The Role of the Press
This article argues that the ethical role of the media is in determining which side of a debate is most ethically correct and then promoting it:
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/york-times-facing-backlash-over-120044346.html
Implicit in this argument is the additonal argument that if a news outlet doesn't adequately promote the correct ethical side, financial pressure should be placed upon that outlet to get it to change its course.
I'd argue that it is this type of reasoning that has led to the politicalization and delegitimization of much of media where you go only to your own personal trusted news source for any information. The article makes clear that NYT readers believe the NYT has an ethical duty to promote Biden and never to provide fodder to the right.
To argue that the press has a duty to provide only certain facts in order to protect democracy contradicts the idea that the freer the press, the more open the democracy. The net result of using the press as a means to promote certain viewpoints only leads to a distrust of the press even when the press has their information correct. That's exactly what you're seeing now, where no one can speak outside their echo chamber because there are no longer any accepted facts across ideological boundries.
This isn't to say there's such a thing as a view from nowhere and that objectively can be established, but balanced reporting, where competing viewpoints are presented would be the goal.
My question is whether anyone disagrees with what I've said and believes that the press has a duty to stake out a preferred social objective and then to use its power to promote that objective? Do you see the press as a legitimate political force, rightfully empowered to promote the good as the outlet sees fit, or do you see the press as having no objective other than the presentation of facts from various viewpoints, leaving to the reader the conclusions he wishes to draw?
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/york-times-facing-backlash-over-120044346.html
Implicit in this argument is the additonal argument that if a news outlet doesn't adequately promote the correct ethical side, financial pressure should be placed upon that outlet to get it to change its course.
I'd argue that it is this type of reasoning that has led to the politicalization and delegitimization of much of media where you go only to your own personal trusted news source for any information. The article makes clear that NYT readers believe the NYT has an ethical duty to promote Biden and never to provide fodder to the right.
To argue that the press has a duty to provide only certain facts in order to protect democracy contradicts the idea that the freer the press, the more open the democracy. The net result of using the press as a means to promote certain viewpoints only leads to a distrust of the press even when the press has their information correct. That's exactly what you're seeing now, where no one can speak outside their echo chamber because there are no longer any accepted facts across ideological boundries.
This isn't to say there's such a thing as a view from nowhere and that objectively can be established, but balanced reporting, where competing viewpoints are presented would be the goal.
My question is whether anyone disagrees with what I've said and believes that the press has a duty to stake out a preferred social objective and then to use its power to promote that objective? Do you see the press as a legitimate political force, rightfully empowered to promote the good as the outlet sees fit, or do you see the press as having no objective other than the presentation of facts from various viewpoints, leaving to the reader the conclusions he wishes to draw?
Comments (74)
The industry should self-censor as to content: don't post inflammatory material, publish national or trade secrets, endanger the security or breach the privacy of the subjects of their articles.
Beyond factual reportage, however, the editorial position of each outlet should be free and unhindered, (short of libel, slander, incitement and hate speech, of course.) Political bias, religious leanings, ethnic, gender and class interests could all be represented by partisan media.
However, that could only work if the press were actually independent, rather than gobbled up, print, radio, television and internet, across entire regions by giant corporations with a single overriding policy that's enforced on all of its editors and reporters.
I do not think it is a question of whether financial pressure should be placed on the outlet. It is, rather, that readers, listeners, and viewers turn to those outlets that align with their own opinions. The dollars follow.
Quoting Hanover
Does it? What did I miss?
As a NYT reader who often reads the comment section attached to articles I do not think this claim is true.
Quoting Hanover
The press has a duty to the truth. To put it in terms of "a preferred social objective" is to reduce questions of truth to a matter of preference. The idea of neutrality is a myth with its own preferred social objective.
Quoting Hanover
Yes. But only if it is free.
Quoting Hanover
The editorial and opinion sections are the place for making persuasive arguments from which the reader can draw his own conclusions.
The former option sounds to me little different from propaganda, and I am convinced many major news outlets have degenerated into just that.
I find myself firmly in the second camp. The press should seek to provide objective coverage of events. Obviously perfectly objective coverage doesn't exist, but if a news agency genuinely pursues that goal, it will do a good enough job.
If journalism can be said to have a proper objective, it should be to scrutinize those in power through investigative journalism, and not to play as lackeys of the powerful.
