Hacker News Reader

Comment by hackyhacky | Hacker News Reader

This is a No True Scotsman fallacy.

How do we define "real journalist" in a way other than "curates news in a way that I personally approve of"?

Seems like a relatively consistent, generally agreed on definition at least of 'investigative journalist' shouldn't be impossible. Something like... 'A news gatherer, who uses primary sources and triangulates investigative techniques to gather information, establish causation and contribute to understanding of emerging and ongoing news.'

Oh, I don't know, perhaps if you look at any if the huge amount of material from journalism schools on what journalism is and how it should be done, or maybe at journalism's many professional bodies and their codes of ethics, that will give you some ideas?

Cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_ethics_and_standard...

> This is a No True Scotsman fallacy.

Ironically, this is not a real no true Scotsman.

There is no other way.

Is the journalist advocating for something or simply reporting the facts.

I would define a real journalist as someone who adds new important previously unknown facts to a story, or reports on a previously unreported story and who discloses if their sources have a vested interest in the information they've presented.

So that eliminates cable news entirely and most of the work done by NYT, WAPO etc. who basically act as a mouthpiece for government and repeat the same stories ad infinitum.

There’s a whole sub field of journalism called “curatorial journalism” or “meta journalism” that reports aggregated news that has already been reported by other outlets. This means they don’t report any new facts per se, but sometimes the combination of facts over time can color a story differently than when the facts are reported in isolation. I find this form of journalism to be very compelling.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com