Hacker News Reader

>The problem is if the reporters remain intrepid (as they currently seem to be), the people they interview-- like Ted Cruz-- end up looking like complete dumbasses. I'm honestly surprised they continue to get interviews with prominent figures.

I grew up watching the BBC, and even though I emigrated from the UK before the famed "I ask you again minister, is that a yes or a no" repeats of jeremy paxman, this was something that always struck me about politicians on the BBC: why did they keep coming back?

What I've realized over time was they kept coming back because they had to. If you were a UK politician at least well into the 1990s (and arguably right up to today), both the media infrastructure and the social culture required your appearance, even if you knew that David Marr or Paxman or whoever was going to chew you out.

That's not true anymore in the USA (it may also not be true in the UK either). There's really no reason why anyone needs to appear anywhere. Get a reputation as a fiery take-no-bullshit interviewer, and you won't be doing any interviews.

I don't think there's any way out of this now. The media landscape has exploded, and there's no outlet that is of enough importance anymore to hold people's feet to the fire.

> The media landscape has exploded, and there's no outlet that is of enough importance anymore to hold people's feet to the fire.

Maybe not, but I'd still like a Fairness Doctrine -aligned news source such that I can do my part in rejecting dubious partisan citations (e.g., "I'm not going to believe your $partisanNewsSource article, but I might be more inclined to believe you you can support yourself with something on $aspirationallyNeutralNewsSource").

I don't even understand what the "Fairness Doctrine" would mean today.

In the 1960s and 70s and early 80s, it essentially gave a right of reply on broadcast media. It meant nothing on cable, it mean nothing in the world of books, it didn't mean much for the press (they had to be careful about libel anyway).

If it is raining outside, and there's someone who says "it's raining outside" and someone says "it's not raining outside", how is anyone's life improved by the idea that they should both be given air time?

The job of a journalist/reporter/something is to figure out what is going on, and tell that story (maybe by using quotes from other people).

The problem is that when the story is more complex than "is it raining?" there isn't a single answer, and there isn't a single way to tell the story. In making choices about what to tell and in what order, one becomes "partisan".

I prefer the solution in the UK, where nobody seriously thinks of any newspaper as "neutral", and yet despite their relatively clear biases, they all manage to tell roughly the same stories, albeit with different emphasis.

Contrast that to the US, where mainstream and rightwing-media-claiming-to-be-mainstream don't even tell the same stories, and when they do, they sometimes make essentially opposite claims about them.

There will always be room for "fringe" or "eclectic" takes. The far-left has had to deal with that essentially forever, and the far-right used to. What's really changed IMO is that in the last few decades, approaches to story-telling (which is all journalism really is) that used to be confined to the fringe far-right outlets ended up appearing on mass-audience outlets.

> If it is raining outside, and there's someone who says "it's raining outside" and someone says "it's not raining outside", how is anyone's life improved by the idea that they should both be given air time?

b/c presumably both will be asked to support their respective assertions.

This reduces the role of the journalist to a mere collector of other people's words.

I grew up with a more expansive view of their role as the ideal. Are you saying that a journalist (or anyone, really) can't tell if it's raining outside? That their job is to act as a stenographer of the "it's raining" and the "it's dry" crowd, and leave it at that?

You talked about giving people "air time", implying the context of an interview or debate.

you can either host the debate, or participate in it, but not both. I think there is leeway for a host to chase participants who give inadequate or evasive answers, for a variety of reasons, but there is a limit.

At the end of the day, you can't make anyone say what they don't want to, but you can make it obvious when they refuse to do so.

Consider the role of the host in BBC Question Time, for example.

> you can either host the debate, or participate in it, but not both.

I think this is excessively narrow. I will admit that I wouldn't rate most journalists as among the experts in the fields that they report on, and I'm not sure they would either. But the good ones know a lot more about those fields than the average reader/listener/viewer.

If you're hosting a discussion or even just interviewing, I find it entirely legitimate to interject and say "wait, wait, you just made a claim that nobody in your field agrees with, how do you justify that?" or something equivalent.

Until very, very recently, it has been extremely hard to find US journalists that will behave this way. A few have done it with respect to election claims and COVID19 related issues. It is the exception rather than the rule.

Treating interviewees with respect does not preclude treating the audience with respect, and if the interviewee says something the interviewer knows to be nonsense, or at least questionable, it is out of respect for the audience that they should "participate".

