Dave Winer ☕️Aug 12, 2024

A new rule for journalists.

End the interview on the first egregious lie.

Turn the lights out, switch off the recorder, get up and leave.

And your report should state clearly that this is why the interview was terminated.

It never should have been tolerated in the first place.

Show threadRyan Egesdahl Aug 12, 2024
@davew @mastodonmigration Or just don’t interview a known habitual liar in the first place. The only reason I can see for doing that is the sensationalist promotion of misinformation. It doesn’t matter if the person in question is a political candidate, presidential or otherwise. Promoting any candidate’s lies along with their disgusting ideology isn’t required of private companies by the First Amendment.
Show threadDirk RitterAug 13, 2024

@deriamis @davew @mastodonmigration

Correct. You're asking a question, a few guys raise their hands, opinions may differ, but in all other settings, you never let the known, notorious idiot and liar answer it. Never, ever.

What the media are doing here is the active promotion of lies and they know it pretty dammn well, because they're all professionals. Shame on 'em!

»What the Media Are Doing to Our Politics« by John Lloyd probably describes it better, BTW...

Show threadRyan Egesdahl Aug 13, 2024

@GNUmatic @davew @mastodonmigration Thanks for the recommendation! I’ll see if I can find time to consume it.

I have been thinking about why anyone, especially someone whose profession involves knowing the effects of media and promotion, would participate in what’s been going on the last few decades. Then I realized that it’s probably been happening since the dawn of human language. The personal incentives are the same, but the effect is now far greater with modern knowledge and technology.

Show threadRyan Egesdahl Aug 13, 2024
@GNUmatic @davew @mastodonmigration As a result, it only takes a few bad actors, deluded individuals, or even just people making errors of judgment to have an outsized impact. However, we know how to address that problem because doctors and lawyers have been doing it for almost a century now all over the world: professional organizations charged with regulating the ethical behavior of its members. I feel we very much need to implement that idea for journalists somehow.
Show threadDirk Ritter

@deriamis @davew @mastodonmigration

Sad trivia:
They do have a kind of code of conduct, yet nobody seems to give a shit any longer.

https://www.presserat.de/pressekodex.html

I would also like to note that media folks tend to be rather priviledged if not outright wealthy, tend to have far more contacts and talk with people who are even more priviledged, so they also develop a priviledged agenda, often purposefully on behalf of media tycoons. I'm not suggesting they should be kept poor, but it visibly fails.

Pressekodex - Presserat

Der Pressekodex setzt ethische journalistische Standards bei Opferschutz, Täterschutz, Sorgfaltspflicht, Diskriminierungen, Nationalitätennennung von Tätern, Schleichwerbung und Sensationsberichterstattung.

Aug 13, 2024 at 8:40pmWeb
Show threadRyan Egesdahl Aug 13, 2024
@GNUmatic @davew @mastodonmigration There are many codes of ethics, but nothing has the teeth to enforce much of them, if any at all. Maintaining freedom of speech and the press makes enforcement a complicated problem, but so far the world has decided it’s either not solvable or isn’t worth the effort to solve, and so have done nothing. I think we can and should do better. Even a partial solution would be better than none at all.
Show threadRyan Egesdahl Aug 13, 2024
@GNUmatic @davew @mastodonmigration The point being: relying on personal values and commitments clearly isn’t enough, and modern technology is amplifying the harm misinformation causes. We (as a world society) need to recognize that freedom of the press must come with the responsibility to be ethical with what is published and then find ways to hold unethical publications accountable within a democratic system.