Media are very powerful, and perverse incentives are everywhere. It is no coincidence that there is a 'press code', much like there is for example a hippocratic oath.
Can't disagree with the truth. The name says it all, news. That is what any and all news outlets are supposed to provide. Their job is to provide the public with untainted, unbiased facts and accounts of the things that are happening.
They have no right to take sides in politics because that would automatically breach their pledge to provide the public with the whole, complete and impartial facts.
If they do their job properly then all sides of all events would be covered and the public will use their own methods of deciding on the best way to proceed.
This is why I do not spend too much time reading or watching the news.
It occurs to me that the reference to press ethics is an argument against an already ongoing politicalization in order to avoid further delegitimization of the press. You're right in the sense that it isn't effective, and that it can itself be used uncharitably as evidence of politicalization.
However, what leads to the politicalization in the first place?
Normally political interests buy advertisement in the press and participate in debates arranged by the press. But since a decade or so political interests also buy and control entire news stations and may decline to participate in debates. Political debates are becoming pointless.
Furthermore, the press doesn't seem to suffer too much from letting go of principles of objectivity and ethics, and here I wonder whether some might even approve of the loss. The influence that postmodern "thought" had on some journalists and other half-baked intellectuals from the 1990s and onwards, now they're chief editors etc. What can we expect from these radical relativists who were taught to abhor anything objective? Politicalized journalism and chatter about feelings, anything but facts.
Quoting Hanover
For meaningful debate about different viewpoints the principle of charity is helpful, perhaps necessary, yet it is systematically violated by many politicians and journalists.
I dont have much to add, but its reminiscent of Orwells essay Through a glass, rosily.
Journalism today is the suppression and distortion of known facts, not to mention the propaganda wing of government agencies, corporations, and political parties.
I'm not familiar with this pledge as a requirement for journalists, editors or publishers. As far as I know, every publication is free to express an editorial position, as well as to choose which aspect of the news they cover and in how much detail.
Various publications have always been open about their political and economic affiliations, and that's not a problem, as long as those affiliations are known and distributed fairly - i.e. media outlets with different points of view are equally available to the audience.
However, when whole blocs of outlets are controlled by a monopoly, that freedom no longer exists.
I do think there should be journalistic ethics, but this seems to go beyond that. The debate in the article referenced what was reported versus what should be covered up. The report was that a high percentage of the population thought Biden too old to be President, so NYT subscribers were angry that the true report were published because it offered support for the Republican position. They were mad the truth was published because the truth didn't help their cause.
Some faction is always mad about something, whether it's done by doctors, teachers, lawyers or climate scientists. The disgruntled/offended/irate portion of the public is not the arbiter of professional ethics.
(They're obviously both too old, but at least one of the geezers is sane.)
I think this is where it gets messy.
"hate speech" is not a very good descriptor of anything, despite its legal use.. which is equally as muddy and controversial. This has an extremely ethics-driven overtone, no matter what your position is - so I think, just excluded anything YOU think comes under that title is tantamount to the same arbitrary restrictions posited in the OP. It is a subjective measure, and so there is no 'accuracy' issue.
If you are merely making the positivist point that journalists shouldn't break the law - fair enough. I took this to be a more wide-scoped convo starter.
I agree with you in principle, but in the specifics of Trump v Biden, I understand the angst directed at the NYT. In my view, the fact that Trump is even considered a candidate, given his well-documented attempts to subvert the 2020 election and his consistent refusal to concede, is gravely disfunctional. As I've often said, you wouldn't even be allowed into a tennis tournament if you refused to acknowledge the umpire's rulings. And I too was dissappointed by the particular story the article highlights about concerns of Biden's fitness for office, which are routinely exagerrated. Biden has never been a very good public speaker, but he's an effective politican and leader who actually observes the conventions of his office and 'plays by the rules'.
Quoting Hanover
Obviously a difficult question, but sometimes there are not 'two sides to every story'. In this case, it's not a contest between two equally qualified and worthy candidates, and that is a matter of objective fact. It's a contest between a regular politician, even if a mediocre example in some eyes, and a candidate who demonstrates contempt for democratic norms every time he opens his mouth and who openly threatens to institute a police state to persecute his rivals.