> But the good ones know a lot more about those fields than the average reader/listener/viewer.

I agree, but they never appear to be engaging in advocacy but rather not letting their interviewee get away with lying or deflection. Notably, I would like to see a reporter challenge some of the BLM narrative—at least ask the obvious questions, like “how do we know the police shooting racial disparity is racism and not crime rates or some other factor?” Virtually no journalists touched this issue, and it makes them look like they’re not only partisan, but that the movement itself needs high-profile protection from even the faintest of scrutiny. Small wonder people feel at liberty to find their own “truth sources” when the established ones appear to be dishonest.

Saying "wait, wait, .." is entirely legitimate hosting.

Talking about "fields" however only covers academics/experts. in politics, I wouldn't give peer-support so much gravity, especially since GOP and Dems appear to maintain different sets of "facts".

Sure. But this where we get back to "aggressive" interviewing technique.

Suppose someone makes the claim that tax cuts for the rich, or for capital gains, improves the economy. Journalist/host says "what evidence do you have of that?". Politician/pundit says something misleading, irrelevant or demonstrably false.

This is the crux point. The journalist/host can at this point either (a) move on (b) drill down into the claim made by the politician/pundit. But (b) will be clearly seen as oppositional by both the politician/pundit and by the audience (and correctly so, because that's the whole point).

In the current media landscape, this journalist/host will shortly end up with no significant guests at all, and will be described as "confrontational" and "partisan".

I disagree, (b) may or may not be seen as oppositional, depending entirely on what the issue is.

Misleading statements can be followed with questions seeking clarification. Irrelevant statements can be followed with questions asking relevance.

Demonstrably false statements will require the host to demonstrate the falsehood, otherwise they are not so. At least, questions can be asked clarifying the details of the statement.

> this journalist/host will shortly end up with no significant guests at all

so be it. If politicians don't want to look bad, they won't. But they can also lose face if they only accept softballs.

asking pertinent is not aggressive, nor does it disgust audiences. The problem, as I see it, are that journalists are mistaken wrt to what the facts are or at least what can be demonstrated), and when questions really are pertinent. A host can be as confrontational as they want, so long as they are bi-partisan (i.e fair); It's only when they are not that their manner becomes an issue to an audience.

I often see aggressive questions asked, then don't really serve a useful purpose other than give someone a hard time, e.g loaded questions.

> If it is raining outside, and there's someone who says "it's raining outside" and someone says "it's not raining outside", how is anyone's life improved by the idea that they should both be given air time?

Let's say for sake of argument that the people denying the weather in your metaphor are Trump supporters. TFA's thesis is that Trump (and thus his supporters) are a symptom of the media's rejection of neutrality (and indeed, the pursuit of truth). I would go farther and argue that it's not just the media but epistemological institutions in general. Presumably if someone's viewpoint isn't represented in a debate, but rather outright maligned, then that person isn't going to trust the moderator and is going to feel free to find his own moderator. If rejecting neutrality is the cause, then it stands to reason that we can cure the problem in part or in full by embracing neutrality again.

Of course, Trumpism isn't the only ideology that has prospered in this post-truth landscape, so embracing neutrality is probably a pretty threatening prospect for a lot of people.

What you've said would make sense if there's broad agreement that there are multiple opposing viewpoints/explanations all of which have some roughly equivalent level of credibility.

So for example, despite me not agreeing with it, and believe it to be completely refutable by looking at the evidence, I will concede that the concept that welfare payments might make at least some people lazy is a position that needs to be accorded roughly the same level of credibility as my own position (it doesn't, and the amounts of money and moral hazard involved make it largely irrelevant). Someone reporting on social policy questions and discussing the pros and cons of a welfare system would be remiss in not mentioning and examining both these perspectives (and others, probably).

In the case of raining/not-raining, this is clearly (to me) absurd. One of the POV's is right and one is wrong. There's no need to say "some people say <wrong thing>". It's just wrong.

The problem IMO is that many issues fall into the gray zone between these sorts of examples. For example, I'd say that people who claim that tax cuts for the wealthy lead to an improved economy really don't have any evidence whatsoever in their favor, and that reporting on their position as if it is somehow a credible economic policy is giving credit to something that is demonstrably false. But there's enough wiggle room there that a journalistic organization might still feel, even after myself or Krugman have shown them the evidence that this view is demonstrably false, that they should cover the position of those who make this claim. They can enuniciate their perspective eloquently and clearly, and they sound as if they have a legitimate position that deserves consideration. Journalists are very reluctant to make this judgement call.

