"Journalism has yet to undergo this awakening. We like to think of ourselves as objective seekers of truth. Which is why most of us have simply doubled down in recent years, continuing to do more of the same kind of journalism, despite mounting evidence that we are not having the impact we once had. We continue to collect facts and capture quotes as if we are operating in a linear world."
Take a look at the, say, top dozen headlines on Google News and tell me you really think this passage above is the least bit accurate. Are the majority of those "headlines" starting simple facts about things that have occurred, or are they trying to convince you to reach their own conclusions about the facts at best, or at worst just link-baiting you with outrage?
I think the passage is entirely accurate in regards to what they like to THINK of themselves as doing. I'm willing to believe that most journalists are failing to live up to their own self-image rather than being actively cynical (though, mind you, the actively cynical ones are incredibly damaging).
Yep. There have been lots of studies starting in the 1950s showing that journalism wasn't as objective as they wanted to be starting with White's study on "The Gate Keeper" and implicit bias in stories
(http://www.aejmc.org/home/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Journal...).
The thing is, bias will always exist but you can easily get unbiased information if you simply understand how to compare and contrast multiple sources and assess them together. You also have to learn how to take your own biases into account, which is honestly one of the most difficult things to do.
I'd rather not have to do this, but you're right: If you take any 1 headline on an aggregator like Google News, and expand the related articles' headlines for the same news item beneath it, you can do some quite useful comparing and contrasting.
For the record, here are the current dozen ten Google News headlines:
>Missing youth soccer team found alive in Thai cave
>Michael Cohen Hints at Cooperating With Federal Investigators. Or Does He?
>Suspect accused of stabbing 9 kids and adults at Boise birthday party is on probation in Utah
>Harvey Weinstein could face life in prison following latest sex-crime charges
>López Obrador wins Mexico’s presidential election by a landslide
>State Dept aims to cut Iran oil exports to zero but leaves wiggle room for some importers
>One of these women could be Trump's Supreme Court pick
>Rodan + Fields fires white woman charged with assaulting black teen at pool | TheHill
>Maria Bartiromo’s embarrassing Trump interview
>Man Arrested in Cleveland Terror Plot afte FBI Sting
>Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez spanks the predator political class; next item: redeem the nation
>Dog bitten by rattlesnake called 'hero' for saving owner
The majority of these headlines are starting facts about things that have occurred.
When you developed your opinion about the current state of journalism, did you base it on a dispassionate view of the facts, or did you base it on your perceptions of the facts without closely examining whether your perception was accurate or not?
By definition, you're going to see more articles that have link-baiting titles than not, because they work. If they didn't work, they wouldn't be used. If you mainly get your news from social media, you have a biased view of the news itself.
Well, here's a rebuttal. First off you stated Google News, which algorithmically selected these headlines/articles. Let's put aside the fact that they may be even somewhat personalized (it doesn't need to be for the purposes of the discussion). Quite simply most Americans don't get their news online from Google News. You have Facebook in large part, as well as an array of other ways in which information is fed. I get headlines popping up on the sides of articles, for example.
Another commenter pointed out the generation of headlines [edit: emphasis on generation, not just selection]. Well, that is one of the main tickets here, particularly to our legitimate criticisms of media. This article does a fantastic job of explaining the process of headline generation, citing examples and backing up the claims: https://medium.com/@tobiasrose/the-enemy-in-our-feeds-e86511...
I posted these exactly because of the same sort of distinctions as you made. The parent comment showed what's at the top of an algorithmically curated list. The commenter stated "If you mainly get your news from social media, you have a biased view of the news itself." That got me wondering what an analogous list for social media looks like, so I looked it up. Others might wonder the same thing, so I shared.
I chose r/news because it's literally supposed to be news. I chose r/politics because politics seems to be more divisive news.
This is by far the best post in this thread. It would be interesting to see a deeper analysis following the general assumption here.
For the original claim (two posts up), you have an assertion. Please don't forget to try and falsify your own claims every now and then. Confirmation bias can be tough to shake.
As politicians have become more polarized, we have increasingly allowed ourselves to be used by demagogues on both sides of the aisle, amplifying their insults instead of exposing their motivations. Again and again, we have escalated the conflict and snuffed the complexity out of the conversation.
Why? Because it generates views. Because outrage is the easiest way to make something go viral.
