Trial by newspapers is not justice, says Chris Bryant

[Machismo]

I'm inclined to agree. The fact that government is not transparent and trustworthy is a disaster in itself.

The problem with reporting facts as they know them is the speed in which news has to be delivered. There is almost no time for due diligence.

High class investigative journalism takes a long time from start to finish. Clickbait money is generated fast and is based on headlines. Especially celebs and politicians are easy targets.

Yes, news is competitive, but there's not much that can be done about it. After all, they are merely trying to fulfill a demand that the populace wants. We consistently blame the media for doing it, but we are the ones with the actual problem.

Investigative journalism still exists, and you see it in the pieces. You saw it with the NY Times article on Roy Moore, and the Washington Post piece on Charlie Rose. They took their time, and spoke with many people. If people really wanted these things, then they would turn away from random internet sites, turn off cable news, and watch 60 minutes, and subscribe to the NY Times, listen to NPR, and the BBC.

[Crissi]

I don't disagree with anything you just said :P

News reports on a large scale have just gone downhill in terms of journalistic quality. That's my biggest complaint.

That is true. I think click bait degraded it, but it still exists in pockets and when they do come to light, are generally very well done.

[StayTuned]

Yes, news is competitive, but there's not much that can be done about it. After all, they are merely trying to fulfill a demand that the populace wants. We consistently blame the media for doing it, but we are the ones with the actual problem.

Investigative journalism still exists, and you see it in the pieces. You saw it with the NY Times article on Roy Moore, and the Washington Post piece on Charlie Rose. They took their time, and spoke with many people. If people really wanted these things, then they would turn away from random internet sites, turn off cable news, and watch 60 minutes, and subscribe to the NY Times, listen to NPR, and the BBC.

People don't want that anymore, though. At least not the majority of readers.

The old ways don't work anymore in times of a bazillion outlets with clickbait titles. They make too much money... slow and high quality investigations take up time, resources and don't generate as much revenue.

Today you actively need to look out for quality journalism. If you don't, you mostly see "What Happens Next Will Surprise You..." and "You Won't Believe What Celeb XY Did To His Wife..." articles, with zero content, or toxic content.


Like, in Germany there's this one celeb family, the Geiss family. For whatever reason, I've got a news article about them in my feed. It read "The Geiss divorced", all in capital letters. In the article suddenly they only talk about how they moved away from their old residence. They "divorced" with the city they were living in.

This was the Telekom News agency that reported on it.

- - - Updated - - -

That is true. I think click bait degraded it, but it still exists in pockets and when they do come to light, are generally very well done.

Oh yes. Absolutely. Especially in Germany there are a couple of outlets who are still high quality in my opinion. They aren't the biggest outlets though. Not anymore.

[urasim]

Sounds to me like they want to restrict papers from printing things that go against them. Slippery slope, imo.

[Machismo]

People don't want that anymore, though. At least not the majority of readers.

The old ways don't work anymore in times of a bazillion outlets with clickbait titles. They make too much money... slow and high quality investigations take up time, resources and don't generate as much revenue.

Today you actively need to look out for quality journalism. If you don't, you mostly see "What Happens Next Will Surprise You..." and "You Won't Believe What Celeb XY Did To His Wife..." articles, with zero content, or toxic content.


Like, in Germany there's this one celeb family, the Geiss family. For whatever reason, I've got a news article about them in my feed. It read "The Geiss divorced", all in capital letters. In the article suddenly they only talk about how they moved away from their old residence. They "divorced" with the city they were living in.

This was the Telekom News agency that reported on it.

- - - Updated - - -



Oh yes. Absolutely. Especially in Germany there are a couple of outlets who are still high quality in my opinion. They aren't the biggest outlets though. Not anymore.

Yes, most people want clickbait, which is why it's so prevalent. The only way to do anything about it, is to stop giving them your business. Only seek out solid news sources, and give them your money/clicks.

[Endus]

The issue here is misuse of language.

News reporting is not, in any respect, a "trial".

There's been a worrisome uptick in people trying to act as if private entities, including the media, should be bound by restrictions and measures that are exclusively upon the government's action. The "innocent until proven guilty" maxim, for instance, which only applies to whether you get a trial before or after you're sentenced, and nothing else. This, calling reporting a "trial". The complaints about social media spreading information.

What all these arguments boil down to, at their core, is an inherent antagonism towards freedom of speech. It's an attempt to silence voices you don't want to hear. And nothing more. Are people easily led by misleading media? Sure. That's a reason to criticize those people for being gullible, not complain that free speech exists.

