"Death of Journalism" Q&A

http://dailycaller.com/2010/11/21/10-questions-with-gray-lady-down-author-william-mcgowan/

There's no opinion beyond the author's, so even Thrasher should be safe at the DC with this one (unlike some of their other articles). It's a rather interesting Q&A about the NY Times and its loss of journalistic integrity over time.

I heard about such a decline in the U.S. … I think I wouldn't like it.

Thanks for the interview anyway.

Edit :

5. When the New York Times revealed a secret government program used to track terrorists through cooperation with financial institutions, some called the revelation treasonous. What are your thoughts on that incident?

You are referring to the SWIFT banking surveillance program, which was perfectly legal, had completely adequate congressional oversight and was quite effective. I wouldn’t call it treasonous to have run that story. But I think it was gratuitous. They ran the story because they could, and engaged in a justification campaign in the wake of the following furor that was both juvenile and transparent.

Click to expand...

LOL, we've had MASSIVE discussions over that here in Germany ! This SWIFT data transfer into the U.S. was to many people as giving private data into a different country ! It was ... I try it with a very drastic piccture : It was like becoming "naked" because another country suspects EVERY EU citizen to be a potential terrorist or criminal !

This SWIFT bank data transfer was like ... well, I think I'd rather shut up. It got a bad press, an outcry of people concerned that their private data - bank accounts ! - were transfgerred into the U.S. ... with nothing getting back, of course. It's not so (as far as I know) that the U.S. government/compnies would transfer THEIR bank data into the EU ... This was just the same with the data of ALL people which are flying into the US from the EU ... EVERYONE flying into the US must give his/her data to the US government or the flight companies do it themselves ... There is kind of an underlying "anti-americanism" with some people who are angry that in principle ALL EU citizens are criminalized ... And this SWIFT bank data transfer thing was just the last straw.

But, since the EU governments have no chance (cynically speaking : "give us all of your data or we won't trade wth you anymore !" or so), they HAD to give in, eventually.

It's as if the US knew (in these two points) more about EU citizens than the EU governments do ...

Daily Caller, that worthless right-wing mouthpiece?

This is merely a thinly veiled attempt to smear one of the good remaining press organizations because it doesn't serve Republican interests. More rightwing propaganda. Don't buy it. Tsk - tsk.

Funny that there is no such article about Fox Noise...

Did you even read the article, Thrasher?

Your frothy rant has next-to-nothing to do with the subject of the article beyond leftie soundbytes, so I was just wondering. Big ups on the quality mouth foam, though.

I read up to the part where the so-called "journalist" asked:

"What has the fall of the New York Times meant for America, if anything?"

Then I gave up in disgust as I do with all your Daily Caller references. Pure trash...

Right-wingers have ALWAYS hated the NY Times for as long as I've been alive. This is nothing new.

I guess that explains it, then.

Here we still hve a kind of "etiquette" of not putting personal things and especially emotions into articles.

"Real" journalism should be based entirely on facts, and not on any personal preferences and worst on idiologies at all.

Sure, we have bised newspapers here, too, but the journalism at least tries hard to keep on this ideal of fact-based journlism.

But, given that the U.S. is often seen as a kind of role-model for other "western" countries, I fear that this mght "jump over the ocean" and be introduced here, too.

In the sonse of "it's usual practise there, so why shouldn't we do it as well ?"

You'd be surprised of how many things people just take over into practive because they are practise within the U.S. .

Alrik Fassbauer said:

Here we still hve a kind of "etiquette" of not putting personal things and especially emotions into articles.

"Real" journalism should be based entirely on facts, and not on any personal preferences and worst on idiologies at all.

Sure, we have bised newspapers here, too, but the journalism at least tries hard to keep on this ideal of fact-based journlism.

Click to expand...

Yes, bias is impossible to avoid. The smallest amount of bias you can realistically expect is that the journalist merely lets his/her bias affect which facts are deemed more important, and which are deemed less.

Übereil

For emotions and personal stuff, both newspapers and sometimes even TV news shows have the so-called "editorials" or the "comments".

Ubereil said:

Yes, bias is impossible to avoid. The smallest amount of bias you can realistically expect is that the journalist merely lets his/her bias affect which facts are deemed more important, and which are deemed less.

Click to expand...

"Our articles contains no bias" might be ignorant.
"So what if our articles are biased, bias is impossible to avoid anyway" is kinda rationalising failure or laziness.
I say "bias is impossible to avoid but we strive to avoid it" is the good route. Awareness and trying to deal with it is a good strategy.

JemyM said:

"Our articles contains no bias" might be ignorant.
"So what if our articles are biased, bias is impossible to avoid anyway" is kinda rationalising failure or laziness.
I say "bias is impossible to avoid but we strive to avoid it" is the good route. Awareness and trying to deal with it is a good strategy.

Click to expand...

You get no disagreement from me on that.

Übereil

Decent, but I'd add another option as viable:
"This is what we are and we won't attempt to hide it or lie about it."

You can get good information from shameless shills as long as you understand and "compensate for" the prism they're using to view that information. The bad side of it is when those shills claim they're something they're not, such as unbiased.

dteowner said:

Decent, but I'd add another option as viable:
"This is what we are and we won't attempt to hide it or lie about it."