The real problem, I think, is something I alluded to up-thread. It's not really about presenting particular perspectives. It's about critical thinking, both on the part of the audience but also the journalists. It's about challenging the claims made with perspicacious questions, and pushing for answers until they are given, or it becomes clear that someone is unable to justify their beliefs. The problem in the current media landscape is that if someone actually does this, they will rapidly be unable to bring these skills to bear on anyone who actually matters. So they don't. They do what NPR does so often - put the voice in front of the mic, and "let the audience decide". Don't challenge, don't ask difficult questions, don't follow up, don't call out obvious and common logical flaws and fallacies, don't ask for evidence.

> In the case of raining/not-raining, this is clearly (to me) absurd. One of the POV's is right and one is wrong. There's no need to say "some people say <wrong thing>". It's just wrong.

That depends on what your goals are.

Let's continue with the above metaphor, and assume "rain skeptics" make up half of the population.

If you want a chance of convincing them that things are more moist than would appear so -- then you get to invite their most credible voices to a stage which they agree is fairly moderated.

Not which you declare to be fair and as-unbiased-as-is-possible.

One which they agree is such. And, yes, that means both sides get to sacrifice in equal number several sacred barnyard animals.

Because if not, it doesn't matter what is true or not true. Those rain skeptics will increasingly polarize against you, to the point where you simply can not reach them at all.

If you are fine with this, then you are presumably okay with green-lighting extreme measures to "solve" the "rain skeptic problem", because that's the road the United States is on right now.

The point about the rain example is that it's meant to be something on which there's a clear truth, a demonstrable truth. In this sense it differs dramatically from most of the important issues before us as a society. But it's precisely because of this that it gets raised as one end of a spectrum: what does/should journalism do when there's a clear demonstrable truth but "some people" dispute it?

That doesn't provide a guide for how to handle cases where the truth is not clear, where there is obviously legitimate grounds for disagreement.

But it's supposed to mark one of the spectrum. Many people would say that journalism has failed badly at the end of the spectrum, by taking things that are clearly true ("it's raining") and behaving as if the skeptics deserve to be heard.

Obviously, the skeptics feel otherwise, but is that relevant and if so, how much attention should we pay it?

Journalists are in the business of providing narratives, which may or may not be loosely based on an objective truth they met somewhere a few years ago at a cafe.

I'm pretty sure this has always been so.

> Obviously, the skeptics feel otherwise, but is that relevant and if so, how much attention should we pay it?

Again, this depends on your goals.

To be honest, my goals used to be to convince other people.

As I get closer to 60, I'm swinging more towards simply acquiring and exercising power on behalf of things I believe in.

I say this despite an ironic awareness of how much I despise a movement with opposite ideals to my own for appearing to do the same thing over the last 3-4 decades.

I appreciate your honesty and sincerity, genuinely.

Why fixate on this extreme when there are plenty of subjective issues where journalists could present multiple interpretations? And why do journalists so rarely call left wing denialism (e.g., blank slatism) or even something a little murkier like the propensity to impute discrimination on every disparity? No one is asking you to argue that the Trump position is equally meritorious to the left wing position, but if you want to bring Trump supporters back into the fold or at least reduce the rate that you’re creating them, then giving them some courtesy representation here and there in the media if only to explain why their points of view are misinformed might not be a bad approach. In general, respect consistently and earnestly applied can be a pretty potent thing.

My concern with this is that it gives the "rain skeptics" a platform to spread their views, and presents "rain skeptics" as a legitimate alternative to the "rain scientists". The problem with this is that once people are given a platform and presented as legitimate, then they can convince people not based on the logic of their arguments but on things which have nothing to do with the matter under debate (e.g. "I like the way he speaks, not like that snooty scientist").

I think people I know have been convinced in this manner. I don't think people necessarily reflect on why they were convinced. They just know that they agree with the "rain skeptics".

I'm not convinced that giving "rain skeptics" a platform would be the right thing to do if they only make up a small percentage of the population. If they make up half the population, I have no idea.

EDIT: My experience above is probably not helped by weak moderation in debates. Moderators with a backbone would probably help in cases where "rain skeptics" are given a platform. Sadly that seems to be rare.

But these debates are never about facts anyway. There will never be a yes/no debate about whether or not it's raining.

