Thing is objectivity can't be reached and Lehrer's says it : the only thing yyou can do is try and be fair. It's a big misconception that medias were objective before. Newspapers have always had political leanings (clear and revendicated as the identity of the magazine) and that just never stopped. To say a media isn't objective with their political coverage is actually the norm and what should be expected. Now if a media trumps a fact in favor of an argument in a paper that explain science, that's wrong. But actually I don't think any media does that (never on purpose. And mistakes usually are corrected).

Let's take Buzzfeed.

Most of what they post is utter clickbait and not really informative. They also do amazing pieces of investigation because this model brought them money and they wanted to use it to do better work.

See this article from 2018 that was nominated for a Pullitzer Prize. https://www.buzzfeed.com/heidiblake/from-russia-with-blood-1...

Does that mean you rate Buzzfeed as cancer - including the great reporting they sometimes do ? Or each article independently ? But then who does it ?

Open questions here as well ^^

Radio active material can anecdotally give you super powers, but usually it just gives you cancer. It's generally a good idea to avoid it, because the chances that you don't wake up being able to fly are too high.

The same goes for Buzzfeed in my opinion. Yes, there may be something of value every other year, but generally it's shit. You don't want to regularly ingest shit on the off chance that there's some delicious candy in there somewhere.

I feel like the conversation is lacking a journalist point of view so I'm going to pitch in :) I usually don't say anything in this kind of debate (especially on Twitter ;) ) because it's pretty useless, but I love reading the community here and it's the first time that a debate disppoints me. I feel like it's one sided and completly lacking the usual counter-argument and debate. Also, bear with me if I make english mistakes - I'm french and it's not my native langage.

First I'd like to adress there's very different kinds of journalism, different set of skills associated with it and of course, a company they work for. As a job, working for the New York Times, for a local journal, for a tech magazine or for travel channel is completely different. I don't think people realise how different the job actually is from one media to the other. You can't say 'journalists' the same way you can't say 'engineers' because there's people doing software, people doing tests, people building machines, people advising companies and many other people doing many other things and having no idea how to do some other engineer job because it is... entirely different. We're not interchangeable and we don't all do the same job at all.

All medias are also different. Which implies different owners, rules, and bosses. As a journalist, you're like everyone else : you're an employee. You can have ethics, you can have thoughts or a list of rules. At the end of the day, it's a job and if your boss asks you to do something completly stupid, you can either say no, loose that job and possibly die of hunger. Or you roll with it and hope very very hard it will not stay on the internet. (Spoiler alert : it will and you'll be ashamed of it all your life.) You do have rights in some countries; but first, like many rights, not everyone know them; and second, those rights don't necessarily protect you. Maybe the media can't fire you right away or because you refused working, but a few months later, when they're considering reconducting your contract, you'll just get cut. It's just sad math. Not everyone can afford to be a hero.

Another point is that there's this image that being a good journalist means investigating. Movies or tv shows never mention the actual money you're getting for publishing online. I often see discussion here on how much engineers make. Everytime I read those, I can't believe the numbers. So let's talk money. In France the middle ground for an online paper is getting paid between 40 dollars for a short piece and 120 for a long one. That's usually 8000 characters for long ones, so more or less 800 to 1000 words. If you want to do a good job, it requiries usually two days : you have to research, get people's contacts. Agree on a time for three or four interview which are going to last between 30 minutes and an hour each. Then if you have everything (rarely happens) you have to write. If no one answers or you realize the subject was actually much more complicated than you thought, it might take a week or a month. The nature of the job makes it hard to know how long exactly something is going to take if you want to do it right... But at the end of the day, the amount of money you get paid doesn't change and you might just get paid 100 dollars for two days work, and that's before taxes. I'll talk about my own experience as a freelancer for a year here, and I'm actually one of the very lucky ones because I had work. I calculated that this year, I often got paid 1 or 2 euro the hour. I earned 300 or 400 a month - well, usually it's more 1500 a month, then nothing for two month, then 200, then 600, then nothing again... Often I got paid four months after being published - and sometimes on Paypal. I also worked for a big American media and they pay you the same amount as in France - except at the end you get a check and your bank at home will also cut its own share of it and you'll end up with two times less money. I am absolutely not exagerating. Of course, I stopped being a freelancer because I couldn't make it work. Yes, my job was more interesting and I was travelling and getting to cover more exciting stuff. But it couldn't compensate the stress that came with having literaly no money and my savings going down and down and down and down. So now I have a job that is actually one of the rare ones where I can do a good job in France and get paid ok. I'll still never earn more than 20 to 25K a year after taxes. But I'm lucky. Really. So imagine how it is for mostly everyone else.

So I'd like to take the debate here where I think it should lie: with the companies' management. The problem isn't the journalists - there's good ones, bad ones like everywhere and they can't shoulder all the trust crisis that's out there. The problem is that no one is really checking who posts what online. Medias have had a history of having an article go through 3 to 4 people before getting okayed and being published. I actually hate that you only have one name on an article because it is really not a solo work (or at least it never should be). Often I have read articles I wrote and was unable to recognize them. Or they were cut of a part I though balanced the whole argument I was making. In those cases I feel like it's unfair only my name get written down because I'll get all the criticism. In other cases, we were really two working on an article and the editing work was formidable. But somehow in the end, I'm the only one getting the credit for it, which also feels unfair to my colleagues.