But then also consider the role of Fox Media in the American Political landscape. They make no secret of being a propaganda channel for right-wing political views. I never watch it, but I read reports to the effect that they routinely denigrate and belittle Biden and make no pretence whatever at impartiality in their coverage of presidential politics, never mind the almost billion-dollar penalty they received for their outrageous bias in coverage of the last Presidential election. And if that could be reigned in, it would definitely be a good thing.
That is actually what I had in mind when I read the NYT story. Fox is transparently lopsided, which makes it an entertainment source, but not a news source. As long as the headline says "Opinion," I think it's fair game to say as you want.
My concern is when those who claim objectivity give up on the idea and instead join the fray, or worse yet, pretend to be fair and balanced but instead have an agenda. It's at that point the Fox News channels of the world get vindicated, proving what they've said all along, which is that the news isn't the news, but it's part of the political process.
Biden has serious age issues. It's not worth denying at this point. To the extent admitting that helps Trump, I'd argue that denying it helps him more, especially when the denying is by people who everyone knows knows better. It's better to admit a flaw than deny it and lose all credibility.
Its said that intelligence is the ability to make distinctions. Im afraid that the distinction between news and opinion is one the general Fox audience may not have the intelligence to make.
Secondly Trump undermines the idea of there being objective facts. He creates a permission structure in which facts are what he says they are, and hundreds of millions will believe it. The so-called progressive media have given up on fact-checking him, because his followers believe him and deny the facts. That is of the essence of his threat to democracy.
It may be controversial, but encouraging people to oppress, rape and kill other people should still be illegal, as far as I'm concerned. The legal language can be made clear enough to penalize deliberate harm perpetrated by public media.
Yes, but only if the press agrees in full with my political position, otherwise they must be censored.
Quoting Wayfarer
Oh, right, Trump, the anti-realist philosopher. Meanwhile in reality:
Oh, sure. But it isn't currently.
I don't think the concept is coherent enough. I think you'd have to specific the things you've specified (which i agree with) and prohibit specific acts. Not a catch-all. Way too slippery and subjective. It also lets lawyers be lawyers. Which we should reduce the opportunity for :P
Okay. The Supreme Court agrees with you. Yet newspaper editors the world over know exactly which articles they should not publish.
This is what my objection boils down to. No one knows anything about 'hate speech'. They know what makes them uncomfortable. It's a vaccuous concept that doesn't refer to anything that could be used interpersonally, unless you already agree on what Hate Speech. Which is tautological and entirely incoherent.
They obviously don't, given the number of law suits journalists and institutions get into. "Women are not men" is hate speech on some platforms.
It takes a hard R on others. There is no universal that could be applied.
I personally don't think anything should be considered 'hate speech' because that's a cudgel and not relevant to whether an utterance is worth hearing.
Your right, it is not a requirement and few would sign or abide by it if it was.
https://www.change.org/p/commitment-to-ethical-journalism-sign-the-pledge-and-join-the-movement
http://www.watchdogcity.com/custompage/Watchdog-City-Journa/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalist%27s_Creed
https://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp
https://americanmediacouncil.org/pledge/
https://www.nuj.org.uk/about-us/rules-and-guidance/code-of-conduct.html
Yep.
Quoting Hanover
I think viewpoint neutrality is important, and objectivity with respect to important stories is important; but on the other hand is the fact that there is no truly objective vantage point when it comes to news, at the very least insofar as story selection goes.
The question seems to be: What is the telos of the press?
See also: "All reporting is biased."
How could they, knowing that Boss Murdock can overrule it at any time?
The news organization does not have to listen to that article if the news organization is truly independent.
Quoting Hanover
Public funding should be in place to support the unbiased news organization in cases of threats like that.
Quoting Hanover
If the news organization believes in professionalism, they know what to do. Their judgment should prevail.
The problem with that is that our best example of publicly funded news (PBS and NPR) is left leaning. Putting the government in charge of reporting the news is a nod toward allowing propoganda. I think the fears here are lessened by the fact that Biden is President, but what would a publicly funded media look like that was ultimately answerable to a Trump administration?
Quoting L'éléphant
Quoting L'éléphant
What will prevail is that the supply will meet the demand, meaning that if there is no demand for unbiased or balanced reporting, it won't be in the market, at least not terribly long.
That can't be helped: public services tend to concentrate on serving the public, not special interests. It's biased toward educating the public, regardless of party politics.