Click to expand...

The only good thing about that position is that they're so honest you know you can ignore them. The bad thing is that they validate being biased.

Übereil

dteowner said:

"This is what we are and we won't attempt to hide it or lie about it."

Click to expand...

Middle between the last two.
What matters is whether you state awareness in order to compensate or excuse. This is also true for the reader. Not everything can be ignored with "it's biased" even with the most biased sources.

JemyM said:

I say "bias is impossible to avoid but we strive to avoid it" is the good route. Awareness and trying to deal with it is a good strategy.

Click to expand...

Agreed. Especially on the "awareness" thing.

dteowner said:

Decent, but I'd add another option as viable:
"This is what we are and we won't attempt to hide it or lie about it."

Click to expand...

This is exactly the thing that it being ... pondered upon here - and most people currently believe that this is NOT the route it should take here, because it is still biased, then.

To admit it speaks for the try of honesty of those who admit it - but it is still biased, then.

Everybody shook their heads that there's no such thing as unbiased, but we're going to frown on things admitting to being biased? You can't have it both ways, folks.

Admitting to be biased is one thing, admitting to be biased to excuse oneself for not trying another.

Übereil

dteowner said:

Everybody shook their heads that there's no such thing as unbiased, but we're going to frown on things admitting to being biased? You can't have it both ways, folks.

Click to expand...

I gotta agree with DTE here. You can't have it both ways. Fox News needs to just admit they represent the Republican viewpoint and MSNBC needs to come out and say they are for Democrats. What's the harm? It's not like it's some big secret

However, promoting you're something that you clearly aren't is much much worse and why I despise both of those programs. With Fox and it's "Fair and Balanced" BS and MSNBC with its…..well they really suck in the PR department because I don't even know their catch phrase , but they will never admit they are leaning towards the Democratic viewpoint even though it's obvious to everyone.

Give me Jon Stewart and his video clips over either of these damn programs any day of the week. Even though he is the "fake news" I watch his show because I can't stand the BS from the others. I just can't be afraid 24 hours a day like those shows want you to be.

Even though Jon leans towards the Democratic side of the isle he won't hesitate to take on BS from Obama or any of the other idiotic move the Dems make.

BTW, I know the article was all about newspapers, but this applies to these news channels as well. What's the harm in actually saying that you represent one viewpoint or another?

skavenhorde said:

I gotta agree with DTE here. You can't have it both ways. Fox News needs to just admit they represent the Republican viewpoint and MSNBC needs to come out and say they are for Democrats.

Click to expand...

You mis-understood a thing.

It is not about admitting of being a bias.

It's about having none.

This is imho far more important
and should imho be THE goal tro strive for.

Because being and admitting to be biased is imho the ultimate failure on the goal of Neutrality.


We Germans have a special reasoning about it, because the Press was used - instrumentalized - by the Nazis. You don't know how this is. You haven't had it in your own country, so I assume you cannot know how this was.

Nazi press WAS biased. And oh how much biased it was ! It OPENLY degraded Jews and members of minorities. In the press, editors even allowed themselves to insult the Jews and other minorities. They GAVE IN into being instrumentalized by the Nazi propaganda !

Socialist propaganda is similar. Totally biased. Just listen to the news of North Korea, and see HOW much biased it is ! It is SO biased that independent voices are not even allowed !

No, no, no, Neutrality is the only thing - in my opinion - that everyone in the press should reach for. Because bias *can* lead into racism, for example. Bias is … to allow people to say what they feel, emotions, and NOT being based on facts !

Biased press can easily be "used" and be turned into propaganda. And then, who stops a looney from ranting an insulting minorities ? It would still fit into "being biased and admit it". But in the other hand it would still be an insult.

We have currently here a series of reprints of Nazi-induced newspapers running here - complete with scientific guidance. It is horrifying to see what the editors had actually written !

You can see the reprints here : http://www.zeitungszeugen.de/ausgaben/

dteowner said:

Everybody shook their heads that there's no such thing as unbiased, but we're going to frown on things admitting to being biased? You can't have it both ways, folks.

Click to expand...

Errr, what you do is try to be unbiased. If you find out you are being biased, you don't just throw up your hands and announce that you are hopelessly biased and could never possibly do otherwise so you're just going to stop trying. What you do is work harder on presenting the other viewpoints and/or back off on presenting viewpoints you agree with. Getting more people in to review a story works well, too - I think that's one of the primary jobs for an editor.

Being unbiased CAN actually cause problems, by the way. Say the Flat Earth society gained traction and you wanted to write an unbiased story on the situation. Do you just give them time to present their point of view then give an astronomer equal time to present the scientific point of view and leave it at that? Or do you rip into the Flat Earther by pointing out faults? To be completely unbiased, you have to go with the first option. But that gives the false impression that both sides of the debate have some merit when, in fact, one side is clearly wrong. In this case, being unbiased is actually obscuring the truth.

Actually, come to think of it, we don't even need an example that far fetched. Just try to interview some of the leaders of one of those rediculously corrupt nations. They will sit there and spout the most transparent lies you can imagine. How should a responsible journalist handle that?