has anyone established a registered charity that undertakes journalism as its primary activity?