Quoting Hanover
Only, the government and arm's-length public funding agencies in general are not in charge of the reporting, any more than they're in charge of medical services through the CDC or of law enforcement through the FBI. The government, whether the prevailing administration is liberal or conservative, can control the financing of these organizations, but not their day-to-day functioning.Quoting Hanover
The right wing doesn't need a publicly funded platform for its propaganda: it has plenty of very large commercial platforms. If a Trump, or any of his ilk gained sufficient power, all public information outlets - along with public schools, clinics and libraries - would cease to exist.
I was listening to public radio last night and the issue being discussed was how to dissuade the Biden protest voters who have said they won't vote for Biden as long as he is supportive of Israel. They acknowledged the genocide that was occurring at the hands of the Israelis, but they were concerned that a Trump administration would be far worse, so the solution is not to refuse to vote for Biden.
Maybe you agree with these sentiments. Maybe you don't. That conversation was not about educating the public regardless of party politics. That was a pro-Biden, anti-Israel, anti-Trump conversation. Quoting Vera MontThis strikes me as naive.
Trump unilaterally got hydroxychloroquine approved as a Covid medication, over-ruling CDC protocol. That's just one example, but the idea that there's some invisible wall that blocks the influence of Congress, individual representatives and Senators, and the President from administrative decisions just isn't a real possibility.Quoting Vera Mont
Except they didn't cease to exist when he was in power.
In any event, I'm not trying to discuss whether Trump poses a threat to democracy. I'm asking what role the press should have in controlling it. I think it's clear that both sides of the political spectrum have their media advocates, from FoxNews to MSNBC. The question is whether that is what the media ought to do.
Now all you need is a keyboard and you can publish to the world. What sells is what people want to hear. The ethics exist, but it's not critical to follow them. And so we're left with people just as likely to listen to me or you, regardless of what malice lurks in our minds, as they are to listen to those who have agreed to a code of ethics.
Is this news reportage, editorial comment, or an open discussion? Who were "they"?
Quoting Hanover
And this conversation is broadcast 24 hours a day, exclusively? Or is it part of a spectrum of opinions and one of many discussions on diverse topics? (BTW, Is it "anti-Israel" to tell the truth about Israel's current leadership or disapprove of what it's doing? Is it "anti-Israel" to let someone express disapproval of those action? If so, should all "anti-Israel" opinion be censored on news media?)
I'm not commenting - I'm asking, since I don't listen to radio. But I have watched quite a lot of PBS television and found it far more factually accurate, as well as representative of more points of view - as well as airing far more informative content than commercial television.
Trump is a clear and present danger to America and the world. Whatever happened to the Republican Party to allow the Trump anomaly to occur at all was national and international tragedy of massive proportions. I don't think you have to lean too far left to see this.
Quoting Hanover
What you or I think the media ought to do is a very moot point. Of course news media should report factual news and dispense useful information. If the press were free, as is wistfully hoped in the constitution, the various outlets would represent every shade of opinion under the sun.
The reality is: money controls both politics and information: nothing is free.
I don't see this implied in the article you linked.
Related, I found the opening here quite funny. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/02/tom-cotton-new-york-times/677546/
:rofl:
My favorite Gilliani soundbite:
"But truth is truth right?"
"No, truth isn't truth."
I also found the title for: "Post-Truth and the Controversy over Postmodernism. Or, was Trump Reading Foucault?" quite amusing.
Unfortunately, while Newman has some very good analysis in there, he is too concerned with defending his own philosophical "school," and seemingly biased against the "Trump crowd," and so misses some important nuances. He paints supporters of the former President with a broad brush, and misses the small, but influential radical set who [I]have[/I] swam in the waters of continental philosophy and identity movements, and adapted them to the Trumpian mileue.
https://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/items/acbe140d-c732-4842-940d-754b6d063ef6
It's an interesting area:
Someone with more time than me would do well to look at the cross over between esotericism and these trends, because they seem to be a pathway towards a full blown anti-realism. Or to let 4chan (discussing Julius Evola and Aliester Crowley) speak for itself:
Actually, the whole evolution of "post-religion" esotericism is very interesting. It's an area where tradition reigns supreme as a source of authority, and yet one cannot delve into pre-19th century Western esoterica without seeing Jewish, Christian, and Islamic conceptions of God and divine love/unity everywhere, at the very core. So, the shift to a largely areligious, even anti-religious frame is interesting and I've never seen it explained. The old frames are very much absolute, but the replacement of Absolute Spirit with the Absolute Individual in magical idealism totally shifts the focus, while the anti-rationalism and view of discursive knowledge as chains, barriers to freedom, radically alters the ground.
