Hacker News Reader

Comment by pferde | Hacker News Reader

"We're not doing X for purpose Y!" (translation: "We're doing X not for purpose Y, we do X for other purposes. Luckily, nobody thought to ask us about those, and we certainly won't mention those purposes ourselves, heh, heh, heh.")

Technically, telling the truth, in a weasely way.

View on HN

Freedom of the press as commonly understood in the US is a misnomer. Today we are most limited by access-based journalism. Journalist careers generally depend more on access than anything else. As such, their subjects have tremendous power if wielded smartly. PR departments are tasked with wielding this most efficiently.

By being vague in the pretense of that power-wielding landed this subject the benefit of the journalist doing the last mile dirty work of being specific. The hope is that this will buy her another interview, and another interview, and so on. They (the journalist) may have another plan in mind, but their power to execute it is limited by their professional mobility and utility to the subject.

>"Freedom of the press as commonly understood in the US is a misnomer.

No "freedom of the press" in the US is commonly understood to mean that the press is free to publish any opinions they wish without being subject government censorship. It is codified in the First Amendment with:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press"

"Freedom of the press" has absolutely zero to do with freedom of access to subjects the press might be reporting on. And it certainly has nothing to do with PR flaks at powerful companies. These are not even a common misconceptions either. So no "Freedom of the press" is not a "misnomer" at all.

I think my elaboration would have been sufficient for you to realize there is no disagreement here.

My point is just that a free press, as commonly understood and as in the constitution, is not free. Americans are quick to get upset when legal regulations are placed on press freedoms but slow to recognize the less obvious.

I’m not interested in discussing any further. You appear to just be looking for a disagreement. Good luck.

>"My point is just that a free press, as commonly understood and as in the constitution,"

And your point is patently untrue. Freedom of the Press is not "commonly understood" in that incorrect way in the US.

Honestly it sounded like you yourself didn't understand the meaning of the phrase "Freedom of the Press." You even called it a "misnomer." Accusing people of "looking for a disagreement" simply because they corrected you seems kind of lame and uncalled for.

the OP's post, and your post are not mutually exclusive. I think you both point out inherent flaws in the term "freedom of press" as it is currently understood in society. His point is that they are incentivied not burn bridges with large corps, and your point is they can say whatever the f* they want with zero governmental oversight.

That's almost as useless as the FB statement.

"The freedom of the press is currently not being limited, directly, by laws, made by the government"

Just makes it sound like powerful corporations are beyond reproach, no matter how influential.

Journalists need to be asking what these companies are using X for, rather than specifics.

It's very easy to get around those questions. Facebook is great at it. There is usually a customer-friendly reason, which is the one they answer with publicly. For example, "we collect your information to serve you content that you like". But the real reason is, "We collect your information, because your information can be sold in many ways, indirectly and directly, to make us money".

Both are arguably true. But for a publicly traded company, the "Why" must always come back to the bottom line. The ultimate goal is to build value for shareholders. Any answer that doesn't include some reference to the bottom line is utter BS.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com