Hacker News Reader

All I've seen in your posts is a defense that ethics and standards don't matter because the economics don't make sense. At the end of the day you have a choice of whether or not to be a journalist or to do something else entirely.

If you're doing it for the love at that point, then it's not about the money and no argument can trump ethics and standards there. I think journalists spend so much time reflecting on others that there is little to no self-reflection. Just because your boss asks you to do something stupid, doesn't make it okay to do it.

If you're a soldier in the military and you carry out an unethical, illegal order, you're not only still going to get tried for it but you have the legal right to deny that order. And that's a job where you're already expected to maybe kill people for your government.

But while I'm glad that the military holds higher standards of ethics than most of the rest of us, the job of a journalist can be one with the potential to lead men to war. Ethics are just as important in your job is just as it is in theirs. Your tools are just as powerful and can equally be used as weapons.

Not parent, but I still think their point is valid: it’s hard to be a careful, ethical journalist and make decent money.

That’s not an argument for abandoning journalistic ethics, but it does illustrate why Lehrer’s rules are not the current equilibrium.

Yes. I don't defend the lack of ethics, I'm merely providing some context that's often overlooked. Maintaining ethics is hard in that kind of situation. Also it tends to allow people whith no ethics and no passion to get promoted compared to those who do. It's the eternal... Being at disadvantage if you play by the rules :s

Thanks for the posts, they’re good context. I am similar to other people in this thread in that I am not a journalist and I fed journalism Twitter...disappointing. But your posts made me think a little more.

One question, you touched on this earlier, but do you think there is an oversupply of journalists? There seem to be many blue checkmarks on Twitter who write “analysis” for weird websites I’ve never heard of.

I donate monthly to ProPublica because they put resources into investigative journalism and apparently pay their journalists pretty well. I wonder how many ProPublicas we need for a healthy journalism industry.

I don't know but I think so. It's not that we don't need journalists but that economically speaking people are apparently not willing to pay for news anymore. It's a simple calculation : if medias are only supported by subscriptions and not ads, there is less budget and thus need for less employees.

The blue ticks are totally over rated. You can have them if you're not a proper journalist and not have it if you are ^^

Yeah Pro Publica does really good stuff. That's the thing actually. A few medias have managed to get a community around them that's willing to pay and then you can do good journalism. That's great.

Problem stands more for old medias that needed to adapt and mostly none took the risk of going for internet subscription. So they still have to pay their hundreds of employees with a news model that won't last.

Management in medias is one of the main problems. Like in many industries, medias had a hard time taking internet seriously, then didn't think their strategy through, then started going on Facebook etc without a sound strategy as well... You see there exactly what happened first in music, then tv, and basically every industry. I dont know if the Spotify / Netflix model would works for medias. Open question there ^^

I get the feeling that you're somewhat justifying the state of journalism with "you have to make money somehow" and "people are also not valuing good journalism". Consider what would happen if you transferred that to other professions. "Oh well, people die because the house collapses, but the owners want it cheap and I have to pay the rent. Also, people don't value good craftsmanship in buildings", or, let's take it up a notch, "I'm breaking into hospital networks, encrypt their data and ask for a ransom, I have to pay the rent. Also, the general public never valued all the great software I wrote beforehand".

Journalists aren't the root cause of the state of the media, but they aren't unwilling victims either. It's like working for a land mine manufacturer. You're not responsible for the concept of war existing, but you sure are contributing to suffering.

I generally like Thomas Jefferson on the topic:

To your request of my opinion of the manner in which a newspaper should be conducted, so as to be most useful, I should answer, "by restraining it to true facts & sound principles only." Yet I fear such a paper would find few subscribers. It is a melancholy truth, that a suppression of the press could not more compleatly deprive the nation of it's benefits, than is done by it's abandoned prostitution to falsehood. Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knolege with the lies of the day. I really look with commiseration over the great body of my fellow citizens, who, reading newspapers, live & die in the belief, that they have known something of what has been passing in the world in their time; whereas the accounts they have read in newspapers are just as true a history of any other period of the world as of the present, except that the real names of the day are affixed to their fables. General facts may indeed be collected from them, such as that Europe is now at war, that Bonaparte has been a successful warrior, that he has subjected a great portion of Europe to his will, &c., &c.; but no details can be relied on. I will add, that the man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them; inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods & errors. He who reads nothing will still learn the great facts, and the details are all false.

