That’s quite the axe to grind against journalists. Especially since their job is to ask questions. To think they’re a part of this mass conspiracy to take powerful entities down is laughable.
My partner, a journalist, has gotten death threats just by being at peaceful protests against certain groups that have wealth and pull in the community - just because members of that org were certain the journalist was the main provocateur. It’s just absolute paranoia. But it is a tell isn’t it? Maybe the rich and powerful should be worried about the common people learning about some truth that they invest a lot of resources to keep secret?
Also I think you may have to look and see how much journalists make. To be so entrenched in a mass conspiracy that takes down whole networks of industry, I’d negotiate a better salary then the equivalent of $20/hour.
> Also I think you may have to look and see how much journalists make. To be so entrenched in a mass conspiracy that takes down whole networks of industry, I’d negotiate a better salary then the equivalent of $20/hour.
This is like arguing that hooligans engaged in vandalism are virtuous because they're not millionaires.
You're failing to distinguish between journalists publishing a balanced truthful article in which the truth makes someone look bad, vs. "nice business you've got there, shame if someone were to publish a hit piece in a major media outlet."
>"nice business you've got there, shame if someone were to publish a hit piece in a major media outlet."
I might be misreading this, but are you implying that a subset of journalists perform investigative journalism to engage in blackmail rather than to follow-up on a lead or hunch?
I think it's interesting that people believe that this is the ambit of journalists rather than short selling investor relations groups where it is literally their job to publish hit pieces about companies that are hopefully flawed, while taking a short position on their equity.
> I might be misreading this, but are you implying that a subset of journalists perform investigative journalism to engage in blackmail rather than to follow-up on a lead or hunch?
It's not blackmail for money, it's blackmail for capitulation.
Suppose you have a dishonest journalist who thinks car companies should submit the location history of all their customers' vehicles to the FBI without a warrant.
You can't successfully advocate for that as government policy because it would violate the Fourth Amendment and anyway the public isn't likely to want that.
You can't use honest reporting to convince customers in the market to not buy a Ford just because Ford isn't doing that, because customers don't want to buy a car that constantly reports their location to the authorities without their consent.
But if you call up Ford and ask them some leading questions implying that you're going to publish a hit piece on them if they don't change their policy, now you're blackmailing them to change their policy. The point of the story isn't to inform the public of the company doing something bad, it's to coerce the company to change their policy under threat of slanted negative media coverage.
If a specific journalist has an axe to grind they don't need to be part of a larger conspiracy to ask damaging questions.
There are some people that enjoy the power trip of forcing the hand of large companies, and there are others that will get behind a cause dogmatically and are capable of inflicting extreme damage -- no conspiracy required.
That is what I suspect happened with that NYT piece, because its depictions of PornHub were distorted and off-base. And the damage stretches far and wide.
And judging by the Twitter thread this seems to be the case.
> My partner, a journalist, has gotten death threats
Sorry that happened to your partner.
I am surprised that death threats are still around. Is it not actually a crime or is anonymity so good that law enforcement can't trace them or do the recipients or police just not bother following up?
It's the latter two. It's generally out of the jurisdiction of local police departments, and the FBI doesn't have anywhere near the manpower to take every threat seriously.
Personally, I'd really like to see them put at least a little effort into it, to send the message that it is in fact illegal and you take at least some risk. As it is, people often make no real effort to disguise themselves, but get away with it because no authority cares enough as long as they don't commit actual violence. So they can shut down speech with impunity.
> To think they’re a part of this mass conspiracy to take powerful entities down is laughable.
I agree with your overall sentiment, but the fact that a journalist may make $20/hr is all the more reason for motivating them, individually, towards uncovering mass conspiracies. In other words, a large scandal no matter how true or not that garners a lot of attention is sure to lead to potential writing prizes, more compensation, bonuses, etc. So while I don't think every media company has some grand Murdoch-like figure that can play individual journalists like puppets, I do think there is a lot to be gained by an individual journalist leaning towards being overly harsh.
