Andrea Junker Nov 17, 2022
JOURNALISM 101 RULE: If someone says it’s raining, and another person says it’s dry, it’s not your job to quote them both. Your job is to look out of the fucking window and find out which is true. — Now more than ever.
Show threadWesDymNov 18, 2022

@Strandjunker I'd call this an over-simplification, in the "not even wrong" vein.

'Journalism' covers a lot of duties, one of which is reporting pretty much anything that any public figure says, no matter how asinine. The fact they said it is news all by itself, independent of truth or decency. The public have a right to know what leaders say, however stupid.

New ANALYSIS is related, but separate. This seems to be what's being addressed here, but not all news is analysis.

Show threadScott baker
@wesdym @Strandjunker I actually don’t agree with that at all. All journalism has an inherent duty to be bound by ethics and sensability. Just saying someone said a thing isn’t journalism at all it is at best stenography.
Nov 18, 2022 at 2:27amWeb
Show threadWesDymNov 18, 2022
@noeyesmcgee @Strandjunker I appreciate your moral views on this, and we're in agreement on that: Journalism has an obligation to deliver the truth. But as a NET product. It would take enormous resources -- far more than the public have shown they're willing to pay for -- to fully fact-check, say, just about any Trump speech. What's newsworthy is that a public figure has said something, however stupid. The public have SOME duty to sort it out on their own. Ideally, from further analysis.
Show threadWesDymNov 18, 2022
@noeyesmcgee @Strandjunker Journalists are not the public's mommy, and can't be. In a democratic society, the People have a duty to educate themselves, not merely wait for the right kind of people to tell them the right kinds of things. Even under ideal circumstances -- which would never exist -- that would be government by media, which is obviously inappropriate. Media must do the best they can, but they are inherently limited. And it would require a police state to check bad actors.
Show threadWesDymNov 18, 2022

@noeyesmcgee @Strandjunker Your remark is abstract, bordering on vague, but what is your concrete proposal? That reporters should not report what an important person says until and unless they can verify the veracity of its substance? Should they not report what they believe are false statements. Should media pick and choose what the public get to know a public figure said?

I know you're sincere, but I feel you haven't fully though this through. There's a reason we have journalism schools.