Jeff Beauregard
Andrea Junker 
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.
Clipper Chip 
@Strandjunker As if it was always so easy. The more accurate analogy is that you are locked in a basement with no windows and have to decide.
TonyK@clipperchip @Strandjunker Sometimes that's true but usually there are windows. If not, a journalist should ask the question and not blindly accept what they're told. Person in the basement can Google a few weather sites. If I'm buying something, I check reviews. I don't accept any single review - but I read them and make an informed decision. There's no excuse for a journo being a govt mouthpiece.
Gordon 📀 Data Hunter-Gatherer@clipperchip @Strandjunker
That is often the reader's dilemma, yes
But the journalist is the one out hunting for windows
Hugh@clipperchip @Strandjunker time to get a barometer... Even without direct observation there are ways to gauge veracity.
@hughie @Strandjunker Funny, since a barometer cannot tell you whether it's actually raining or not.
@clipperchip @Strandjunker there's a higher probability of rain with low pressure.
Beertrix
Jesse Liberty@hughie @clipperchip @Strandjunker
Question on a high school quiz: name two ways to tell the height of a building with a barometer.
1) Throw the barometer off the roof and count seconds until it smashes
2) Go to the owner and say "tell me the height of your building and I'll give you this cool barometer."
This is not on point, but it made me laugh.
Viking Hippie@jesseliberty @hughie @clipperchip @Strandjunker it very much is with regards to the point of the original toot though.
Journalists are constantly cozying up to representatives of both factions (center right to right wing Democrats and fascist Republicans) of the establishment who flat out lie when asked questions that have objectively true answers.
Ormrsverd@clipperchip @Strandjunker how about listening to the drainage sounds tho
@Ormrsverd @Strandjunker Until you realize it's someone watering the plants on a sunny day.
Fabian ¯\_(ツ)_/¯@clipperchip @Strandjunker Then it is the journalist's job to find a window. And if they cannot do so, maybe someone else - who has access to a window - should write the article instead.
Arnaud Meuret 🧡💚💙@clipperchip @Strandjunker What happened to “if you don’t know, STFU.” ?
Alexander@clipperchip
She talkes about "the f****** window". A "f******* window" is always something you can look out through. If you can't, you're already in hell.
So, do it before it is to late.
@Strandjunker
She talkes about "the f****** window". A "f******* window" is always something you can look out through. If you can't, you're already in hell.
So, do it before it is to late.
@Strandjunker
ShrikeTron🔠💉x5@Strandjunker Apparently it's more lucrative and revenue generating to keep the audience hanging, and stretch out the question like a reality show in print.
Stryder Notavi@ShrikeTron @Strandjunker Yes, but when they do that we really shouldn't let them call it "journalism" anymore.
Some base level of commitment to actually helping people be well informed is necessary here.
Though I suspect to fix this we'll need to find a way to change the economic incentives that so far reward click bait, lazy both-sides comparisons and cutting the fact-checking budget to save on costs.
The Observant@Strandjunker but if the truth doesn’t support a certain viewpoint, it becomes “fake news” or (shudder) “mainstream media”. In this sort of culture, career longevity requires journalists to throw *all* views at a wall and see what sticks… It’s not like the audience will reward you for any greater effort anyway!
Nowhereland Chronist@the_observant @Strandjunker
Well, the stuff that sticks tends to be some sort of gunk or just plain old feces. Which... actually does describe a lot of stuff getting published nowadays pretty accurately, now that I think about it.
Well, the stuff that sticks tends to be some sort of gunk or just plain old feces. Which... actually does describe a lot of stuff getting published nowadays pretty accurately, now that I think about it.
David Mitchell 
There is an audience that will reward quality; throwing it all at the wall *is* choosing a different audience.
(Brings to mind the ‘vox populi’ quote as used today and as originally stated)
Mike Fraser@Strandjunker Isn't that called an editorial?
No more than, “I’m standing in the central square of Kyiv as Russian rockets fly overhead,” is an editorial.
Phil Burns@Strandjunker The absolutely brilliant, and it should be obvious truth!
nachshon_r@Strandjunker wow, #this, forever a million times over
Dustin McCartney@Strandjunker well said!
USAF Veteran escaped to Canada@Strandjunker
LOL sounds reasonable
LOL sounds reasonable
Luna Corbden@Strandjunker Difference between balanced and objective.
David Palk#RejoinEU 💖🇪🇺🕊🌈
stux⚡️@Strandjunker 
love it! Short and to the point! ✅
love it! Short and to the point! ✅
gbdunkley@Strandjunker Respectfully, sometimes there is no “window” through which to see what is true, and sometimes the conflicting assertions of reality are the actual news.
arceuthobium@gbdunkley @Strandjunker that’s pretty rare though, and journalists running that story without asking at least a couple experts in relevant fields is unforgivable misconduct.
ayn rand al thor ragnarok@Strandjunker this is why I tend to read wire services
Matthew Keys@Strandjunker I thought another rule was to "cite your sources." Like, for instance, that quote is from Jonathan Foster, but...you wouldn't know it by looking at that post. https://www.reddit.com/r/quotes/comments/ad9ry7/comment/hwkqasw/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3
“If someone says it’s raining and another person says it’s dry, it’s not your job to quote them both. It’s your job to look out the window and find out which is true.”