Politicians of a certain bent encourage this behavior as well, because it's the perfect way of cementing a highly loyal "base." This happens more at the farther ends of the political spectrum, both on the left and on the right.
Journalist Amanda Ripley says that "Complexity is contagious" and that
"Complicating the narrative means finding and including the details
that don’t fit the [binary] narrative — on purpose."
So in some study participants talk about polarizing issue. Before
talking they read one article about it.
If article is similar to news article with 2 sides to the story,
participants take sides, argue and leave with negative impression that
conversation is meaningless.
If article is similar to anthropologist’s field notes, with emphasis
on complexity of the issue and without binary division, then
participants “don’t solve the debate” but "do have a more nuanced
understanding and more willingness to continue the conversation"
researcher and social psychologist Peter T. Coleman says.
Then in a long case study of some american talk show some specialists
propose general questions to bring more nuance to conversations.
What divides us?
What is oversimplified about this issue?
How has this conflict affected your life?
What do you think the other side wants?
What’s the question nobody is asking?
What do you and your supporters need to learn about the other side in order to understand them better?
What do you think the other community thinks of you?
What do you think of the other community?
What do you want the other community to know about you?
What do you want to know about the other community?
Nice notes. I think the ‘other community’ notion can be thrown out, though, in favor of the anthropologist approach.
I have been practicing engaging with people who are culturally extremely different from me and learned the anthropologist approach works great when introduced with some humility. The other party gets curious and ideally asks the important questions themselves. Instead of a debate, it becomes more like fixing a car or computer together.
Yes, 'other community' questions imply binary division on issue. I think this questions were proposed to a mediator between the debating parties to try to move conversation into more productive direction. This questions aren't that useful when you start a conversation and can frame it not as a debate.
Note: in the study they read an article about a different polarizing topic before the conversation, not an article about the topic they were about to discuss
The author unfortunately undermines his own article by starting out with:
"I have overvalued reasoning in myself and others and undervalued pride, fear and the need to belong."
If you start out with the idea that you are the reasonable one and all you need to do is soothe the fears of your opponents, you aren't going to teach (or learn) anything.
But I like the general approach of interrupting narratives. It's the opposite of what the media does, and it makes people stop and think, or at least recognize there is greater complexity to an issue.
Please take a moment to glance as the name of the author before assuming that all voices on the internet are male. Or at least use "they/their" as your default instead of "he/his".
To your point, why does this quote undermine her narrative? She isn't saying she's saw herself as rational and others as emotional. Note that her use of "myself and others" in the quote clearly indicates that she's putting herself in the same boat as her audience rather that separating herself from them.
The "myself and others" bit is a bit ambiguous to me. I read it as overvaluing reasoning itself, but it seems like you read it as over-estimating the reasoning ability of an individual.
The former interpretation still comes across as quite condescending to me, especially after comparing to economists studying irrational behaviors.
The latter interpretation doesn't seem to match the text quite as well, but perhaps that was her intended meaning.
I think the intended meaning becomes much clearer in the context of the preceding sentence:
> I realized that I’ve overestimated my ability to quickly understand what drives people to do what they do. I have overvalued reasoning in myself and others and undervalued pride, fear and the need to belong.
The context is "what drives people to do what they do", and she used to work on the assumption that what drives most people is mainly reasoning rather than emotions. But she discovered that this isn't true, including for herself.
I agree. I could not make it past the first part (EDIT: I read it all now, it gets better). The entire article is like all the other "introspection" articles I've read from journalists in the US and in Germany. They pretend to be critical of themselves - but their entire text shows incredible egos, all those articles actually say "we are too smart" (meaning the journalists). Now, I don't mind a smart person saying that, but those articles all sound... dumb. I'm sorry, that's just my impression. Like those people are incapable of just thinking "normally". Unfortunately I'm incapable of finding the right words to describe my impression, but even then it's just my impression.
One example, when they try to find counter-points and to challenge the person they interview the questions they ask often seem... again, the only word I have is "dumb". As if they take it from some catalog they were given back in journalist school with instructions for how to "challenge" someone, and they follow their script, but the result does not make any sense. I often feel they mistake simply annoying people for challenging them.
Nevertheless, I'm curious to see how this develops. At least they think about it. This article does present new angles and ideas. Unfortunately the need to maximize profits may stand against improvement, since outrage still sells better.