There will be a debate about whether climate change is going to cause huge problems and therefore mitigation measures are needed - some of which may lead to higher taxes. For some people.

Objectively the answer to the first part of that question is "yes". At this point there is no plausible argument to be made for any other position. Denying it makes as much sense as claiming that it's not raining when it is.

But interest groups who are horrified by the second part can use a standard repertoire of Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt (FUD) techniques to persuade less educated voters that it's not true., And also that they are being victimised by the people who are saying it is.

Which is why public debates aren't about facts or evidence. They're about "Who is the victim - and is it going to be you?"

Once that frame has been established it's very difficult to break out of it, because the debate is neither adult nor rational.

And this is the frame in which public debate has operated in the US since at least the 50s, and probably longer.

Which is not to deny that some people are victimised by others, but to point out that it's very easy for those who are perpetrators to claim victimhood too - and to do it convincingly, even when it's nonsense, by using FUD, lies, and other rhetorical tricks in bad faith.

Trying to push for ground truth and pointing out logical fallacies will do less than expected to prevent that, because the rhetorical games that are being played operate on a different level.

>Presumably if someone's viewpoint isn't represented in a debate, but rather outright maligned, then that person isn't going to trust the moderator and is going to feel free to find his own moderator. If rejecting neutrality is the cause, then it stands to reason that we can cure the problem in part or in full by embracing neutrality again.

I don’t fully understand your point here as it relates to the other poster’s comment. Are you saying that “we should embrace neutrality” in this context by entertaining the idea that it’s not raining outside when it clearly is? I don’t think that’s a solution.

I’m saying had we (our epistemological institutions) not given up on neutrality (rather, truth-seeking) in the first place we might not have had so many people who felt free to give up on it themselves and in such overt ways (for example, weather denial).

That said, some people in this thread are really stuck on this contrived weather hypothetical; in reality, current events are typically a lot more subjective. Consider BLM—had the media critically considered the conservative position—that perhaps police killing victims skew black for reasons besides police racism—maybe blacks have more frequent interactions with the police or maybe they commit more crimes or both. Perhaps the media could have also considered some of the heinous police killings of whites instead of fueling the narrative that it’s only blacks who are egregiously killed by police. Had the media done these things, it might’ve earned back a bit of trust from some people, and since everyone is absolutely certain about the dynamics of race and policing, it could have been an opportunity to demonstrate to conservatives and skeptical liberals how we know for certain that crime rates, etc don’t drive police killing disparities but rather racism.

I'm stuck on the weather hypothetical because it's a neutral topic because it depoliticizes the issue at hand. What you are failing to answer is that the people who think it's not raining outside are refusing to apply any critical thinking; no amount of "neutrality" will fix that.

To go back to your topic about BLM; your counter-issues have been addressed many times. Remember that Kapernick started kneeling in 2016, during Obama, protesting to criminal justice reform. BLM activists had continually made the case that police reform is needed given:

1. Black communities are over-policed and black Americans were targets, for reasons including generating more revenue. [1]

2. White victims such as Daniel Shaver [2] received major media coverage from BLM and mainstream media.

I could sit here and list of articles and anecdotes about the BLM movement - and you can research them as well; but the solution comes with discussing police reform and as you can imagine they are certain institutions who do not want to have that conversation. The problem is, just how it's raining outside, despite evidence for it, the "not raining outside" crowd will continue to regurgitate the same arguments like the one you have espoused. And in this 4 years of trying to convince them that it's not raining outside we have hardly made a dent in the issue. At this point you can only make the assumption that one side is acting in bad faith; and if that's the case why should anyone give a neutral position to bad faith actors? That's why I don't think it's a solution - it's not that the other side is "misinformed", but they are actively impeding progress with bad faith arguments - in order to prevent having to reform our profitable criminal justice system and their attempts to tell us to be "neutral" is simply an attempt for them to slide us backwards.

How do you play neutral with a corporation that is dumping radioactive waste in your lakes?

[1] https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releas... [2] https://www.theroot.com/horrific-video-showing-arizona-cops-...

It's changing in the UK too. Boris Johnson flat out refused to be interviewed by the BBC's Andrew Neil (who's conservative himself) because he knew he'd be destroyed.

While I disagree with much of Andrew Neil's politics, I have much respect for him as an interviewer. His general stance of taking a sceptical/oppositional attitude to his guests and not being easily satisfied with soundbites, definitely makes for revealing interviews.