This would be a problem if the government was in charge, but it's not.
Quoting Hanover
Without a transcript I can only address this in general terms.
Did one of the participants represent the view of NPR?
What does anti-Israel mean?
Is NPR opposed to the state of Israel? One can be opposed to the war without being anti-Israel.
That's why I think this is a cultural and/or philosophical problem. Is there really a great deal of demand for unbiased reporting in the U.S.? The "cost" that individuals are willing to "pay" for that kind of reporting seems extremely low. As an Aristotelian I see this as a virtue problem. Those who are not educated in a way that helps them to love the truth do not love the truth, and in America we don't place much value on love of truth.
Is it an American thing or just a diversity of thought thing? Would a European nation provide both sides of a Trump related issue or would that just not be necessary due to the homogenous view they might have on the topic?
You don't need to use the press as a means to advocate if everyone pretty much already agrees on everything.
As outsiders, that European population would see the Trump issue as an American one, and the various attitudes their editorials represent would be from a very different perspective from the "sides" as seen by Americans. However, when discussing the factions in their own nations, each European country would have its own particular way of approaching the issue.
By the way - Is there any reason to assume that there are only two "sides" to the American perspective on the Trump problem?
The world is watching Trump.
Quoting Vera Mont
Yes, there would be a reason. Pro and con. But mabe you're dividing it another way.
If they can't avoid it, because the damn grey cataract slides across their computer screen uninvited and unwanted, with his stupid fat smirking face.
The world is also watching Putin, but no country has the same perspective on Putin as any other, and none have the perspective that Russians have.
Quoting Hanover
Several ways. And so does every every other non-American who thinks about the problem.
Pro and con are not opinions; they're automatic responses requiring no brain activity at all. In fact, pro's are divided into several factions with different motivations and cons are united only in their fear of the damage, not in their conjectures as to the extent of the damage or how it would be brought about; certainly neither pros nor cons stand all together as a bloc on any other issue. The situation is nowhere near as simple as Y/N.
Most of those people are shitposting.
I don't know how it works there because I don't quite speak German, but generally in Europe we don't see much insanity and LARPs like flat earth, traditionalism, million sexual identities, and when we do it is invariably from the people who spend most of their lives online those that speak English better than their mother tongue.
Quoting Vera Mont
Charlie Hebdo disagrees.
Quoting AmadeusD
The society that promotes this political schizophrenia is itself founded on a collection of vacuous concepts.
Everything is "shit posting" and covered in multiple levels of irony, but I've seen enough of these spaces to be quite confident that there are a decent core of people for whom Evola and Guenon are "serious business."
The stuff about Hyperboreans, Antarctic-Lemurians, Atlantis, and the Olympic race is taken as ironic, but also symbolic on a deeper level.
While a totally different set of people, the ties between Q Anon and New Age spirituality have a similar general feel. There though the link has been alternative medicine, neo-shamanism, psychics, and even yoga groups. I think this fits into the larger "politics as a substitute for religion," thesis quite well.
Well, in general I would say Neo-Reactionaries are a radical group, and thus necessarily on the fringes. Something like neocameralism is never going to be broadly popular, but it can still have its influences. You don't see them in the US unless the media goes out to find them either. Something like QAnon or the wider Evangelical "Trump is King Cyrus" theory are the types of things that can actually have broad appeal.
But the people on the fringes are more sophisticated and in some ways get closer to the levers of power.
Lots of people disagree. How does that affect an editor's responsibility for deciding what to print and what to avoid?
Okay, sorry to hear that these organizations have biases as well.
Quoting Hanover
But there will be, and there is a demand for unbiased or all sides of politics.
Or do you mean there will be no "mainstream" demand?
To that I say, do not underestimate the power of the intelligentsia. They were or are in the minority, working and writing stealthily, but they get the most bang for their ideas -- they are the secret sources of the academia and scholarly studies.
I think you should stop reading pop news articles and celebrity magazines. It sounds like you have been frequenting the unsavory crowds.
Is that the telos of the press? Advocacy?