I liked this sentence from the article, because it is something I myself wished for for quite some time:
> The lesson for journalists (or anyone) working amidst intractable conflict: complicate the narrative..... When people encounter complexity, they become more curious and less closed off to new information. They listen, in other words.
And also this about adding complexity:
> ...But the main idea is to feature nuance, contradiction and ambiguity wherever you can find it. This does not mean calling advocates for both sides and quoting both; that is simplicity, and it usually backfires in the midst of conflict.
> ...There are many things that journalists cannot do. But we can destabilize the narrative. We can remind people that life is not as coherent as we’d like.
What I used the word "dumb" for above was often because of this, journalists trying to work according do some checklist that tells them to also give the other party a voice, but the result often is just dumb and annoying and not the least helpful for anyone incl. those people they interview.
I don't think "better discussions" actually help that much for a lot of topics - the actual solution - please bear with me! - may actually be not to discuss certain topics with everybody. What, not being open is good, am I crazy??? The problem is that many topics are discussed by people not or only very marginally involved, including actual outcomes. It's easy to have an opinion about abortion or "gender stuff" - but 1) what's the use of involving millions of people who are not affected regardless of what is decided, and 2) therefore have no incentive to actually inform themselves about the issues. It's perfectly fine for them to have a "strong opinion" regardless of its contents.
We don't discuss 99.99999% of everything and do fine! Imagine we would draw any random topic into the public arena, with accompanying emotional articles and comments in the thousands, because everybody who enters a discussion wants to be read, be it a forum commenter or a journalist. I bet that while before the topic ever came up the vast majority had no opinion and could not care less, if those discussions run for a while suddenly everybody has a string opinion! Without caring much about doing any research, because the topic itself does not really matter to most people, only the discussion. The "bike shedding" effect comes to mind.
Also, a lot of things are discussed in such general terms as to be useless. I think that for many topics, if a specific example were to be discussed that many of those who seem to be far apart in the discussion would find that they suddenly agree. That's because if the discussion is too general - and most of them are - then you will still have concrete examples in your head, and depending on which ones they are you come to different conclusions. For example, the refugees: When we talk about specific people and who they are, what they need, what they did, it's much easier to agree. If it's just "refugee" then some people will think of those people in the refugee center in Cottbus (Germany) where some of the inhabitants started violent arguments among themselves for stupid (usually religious) reasons and even attacked police called to settle the disputes. The others will think of that family that tries hard to work its way up in the new home. If they both thought of the same concrete case I bet the difference in opinion would be much less. This fits the "add complexity" argument made in the linked article. Don't let people settle on one solid opinion based on the tiny parts of the huge issue that they chose to hold in their head.
> One example, when they try to find counter-points and to challenge the person they interview the questions they ask often seem... again, the only word I have is "dumb". As if they take it from some catalog they were given back in journalist school with instructions for how to "challenge" someone, and they follow their script, but the result does not make any sense. I often feel they mistake simply annoying people for challenging them.
Can you give an example of one you thought was dumb? Personally, I took something entirely different away from the article....yes, it is almost a simple script you can follow....learn to recognize when the person is exhibiting symptoms of one of the many logical/psychological "flaws" of the human mind, and ask a followup question appropriate to get the person to notice and overcome that flaw themselves.
> I don't think "better discussions" actually help that much for a lot of topics - the actual solution - please bear with me! - may actually be not to discuss certain topics with everybody.
It seems to me that would be an improvement, but for the wrong reasons.
Your last paragraph is a good example of how asking bad questions can cause rifts, and how it may not be obvious that the question is bad (until you explain it). Rather than not discussing things, I'd rather at least make an effort to teach everyone this. Considering the state of politics in the world today, it's not exactly unimportant.
I read an interview with a scientist just yesterday where I had exactly that feeling. Same almost every time they interview someone, could also be politicians.
The questions they ask them are infuriating - infuriatingly stupid. They are told "you must challenge the person you interview and ask provocative questions", but since the journalists seem to have no clue about the subject they invent completely made-up unnatural and stupid questions. Sure, I'm sure that someone out there among their readership may actually have those questions, but that's the fringe 5% of the population. When they "challenge" politicians the main goal seems to be to be as annoying, as possible, as a measurement of how "good" their questions are at "challenging" the person. Even when I dislike the politician they interview, much of the time I pity him/her because not even people I dislike should have to answer such questions. Made-up scenarios like "but what if a meteorite hit that building", questions about things that have a 0.001% chance or less of happening take the center, more often not even the question itself makes sense because it depends on not understanding the subject by a long shot.
