Hacker News Reader

I agree that intellectual virtues like humility, reflection, scepticism and doubt are to be prized in journalists.

But journalism cannot escape politics. Journalists have to choose what to write about, and to do that involves an evaluative judgement about which issues are worth discussing, and which aren't.

Similar things can be said about what journalists choose to focus on within individual pieces - whose voices they elevate, what issues they emphasise, the context they include, and so on.

Journalism is not science!

Journalism - good journalism, anyway - is constrained by rules and best practices to do exactly what you describe. And many journalists consider that alone to be "doing good." And I agree.

Bias is inevitable, even given the constraints. Resource allocation to stories, physical space and dealing constraints, advertisers ... so many parts of the business and reality of producing journalism make the ideal unachievable. The goal is to be as close as possible.

The BIGGEST problem is journalists are now highly visible social media presences. Their casual pseudo personal accounts give an eye into the thoughts, preferences and opinions of journalists. And that brings their potential biases to the forefront

The people with the best opinions have the most ad-blockers. So why write stuff they would click?

> I’ve always viewed journalism as a career as something very, very similar to a hated defense attorney.

This is an interesting analogy but an inversion of how I see it. The defense attorney must abandon their natural biases and behave as if they had an unconditional and irrational faith in their client's innocence. This does not come naturally.

The Economist article, tends to conflate objectivity with balance. I see objectivity as critical thinking coupled with tricks to overcome our innate biases. Objectivity is what a judge is supposed to do, to further the original analogy.

> Your job is to set aside all beliefs about what’s right or wrong and do the best job of executing a record of eye witness observations, quotations and facts that give a holistic view of every story.

You're describing a robot. People don't work like that.

I believe this is sadly similar to doping. As soon as the first journalists started becoming "more entertaining to read" with salacious details or moralistic rhetoric, other outlets had to do it too to not lose readers and keep up.

The better question is why people respond more to Fox News than proper, grounded publications. Until we figure that out, said publications will either maintain a sense of duty and impartiality and inevitably go under, or just start churning out the same clickbait trash to keep the lights on.

He was describing the ideal attorney. If you factor in human failure in your ideals from the start, what you get is the lowest common multiple, so you limit any aspiration and potential from the start.

No, the ideal would be an attorney that can almost perfectly differentiate between his emotions plus opinion against true justice.

Defence attorneys may not know if someone is guilty. Some clients may say "Yes, I did it, get me out of here" but some won't - possibly because they didn't.

Clients may be implicated by false confessions extracted under pressure. They may even believe those confessions, because hours of stressful interrogation can confuse people with limited ego strength.

There may be some other narratives, other circumstances, complex family or business relationships which are a relevant back story to the crime, and/or may incriminate someone else - and so on.

There are exceptions - including lawyers who specialise in defending organised crime, and are really just covert employees of criminal organisations.

But generally, it's just plain incorrect to assume that defence attorneys invariably know their client is guilty and are really just trying to cover that up.

I had a friend who worked for 15 years as a public defender. I asked her how she dealt with cases where it was completely obvious that her client was guilty. Her answer (paraphrased): we have a system of justice that requires that there is a process to locking someone up, or even just fining them. That process needs to be followed all the time, whether the person is "obviously guilty" or not. My job in those cases was to make sure that the prosecution, and the court system, dotted all their i's, crossed all their t's before rendering a judgement on my client. I wasn't trying to keep them out of prison, I was trying to make sure that only people who deserve to be there actually end up there.

Reading news in multiple languages has taught me that all publishers editorialise, some are just more aware that they're doing it than others.

    My rag of choice attempts objectivity.
    Yours is biased.
    Theirs are state controlled.

From 1948, http://www.gutenberg.org/files/48612/48612-h/48612-h.htm

"The collected news of any modern country contains more truth each day than any one man can could read in a lifetime. The reporters, editors, writers, announcers who collect truth not only collect it; they select it. ... If they select it to "affect the minds and emotions of a given group for a specific purpose," it is propaganda. If they report that a little girl fell out of bed and broke her neck—with the intent of frightening parents among their listeners into following the Safe Homes Week Campaign—that is propaganda. But if they report it because it is the only death in the community, and because they might as well fill up the program, it is not propaganda. If you put the statement on the air, "An American negro workman in Greensboro, N. C., got eighty cents for a hard day's work last week," that can be presented and interpreted as:

(a.) simple news, if there is something more to the story, about what the man said, or how he spent the eighty cents on corn meal to feed his pet tarantula;

(b.) anti-capitalist propaganda, if you show that eighty cents is mighty little money for American business to pay its workers;

(c.) pro-capitalist propaganda, if you show that the eighty cents will buy more than two weeks' wages of a worker in the city of Riga, when it comes to consumer goods;

(d.) anti-White propaganda, if you show the man got only eighty cents because he was a Negro.

And so on, through a further variety of interpretations. The facts—man, happening, amount, place, time—are true in each case. They could be sworn to by the whole membership of an interfaith conference. But the interpretation placed on them—who communicates these facts to whom? why? when?—makes them into propaganda."

"If you agree with it, it's truth. If you don't agree, it's propaganda. Pretend that it is all propaganda. See what happens on your analysis reports."

>It’s similar for a journalist. Your job is to set aside all beliefs about what’s right or wrong and do the best job of executing a record of eye witness observations, quotations and facts that give a holistic view of every story. If any component of your own preferences for social movements or causes has come through, you’ve failed badly.

The implication you're making here is that the current reporting is neutral/objective.

>I personally think it’s really frightening. If journalists at our most major institutions believe their work should pursue an agenda like combating racism, that’s horrific.

Biased newspapers have existed for a long time[0]. I'm not quite sure why "Racism is bad" is considered a political agenda though

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%27Argo