I think the argument behind much of this is that the telos of the press is to present citizens with accurate information so that they can make informed decisions. So if there is a political dispute in society, the press is tasked with presenting both sides of the issue in order that the population can choose wisely.*
But all of this is grounded in the idea of truth as a virtue. The people are expected to choose in favor of truth, and the press is expected to provide the people with truthful and balanced information. Yet if as a society we don't care a great deal about truth then this all falls apart. Is America particularly bad? I think America's pragmatism is a threat to the virtue of truth in an indirect yet real way.
* If a European nation is homogenously anti-Trump then the press apparently has no intrinsic duty to present pro-Trump points of view. The press would only have such a duty in certain circumstances, such as the circumstance where the political homogeneity is based on lies or other unethical means.
But if you're distinguishing the US system, you'll have to give a counter non-American news outlet that transcends these problems. That is, is Swedish and French (for example) news more accurate, or is it just more predictably consistent with the promotion of those countries' political ideologies?
Do you turn to the Guardian for information because it's more accurate or just because it's your version of FoxNews, ready to tell you what you want to hear?
"Have to"? That doesn't follow ... and apparently you don't grok my post.
Sweden has diverse news outlets, some politically partisan, some not, most owned privately, some government subsidized. The press there has more guarantees of freedom as well as more self-regulation than anywhere else I've heard of.
Yes, of course they're more accurate.
France has more than 100 newspapers and magazines, as well as radio and television broadcasting. The media there do not speak with one voice. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-17299010
While they all may not be more accurate than their American counterparts, some are likely to be more accurate than others, just like their American counterparts.
As for the Guardian, whether it's generally more accurate than a randomly chosen American newspaper or not, it has a more objective view on American issues than the self-preoccupied American press.
That's what Julian Assange thought before his visit to Sweden.
Is this somehow relevant to the ethical responsibility of the press in general? Didn't WickyLeaks articles appear in The Guardian, The New York Times, and Der Spiegel, none of which are Swedish?
I think WikiLeaks had plans to relocate servers to Sweden because of the seemingly strong guarantees of press freedom and ethical responsibility. But it didn't turn out so well. Instead Assange was incriminated and charged by a Swedish prosecutor, as well as attacked by major but arguably politicalized newspapers. The rest is history.
Quite frankly, I wouldn't want his hacking operation in my country, either!
Truth is unpopular.
Other examples are the Panama papers and the Paradise papers that reveal how major banks and law firms participate in illegal tax evasion. I recall reading that one of the journalists was murdered.
Those that take those two seriously have mostly quit /lit/ it was the mid-way from meme fascism to trad-larping Christcucking. I just checked /his/ and it is back to religious fighting. So they must have mostly retreated into their discord servers or grown out of it. Evola talk nowadays is uncommon. From today to March 3rd there have been only 24 posts mentioning Evola, in a board with in average 4000 posts a day, since January there have been less than 30 OPs bring up Evola, most of which are not even about him, only bring up his name, compare it to 2022 when there was one about him every other day.
Quoting Vera Mont
You said that editors over the world know which articles to publish or not. If I am understanding what you said correctly, the editors of Charlie Hebdo knew that they should not publish that comic mocking Muhammad.
But then, why? Because of Muslim extremists that would hurt them, or because it is incorrect to make fun of minority religions, or both?
Quoting jkop
A shocker :razz:
They knew that it would offend some people. That doesn't automatically mean you shouldn't publish it. There are far more compelling criteria - at least to my mind - on which to decide whether it's right or wrong to publish something. That cartoon didn't hurt or endanger anyone but themselves: it was their risk to take.
Quoting Lionino
Why decide to publish? Because it's an individual artist's or columnist's right to express an opinion, whether everyone agrees with it or not, whether the editor agrees with it or not.
Making fun of anybody, whether they're a majority, minority, a church, a political party, bank, government department or institution is not 'incorrect' - it is the whole point of cartoons and satire. Associating a public figure with the organizations that act in his name is not wrong.
They didn't ruin the reputation of any living person, nor cause them financial loss or mental anguish. The cartoon merely depicted a figure that's forbidden for Muslims to look at at. They were not compelled to look at it and nobody was struck blind by Allah as a result. Nobody went to hell because of something Salman Rushdie wrote in a novel. If all publication were ruled by what might piss off an extremist, nothing would be published.
Wasn't he charged for unrelated sex crimes? He wasn't convicted if I recall, rather there was a warrant out for him to be questioned in regards to criminal claims resulting from alleged victims reporting the crimes. Nor were the crimes dredged up from the past, but from preceding months. Then he skipped bail and hid in the Ecuadorian embassy.