Can you give some examples from the original article that you consider dumb? I'm curious whether I agree or disagree with you, because this general subject is something I'm keenly interested in.
The research this is based up on with conflict resolution is something I am learning at a personal level from the book, Crucial Conversations, and having to work through interpersonal conflicts in my life.
When I apply those same principles to public discourse, I can see what the author is talking about -- at least, the problem space.
"The alternate version contained all the same information — written in a different way. That article emphasized the complexity of the gun debate, rather than describing it as a binary issue. So the author explained many different points of view, with more nuance and compassion. It read less like a lawyer’s opening statement and more like an anthropologist’s field notes."
Matches this technique from "Crucial Accountability" called "Completing the Story". Here, the authors talk about the Fundemental Attribution Error, and then show the way to deliberately expand upon the possible influences for failed expectations beyond simply, "This person is a jerk". It can be really effective.
... And it is also the first part of the book. The rest of the book involves the techniques of actually having these difficult conversations.
I had been able to use this when talking with my wife about political issues that have great emotional significance with her. We used to get into arguments because, I tend to see nuances in many of the issues, and somehow the conversation quickly turns into something else. It doesn't _change_ her views on it and what she feels as important, but it has reduce a lot of the emotional charge while we explore many different angles of the issue.
The way that is expanded is very structured, by going through the a 3x2:
Personal Motivation
Personal Ability
Social Motivation (peer pressure)
Social Ability (support from peers)
Structural Motivation (carrot-and-sticks; incentive structures)
Structural Ability (technology, architecture, gadgets)
Public policy and governance debates are often nominally around "structural motivation", but policies and governance along do not form the full picture.
This is not great advice against the current backdrop of fascism ascending. We should be seeking evidence to build fact-based narratives and actively downplaying emotional attempts to derail searches for facts. Fascists hate facts. Books are like their kryptonite.
Fascists were not beaten by facts. That is just not how it works, sadly. Where fascism is winning, it is because emotions like fear and belonging and glory beat facts by mile.
Books are not necessary factual. Fascists love pro-fascist books.
> One version of the article laid out both sides of a given controversy, similar to a traditional news story — arguing the case in favor of gun rights, for example, followed by the case for gun control.
I'm not sure how this relates to investigative journalism. While investigative pieces give the target of the investigation a chance to respond as part of the article, they do not devote paragraphs to "both sides" of the corruption/wrongdoing revealed.
Why would anyone of above average ability become a journalist anymore? You have better, long term salary prospects as a public school teacher.
Journalism in the west is close to dead. It's arguable if there ever was true objectivity, but not arguable that we haven't seen this little of it since the 19th century.
If I had the resources I would start an online news service that actually followed the AP guidelines to the letter, and had no opinions whatsoever - not even an opinion section.
Why would anyone of above average ability become a journalist anymore? You have better, long term salary prospects as a public school teacher.
If you're looking for a genuine and authentic answer: I took up a part-time job writing local columns for high school athletics that turned into a few contributions for Sports Illustrated.
Why?
Because I genuinely love sports reporting and writing. I'm addicted to stats, I love the competition, I will enthusiastically argue for hours about 90's era baseball. I was and remain fully aware it might not be immediately or even eventually profitable, I have no long-term salary prospects, just a middle-of-the-road IT support job (that comparatively for the industry, doesn't pay that great). Combining the two 'jobs' I make enough to live what I consider, for my ends and motivations, a comfortable life doing something I really enjoy doing along with something that supplements everything else.
Journalism in the west is close to dead
I couldn't disagree more. It's not dead, it's evolving-and probably the most directly felt evolution is the delivery mechanisms.
If one wants to talk about objectivity it helps to look at the concept itself a bit more objectively.
Out of curiosity, what makes you think journalism was more factual before?
Also, lack of opinion section does not mean no opinion. Opinion manifests through topic selection, what groups you focused at, which issues you talk about. Opinion section is just something that is cheap to produce and you know what you are getting.
Take a look at the, say, top dozen headlines on Google News and tell me you really think this passage above is the least bit accurate. Are the majority of those "headlines" starting simple facts about things that have occurred, or are they trying to convince you to reach their own conclusions about the facts at best, or at worst just link-baiting you with outrage?