His interview with Ben Shapiro [1] where the later accuses him of being a "leftist" is certainly revealing.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRF3r3zUGqk

That video is one of the funniest I've seen. I go back to it when I need a good laugh. It does highly his skill as an interviewer though, and Shapiro's lack of skill (speak fast, use big words and people think you're smart)

> the people they interview-- like Ted Cruz-- end up looking like complete dumbasses

So first off, I haven't seen a specific example of this as I'm not a frequenter of Axios interviews. Could you post the interview you're referring to?

I'm having trouble saying this in a way that isn't flame-bait-ish, so I won't be using your word "dumbasses". Not because I disagree, but because it could be off-putting to Ted Cruz supporters in a way that obviously is intended to outrage them.

Sorry, but I feel it's important to be very careful with our wording here after the events at the Capitol. With that disclaimer out of the way -

Is it a stretch to say that Ted Cruz doesn't really need much help from interviewers to make himself appear unrelatable to average people? From what I've seen of him, that's 100% true.

On the other hand, I can also absolutely see the style of interviewer you're referring to. They're more excited about a "gotcha" moment than they are about an informed discussion with the interviewee. Is that what you're referring to?

Thanks, and again I really hope I haven't offended anyone. If I have feel free to downvote me, I suppose. I'd appreciate a comment explaining why you did so I can work on being less offensive in the future, but if you don't feel like you need to explain yourself, that's also okay.

Probably the recent interview with Jonathan Swan. I think you’ll need HBO to see the full interview but segments of it are on YouTube.

https://www.axios.com/ted-cruz-axios-on-hbo-bc6addab-ef33-43...

I haven't seen the one with Cruz, but I did see the one with T**p that was pretty internet-famous a few months ago. The interviewer didn't seem so much "excitable" as exasperated that the subject couldn't provide a coherent answer and frustrated he had to re-phrase the same question over and over before giving up and moving on. It would have been easy to set a gotcha trap, but I thought the interviewer did a good job keeping it professional and asking real questions that deserved answers.

> the one with T*p

Oh come on. Drop the hysterics and write the name of the person you're talking about.

Especially because those of us who aren't already initiated have no idea who the hell the parent is talking about.

I assume he's referring to https://www.axios.com/ted-cruz-hunter-biden-trump-f38805a0-6...

I don't know enough about US politics to know if that qualifies as being a dumbass, but I don't think this qualifies as "gotcha"-styles interview either. It seems to be quite clearly talking about specific policies and actions, and not simply playing off silly gafs.

> They're more excited about a "gotcha" moment than they are about an informed discussion

Classical example of this "gotcha"/bad-faith style - the infamous interview between Jordan Peterson and Cathy Newman.

Well said. My take is that there is almost no news anymore, only infotainment. It is more important to outrage and click bait than to pursue truth. It is all about eyeballs and ad revenue. I don't know how to pay for good news platforms because people want it for free.

>MSNBC/Fox/CNN

An alternate explanation is that these are not news outlets, and haven't been for years. Instead, they are merely editorial outlets.

An alternate, alternate explanation was that there were never news outlets. They were always editorial; whether consciously or unconsciously, the stories that were run were selected (thus edited) by the producers, writers, reporters, and eventually their sponsors.

This is so true, and it doesn't get discussed enough. Folks like Medhi Hassan and Jonathan Swan are a completely different kind of journalist than most of the folks that occupy the airwaves, and it's really frustrating to watch the news when you know people like that are setting a much higher bar than everyone else.

I love Axios, wish there was a European version.

But I don't read it for the interviews. I read it for the brevity and clarity. Interviews are muddier.

> I'm honestly surprised they continue to get interviews with prominent figures.

All that matters to them is staying relevant. They don't care about friendly or unfriendly interviews.

The figures need the media more than the media needs them.

> The figures need the media more than the media needs them.

That's where generalizing to "the media" causes problems, though. They do need some media to stay relevant, but can absolutely stay with sympathetic media outlets that will never challenge them. Ted Cruz need never give an interview to the likes of Axios for the rest of his career and he'll be absolutely fine with just Fox News.

Axios is not any better than other sources such as CNN, NYT, etc. The main problem is that news is cheap and free in the digital era -- so what is left to sell is opinions, conjecture and analysis. Axios is no different in this regard than other organizations.