That's a stretch. What else will you have us believe? That the New York Times intends to be a politically neutral voice of reason? No, sir. Maybe in the 1950s, maybe before the Internet, in those halcyon days when newspapers had a good slice of the nation's ad money and lots of competitors and earned money by attracting from a broad swath of readers to earn money from ads — instead of reliably enticing specific kinds of readers to pay for their content. [2]
The job description of contemporary journalists, and especially journalists at the New York Times, is to build narratives™ and use them to influence the world. That's what you'll learn about pursuing a modern journalism degree, and that's what will get you career success at the Grey Lady — doubly so since the Trump election. This is not a conspiracy theory against "the media" or even a secret; the Times has overtly published opinion articles to this effect [1], declaring this approach to journalism righteous and good, the appropriate approach for our times.
Maybe they're even right, and even if they're not, at least they're not Fox! But we're a long way from just "ask[ing] questions."
[2] From the City Journal piece above: "The intent of post-journalism was never to represent reality or inform the public but to arouse enough political fervor in readers that they wished to enter the paywall in support of the cause. This was ideology by the numbers—and the numbers were striking. Digital subscriptions to the New York Times, which had been stagnant, nearly doubled in the first year of Trump’s presidency."
Thanks for saying the hard things others are afraid of saying. It’s difficult to watch gems of American journalism flushes down the toilet in the name of activism such as the NYTimes. You’re right, its not a financial conspiracy, it’s an ideological one. Journalistic standards used to be about getting facts straight. Now it’s about narrative building.
The NYTimes fired an editor for publishing an opinion piece by a sitting US Congress person because that opinion upset people. And this is supposed to be the crown jewel of journalism and has turned into Huffington Post. Your downvotes and others defending modern “journalists” are delusional.
> The job description of contemporary journalists, and especially journalists at the New York Times, is to build narratives™ and use them to influence the world. That's what you'll learn about pursuing a modern journalism degree, and that's what will get you career success at the Grey Lady — doubly so since the Trump election.
No, you're conflating different things. That's the job of an op-ed columnist, which is what Nicholas Kristof is. And frankly, that isn't new. It's been true since the invention of newspapers. An op-ed columnist the equivalent of a modern-day pamphleteer.
The news section is different, and it's job is to report facts. The news and opinion sections are run as totally different organizations in well-run newspapers, because their objectives are so different.
Also, City Journal is even more ideological and biased than the New York Times.
> The news section is different, and it's job is to report facts. The news and opinion sections are run as totally different organizations in well-run newspapers.
You have definitely described an ideal. It's a reasonable ideal, even when those who follow it fall short. But do you actually contend that this ideal is shared by those at the New York Times and do you feel your words describe their newsroom accurately? That is the specific paper before us, after all.
> Also, City Journal is even more ideological and biased than the New York Times.
Perhaps so! Sometimes this is a positive feature; those who are biased do have an incentive to investigate facts, and uncover the truths their enemies would prefer to remain hidden. No doubt that this has been a major reason for the New York Times' success with their coverage on Trump, which contains many damning facts.
Is this a positive feature insofar as this article on OnlyFans is concerned?
> Perhaps so! Sometimes this is a positive feature; those who are biased do have an incentive to investigate facts, and uncover the truths their enemies would prefer to remain hidden. No doubt that this has been a major reason for the New York Times' success with their coverage on Trump, which contains many damning facts.
It's an interesting observation that the people who have an axe to grind about, say, the New York Times being "biased" very frequently do not live up to their own purported ideals of neutrality nearly as well as the NYT does (i.e. the critics are hypocrites who are salty that someone dares to speak a different opinion than them).
My partner, a journalist, has gotten death threats just by being at peaceful protests against certain groups that have wealth and pull in the community - just because members of that org were certain the journalist was the main provocateur. It’s just absolute paranoia. But it is a tell isn’t it? Maybe the rich and powerful should be worried about the common people learning about some truth that they invest a lot of resources to keep secret?
Also I think you may have to look and see how much journalists make. To be so entrenched in a mass conspiracy that takes down whole networks of industry, I’d negotiate a better salary then the equivalent of $20/hour.