US charges related to conspiring with hackers came like a decade later.
Maybe these were politically motivated, but considering all the prior MeToo cases, it doesn't seem implausible to me that Assange was both a thorn in the side of the security apparatus and a legitimate sex pest with a valid warrant out for his questioning that he ran from.
In 2010 he was like a rock star for journalists and activists, women included. Allegedly he had unprotected sex with one or two women, which resulted in criminal charges. The women withdrew their part, but the charges remained and were pushed back and forth by a couple of prosecutors (one is a politician).
There's a group of UN investigators accusing the Swedish and UK authorities for deliberate misuse of power. I found a link from the Wiki article..
As I recall, the problem is that Assange professed innocence while utterly failing to comply with the investigation, and this in turn led to something of a forfeiture of his credibility.
Actually, democracy itself rests on taking for granted that all involved will play by certain rules that protect democracy itself, which includes censoring one's own speech and behavior and those of others.
I don't recall a time when a particular media outlet wasn't associated with a particular political option. Sometimes, this association is more obvious, clearly spelled out, other times, less so, but it's always there.
The press likes to present itself as being "objective" and "truthful". It becomes rather ironic when you see two competing newspapers have those concepts in their slogans, and then each newspaper writes views that are directly opposed to eachother.
Quoting Hanover
In 2020, several high politicians in EU countries congratulated Trump for winning the election and haven't recanted it since. Beyond that, there is a variety of views on the Trump issue.
Quoting Hanover
There is no homogenized "French news" or homogenized "Swedish news" or some such. In every EU country that I can think of, there are newspapers that are pro-Trump, those that are against him, and those that are somewhat aloof.
Quoting Hanover
We'd have to check on a case-by-case basis, but the situation probably varies by time period, country, and continent.
What you describe is just one pattern for how a news outlet may establish itself.
For example, another pattern is that the government (a monarchy or secular) provides an official news outlet which is the only one in the country, and this news outlet exists regardless of how well it does in terms of sales.
Rather, the other way around: those which survived were deemed ethical.
Not at all. Getting heard nowadays is extremely difficult. Sure, publishing may be easy, but getting oneself heard is often impossible.
But people, the potential readers, are not tabulae rasae, they are also not passive recipients of what they hear. They are not "the masses". They do not come to the news stand as naive little children.
It seems it has a lot ot do with calculated risks. It's seems likely that editors calculate that publishing something potentially problematic will still pay off for them even if it costs them a lawsuit.
I'm afraid anyone would have failed to comply with the investigation if you consider the extraordinary behavior of the Swedish prosecutors. In the article there's a short description of the events.
I disagree and think that its merely a game of massaging the arbitrary rules. The actual concepts dont hold water though
Absolutely nothing to think there's anything reasonable about that claim.
"common sense" has nothing to do with publishing articles.
That's the saddest thing I've read all week!
It's official: we can add post-reason to post-truth in the designation of our era.
Well, that explains you, I guess.
I think you're lamenting something that both never existed, and isn't something particularly desirable. This, in light of what I think Lionino hit and is right about:
Quoting Lionino
Seems to be the 'common sense' you're driving at, and happen to align with. I would say, with most liberal thinkers, that stymying publication based on 'common sense' is a risible idea, and a tragedy in practice.
Really? If you were the managing editor of a widely circulated news outlet, would you never ask:
If I print the address of a material witness in a murder trial, will that person be in danger as a result? If I print the salient details of the police investigation, will the integrity of the trial be compromised? If I print the opinions of a popular public figure who believes the accused is guilty, will the trail be fair? If the trial was fair and a dangerous criminal was convicted, is it wise to publish the names of the jurors? Is it reasonable to publish the location of the schools that criminal's young children attend?
No area of human endeavour is beyond the scope of intelligent reasoning.
I said no endeavour, not no hum. Evidently, some ideological factions are.
That's illegal. Not common sense-related.
Quoting Vera Mont
Again, illegal. These are regulated standards. Common sense doesn't inform these decisions.
Quoting Vera Mont
is not common sense. You're really not engaging the issue here. Journalism is not something common people do. Common sense doesn't relate.
I think you're either being incredibly disingenuous (my preference) or do not understand what journalism, common sense, and "society" are.
Maybe all those and then some.