All those problems are not easy to solve. They beg many questions : is there just too many people in journalism ? Should companies shrink so they finally get profitable again and the remaining staff can do quality work - at the expense of thousands of people that would get without a job ? Should there only be subscription-based info ? But then does that mean no one without money would get the right to good information ? Should every company sort out a way to be both a newsroom (one that doesn't make much money or even none at all) and develop multiple activities on the side like an ad company, so that they can stay afloat (some have succeeded that way but it's not a valid point for everyone) ? I don't have an answer and mostly every media is trying to figure out their way out of all this. The thing is it's easy to criticize from outside that the managment is shit... but the ships are sinking and when you're sinking, you're not thinking ahead as to which direction you're going to take, or what part of the boat you're going to make better. First you try to figure out how to get all the water out and keep all the people inside alive. It's not an excuse, just the context we have to deal with.

Side note : there's also a problem of journalist schools. That's my own opinion, but I actually think they are very bad for the job - because you won't learn more than in a media, and it makes all the journalists come out very similar. Problem is, if you don't do them, you have no network and, at least in France, you actually can't intern in big medias. Twitter is a similar bubble to the bubbles school create. Twitter makes journalists feel like what they see or talk about has a bigger influence than it really has. But that's not a problem that's only with journalists. It's also with the platforms and it's been argued that it's all over the internet.

Then... I want to adress one final fact which is that it's easier to say it's the "journalists" fault if information has gotten so bad. Journalists for sure hold responsability in this but the public that doesnt value the work, isn't willing to pay for it and will click on whatever is coming up without caring about sourcing... Well, that crowd also has its share in how bad the situation has gotten. I don't think you can blame journalists for all the fake news websites that came up and how they often became the first things you got to access. The tools for visibility that we have to deal with are completely not appropriate for responsible journalism and also require an amount of time that will never be worth the money (Google, Facebook etc). Those fake news website play dirty and of benefit greatly from it.

In one of the medias I worked for, it does say something that one of the most visited article of the year was about a tenia worm that was in someone's intestine and took literally ten minute to write, edit and publish. None of the very interesting piece of good journalism got as much attention. If you want to do good reporting that will shine, you need good keywords, a video, tons of links... And a long text for good SEO. They can't all have that. And because of the lack of money, all those steps are often asked of the journalists themselves. How can you do a good job if you have to get a good idea while browsing the internet because you don't have time to go out, talk to people and take the risk it will be all for nothing ? Then you have to sell your idea to your boss. Then research. Then interview. Then maybe do a video. Then maybe edit it. Then write the story. Then also doing editing and all the linking. Then publishing. Then promoting it with your own media so you get recognised by your coworkers. Then promoting it online. Then get another idea. All that in one morning of course because where's your worth as a stable employee if you can't publish 5 articles a day ?

I'm not saying journalists are not responsible for what is happening, that all the points you made weren't good points or that I have any answers. I'm just getting tired of always reading hate and simplistic arguments like "Anyway, Buzzfeed is shit" and "Journalists are only caring about twitter". Those are the symptoms, not the cause of the illness. And it would do great to move the debate elsewhere if we want to cure this. It won't be done by journalists alone. A journalist doesn't exist without an audience and this will have to be a common effort or journalism is just going to die and well, it's only my opinion, but I don't think the world will be better for it.

Sorry that rant ended up being a whole book. But if you get there, I would love to hear what you think and we can discuss this outside of hate and "they" and "journalists" and "toxicity".

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.

Unionization is not an absolute defense. Modern internet-era newsrooms have been unionizing recently and in at least a couple recent cases the response to unionization has been a large-scale gutting of the newsroom in order to replace them with non-union labor. Gizmodo, Gawker Media and VICE's news wings have all unionized recently as far as I know and that has not stopped ownership from making questionable decisions.

Of course, labor law violations theoretically are punished by regulators, but that doesn't happen quickly - if at all - and in the meanwhile you have no job.

It's true that unionization is not a solution to every problem; but what you describe is not the situation the GP post was describing: Pressure on an individual journalist to bend his/her professional integrity. With a union - at least, an independent and non-corrupt union (which is not a trivial condition by the way) - the employer would need to "go nuclear" in order to have his way; and the individual employee would not have to deal with it alone.

That's true. Problem I think is that with the way organisations work (high turnover with short term contacts) it's hard to get a feel for this. There's also the problem that, once something is online... It's hard to have it disappear, independently of the media's will.

I can only speak for France but unions have been coming up. But they are reeaally recent. (last year maybe). The unions that were already in place were more adapted to paper journalism and didn't take well into account the online issues. So it's starting but the fact it's arriving so late also explains the current situation that people often feel like they have to do everything to keep their job. Because there's nothing that can protect them.

There's a vicious cycle here: Disorganized employees -> easy to artificially fire people and hire newer, less experienced ones, for shorter periods -> more difficult to organize. If the cycle is broken, then the other difficulties might subside somewhat as well.

But of course, it is not at all easy (speaking from the experience both of starting a union and of being fired for speaking up).

At least it's on the way I think ? People are trying to get medias to be more transparent about their prices, especially with freelancers. Nothing much is happening with short term turnover contracts though... The only organised unions are the ones in very little newsroom - usually specialised medias - where people stay for years and are - by opposition - organized.