Perhaps an editor might begin a reformation in some such way as this. Divide his paper into 4 chapters, heading the 1st, Truths. 2d, Probabilities. 3d, Possibilities. 4th, Lies. The first chapter would be very short, as it would contain little more than authentic papers, and information from such sources as the editor would be willing to risk his own reputation for their truth. The 2d would contain what, from a mature consideration of all circumstances, his judgment should conclude to be probably true. This, however, should rather contain too little than too much. The 3d & 4th should be professedly for those readers who would rather have lies for their money than the blank paper they would occupy.

It'd rather seem that Jefferson really didn't have the answer either. His 'solution' probably wasn't a solution, and would probably drive said paper out of business.

Yes, and I don't believe there is a definite answer. I like his description of the problem, and the fact that it works very well to describe the problem today is noteworthy as well: it's not a new problem, but each generation has to deal with it, and maybe the magnitude changes from time to time.

The answer is either private organizations have to act with integrity to promote and coordinate 'proper news' - or there has to be social intervention. The former kind of holds true for network news wherein there is institutional control over distribution. But not so much in print, and definitely not on the net. In Canada, there's the CBC and they are considering subsidies for other news outlets.

Relying on private organizations to act with integrity isn't going to be easy, I think. For public options, I'm skeptical as well, they are very mixed in my perception, some are doing good work, others are little more than very expensive mouth pieces for the government. Subsidies for private companies might be a way, but that will undoubtedly get gamed and you end up needing a large bureaucracy to counteract that.

Your first analogy might make more sense if people loved to acquire free bad houses and then complained that good houses cost money.

I don't believe that it's a conscious decision when people fall for low-quality clickbait. It's the media-equivalent of adding chemicals to tobacco to make it more addictive, where we also shouldn't blame smokers for getting addicted.

It's also not that there's a lot of alternatives. If you don't want lazy, manipulative, clickbait journalism, your best bet is to not read any papers or media websites.

I think it's a fair point but I agree the comparaison is wrong originally because here one of the main issue is that people are not willing to pay for information anymore.

Thing is also that houses that have crumbled have crumbled and there's nothing left. You can't quantify what happened so easily. Articles stay online. Actually that's something that might be good to think about : for a magazine or a journal that decided to make things better and do more responsable journalism, should they delete the content that doesnt fit that bill anymore ? Kind of like the YouTube Kurzgesagt channel when they were confronted with a few of their faults and decided to eradicate the content that was problematic ? It's pretty radical but it sends a message. Not sure how that would be doable economically though.

I don't believe that people are not willing to pay for information, but they might not be willing to pay as much for the information they are presented. If there's a lot of falsehood, propaganda and celeb-news to fill in the blanks between the ads, why should any reasonable person be willing to pay? They aren't the customer, they are the product being sold to advertisers, PR agencies and anybody who wants to influence public opinion.

Would they be willing to pay? That probably depends on the audience. Some certainly would. Others use news as entertainment, they probably won't, because there are better forms of entertainment commercially available.

Regarding corrections: I don't like deleting stuff outright, but afaik you can't change the video on YouTube, so that's a harder problem. For their own site, a company could (and should) still leave them online, but clearly mark them as retracted (and say why they retracted it; and possibly set noindex on them so search engines drop them from the results). This would achieve transparency and keep unknowing readers safe. Doing secret edits that change the meaning of sentences is the worst that can happen.

Does that mean all traditionnel outlets are just bound to... Die? Because they could do websites with only quality journalism but they dont have enough people subscribing to do so. In the meantime they have to maintain the flow of content, content, content so ads will continue supporting them in the meantime. If you add to that most of them are still paper magazines which are going down in sales and require it's own workforce...

Someone made a point in another discussion that traditional news outlets are no longer trustworthy and would have to rebuild somewhere else to get a new sort of trust. Maybe that's the way...

> Because they could do websites with only quality journalism but they dont have enough people subscribing to do so.

Chicken and egg? Virtually nobody has paying customers before they start and create their product. Especially for the large media conglomerates, I don't believe it would be a venture where they'd have to risk their company. For individual journalists or small groups that might be different. I don't know how successful the crowdfunded experiments of the last few years were.

I do believe that it's hard to transition from the current form to an alternative system by making lots of small changes over a long time. On the other hand: there's a chance to build trust with each new generation. It's much easier to start with a clean slate than win back those you've lost, I suppose.

True. And they for sure took the wrong direction to build a new trust so it will probably take quite a while.

There's been a big the wave of new medias but not many survived more than a few month or a year. Not sure about crowdfunding. I'll look it up actually, that would be interesting to compare.