I believe the author of this is Jonathan Foster, but if anyone could help confirm this or contradict it, I would appreciate it very much.
ArdentArchivist@Strandjunker
Thank you.
Thank you.
WesDym@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.
Scott 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.
@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.
@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.
@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.
pagangod (he/him)@wesdym @Strandjunker If a public figure says something asinine, one can report that the figure is being asinine and lying foremost, and only footnote what they were claiming, rather than featuring what they were claiming and footnoting the "disagreement".
@pagangod Then that's not reporting, but offering opinion. Two different things. You can do that, yes, and there is media specifically for that (op-ed), but it's not reporting. Reporting is objective and does not include opinion.
You're arguing that there should be no such thing as objective reporting.
@wesdym Leaving aside the "asinine", lying is objective and factual. You can objectively report that someone is lying, and that their lying is the factual story. You can support that reporting with what they were lying about, what they said, and what other people say.
I guess it is "opinion" that a brazen lie that is easy to verify is a lie and obviously self-serving is asinine. It might also be opinion to speculate about why they are lying.
I guess it is "opinion" that a brazen lie that is easy to verify is a lie and obviously self-serving is asinine. It might also be opinion to speculate about why they are lying.
@wesdym It is my opinion that implying that the only objective reporting is parroting what people say is asinine. Back to the rain example. Reporting that it is raining (at a specific place and time) is objective. Reporting that people are lying about it is also objective. Reporting that people disagree about whether it is raining without pointing out who is lying is propaganda.
@pagangod But that's what "reporting" IS. You're confusing reporting with opinion. Opinions can be true, but reporting must be provably factual.
I think part of your confusion may be because a lot of news-LIKE media is really much more opinion than reporting. A guy sits at a desk like a reporter would, but he's expressing opinions, and in a way that sounds a bit news-like. But that's not actually reporting.
@pagangod I known that you're sincere about all this, but you're also somewhat naïve about it, and a little ignorant about some of the legal issues. For example, if a journalist publicly and credibly accuses someone of lying, and can't back it up with evidence that would stand up in a court of law, then they could be sued for defamation. The fact that we "know" Trump lies doesn't mean that a reporter can SAY that. What you'd do instead is report someone ELSE saying that.
no.
The dogma of good journalism used to be “If your mother says she loves you, check it out.” Dueling quotes is sensationalism, not journalism.
The dogma of good journalism used to be “If your mother says she loves you, check it out.” Dueling quotes is sensationalism, not journalism.
Gaëtan Perrault'Journalism' covers a lot of duties, one of which is reporting pretty much anything that any public figure says, no matter how asinine
Read this statement again, but do so from the perspective of an attacker.
'Journalists' are a really dumb tool that will help me spread lies by repeating my statements unchecked.
In fact, thanks to research we know that simply repeating the lie, even to disprove it, actually helps spread it.
/1
What you're describing is effectively a "keeper of public record". And while that is useful, It's not what any member of the public would define as journalism. The public would use the Oxford definition:
the activity or profession of writing for newspapers, magazines, or news websites or preparing news to be broadcast
That "broadcast" part is important. Because that is a human judgement. Don't you think it's fair to ask humans to be better with their judgment? //
@gatesvp Media is not your mommy. And you shouldn't want to live in a world where media tell you what to think. If you're a legal adult, that's YOUR responsibility.
You can't child-proof democracy. And most attempts to do so, however well-intended, backfire horribly. At some point, adults have to take responsibility for themselves.
If they can't, then our species is doomed by its own folly anyway.
Do you notice how I provided clear, cited definition for the word journalism and then you completely ignored that?
Do you honestly think that ignoring that statement is somehow going to change my mind?
@gatesvp Bye bye. Try to be less of a jerk.
@gatesvp You're confusing reporting with analysis, commentary, and opinion, which are different media roles.
Please see my follow-up toot where I quote the OED definition of journalism.
https://mstdn.ca/@gatesvp/110874415619995696
It's nice that you have a different "opinion" from the OED. But don't you think you have to do a little bit more to clarify that opinion?
You're claiming that a bunch of people who can apply the dictionary definition of a word are all wrong. And while you may be right, you're going to have to go just a little bit further than these snarky toots.
Gaëtan Perrault (@[email protected])
@[email protected] @[email protected] What you're describing is effectively a "keeper of public record". And while that is useful, It's not what any member of the public would define as journalism. The public would use the Oxford definition: > the activity or profession of writing for newspapers, magazines, or news websites or preparing news to be broadcast That "broadcast" part is important. Because that is a human judgement. Don't you think it's fair to ask humans to be better with their judgment? //
M_C_B52@Strandjunker and then someone appears who says it’s really not rain. It’s fallout from the chemtrails that the adrenochrome drinking Illuminati are creating to turn us into mindless, sexless drones. The only thing that will save you is these tinfoil hats you can purchase through my online store. How does a one deal with that person?
@M_C_B52 @Strandjunker That's called a comment, and has no bearing on what the author meant to convey, in my opinion. My personal views aside, you always need to take comments with a (fairly large) pinch of salt.
ZachAuthor@Strandjunker Afreakingmen Thank you
Geof Hughes 🖤@Strandjunker It must be true. An anonymous source told me!
Rebecca P.
Matt East 