208
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2023
208 points (96.4% liked)
politics
18883 readers
3487 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
It's weird that we are at the point where suggesting that journalists do actual journalism (not report "both sides") is considered something outside the norm. So shameful.
"If someone says it’s raining, and another person says it’s dry, it’s not your job to quote them both. Your job is to look out the f*cking window and find out which is true"
I couldn't agree more. While there is room for both-sides-ism, that's only when both sides have actual, valid points. Side A's lies are not equal to Side B's facts.
No, when it comes to journalism specifically, it's also when one or more sides are absolutely batshit insane. Actually, even especially when one or more sides is absolutely batshit insane.
If there is someone who says it's dry when it's obviously raining, that is absolutely more newsworthy than the mere fact that it's raining.
It would be fairness-biased to pretend like it could possibly be true that it's not raining, but yes, it is absolutely journalism to present all available sides, every single time. It's not the journalist's job to tell you which one is right — it's their job to show you what is out there.
What you're describing is propaganda or advocacy.
But they can absolutely state when something is wrong while still being factual.
"Despite claims from politician X that the sky opened up and ceased to rain in Y when he asked God for sunlight, here were are in Y right now while record rain and floods continue".
Sure, that's fair enough. That's fact-checking. But refusing to report on something ostensibly "because it wasn't correct" isn't an ethical journalistic practice. That would be propaganda.