We already have laws for when these voices go too far. Those are slander and libel laws. If it doesn't qualify as such, then it's fine, and should be left alone.

The rest is just whining about messaging you disagree with. And the response to speech you disagree with should be more speech.

[cubby]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-42015944



I imagine a lot on here will agree with this

Agreed, on both counts. Unfortunately, this is the age we live in now. And really, it's nothing new to try and sway the media to be on your side. That's been going on for decades.

[Crissi]

Yes, most people want clickbait, which is why it's so prevalent. The only way to do anything about it, is to stop giving them your business. Only seek out solid news sources, and give them your money/clicks.

highest likes Ive ever seen are on comments that ruin the clickbait. #savedyouaclick

[Machismo]

highest likes Ive ever seen are on comments that ruin the clickbait. #savedyouaclick

I try to avoid most clicky sites at all costs. I got rid of cable, and pay for three news sites. I will peruse other larges sites like CNN and Fox, but I rarely take what they say as gospel without also looking at other sources.

[tkioz]

Okay so here is what I think about newspapers and reporting allegations, its fine if they are *very* careful, but it can go incredibly wrong. I've seen it first hand. About ten years ago I was working as an IT contractor and one of my older coworkers was a youth group organiser, helping troubled kids and all that.

Somehow rumours started circulating that he had abused one or more of the boys in his care. It was just whispers at first, but soon enough the local paper ran this massive front page story with lots of 'unnamed' sources and such. He was hospitalised after being assaulted, his name was mud, it was basically one step away from a public lynching.

The police to their credit took everything incredibly seriously, giving him protection while they investigated. It turned out the rumours were started by a teenage boy he had reported to the cops for selling drugs. All the 'facts' that the newspaper ran were debunked (one notable example is he was actually in another *country* when he was suppose to have abused one of the kids at a camping event), but you know what? Mud sticks.

The police fully cleared him but everywhere he went people would whisper about no smoke without fire. About a year after it all started they found him hanging in his garden shed. The note said he couldn't take the abuse anymore.

So yeah people who are attacked, assaulted, or abused most definitely should come forward, but to the police, not the media, because you can't give someone back their life.

[BuckSparkles]

The press are a bunch of fucking scumbags

Corrected for accuracy. Doesn't matter what country. Journalists are horrible people.

[Allybeboba]

They just outed Charlie Rose, the guy opposite from Obama. Charlie is a distinguished journalist who's been around for years.

Multiple women employed by him have come forward and accused him of groping them, walking around naked, making lewd comments. The story broke in the Washington Post.

I really liked his interviews.

When Rose would give them unsolicited back massages, the women called that the “the crusty paw”.

“The crusty paw”. That sounds like a feral ability...

[I Push Buttons]

because you can't give someone back their life.

Yeah but the feminists are ok with that.

This is your brain on radical feminism:

[Rexosaurus]

Yeah but the feminists are ok with that.

This is your brain on radical feminism:

Okay. Please tell me that isn't real.

[Tennis]

All trials should be conducted in MMO-C Gen OT.

That would scare me!

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah but the feminists are ok with that.

This is your brain on radical feminism:

I didn't realize you were a To Kill a Mockingbird fan. Stay consistent.

[taliey]

Justice delayed is justice denied.

[I Push Buttons]

Okay. Please tell me that isn't real.

Oh its real, she has since deleted it and made her Twitter private.

- - - Updated - - -

I didn't realize you were a To Kill a Mockingbird fan. Stay consistent.

1. Stay consistent on what?

2. I didn't even make the image, merely pulled it off Twitter. It was others who made the comparison, Jake Tapper, for example.

https://twitter.com/jaketapper/statu...31349883486209

[Louisa Bannon]

We already have laws for when these voices go too far. Those are slander and libel laws. If it doesn't qualify as such, then it's fine, and should be left alone.

Civil cases have costs and many average persons cannot even contemplate such costs. Even penalties are possible, or having to pay the costs of one's opponents. All kinds of political nonsense happens in civil court.

The rest is just whining about messaging you disagree with. And the response to speech you disagree with should be more speech.

Again, you completely ignore costs. Let's say I make enemies with some editorial writer in the employ of the New York Times. They can trash me with impunity and I as a private citizen have no ability to retaliate in kind. They can write column after column utterly destroying my reputation with the public and I have nothing I could do in return as I am not a publisher nor a writer for an internationally known and distributed newspaper. Some fucking blog somewhere cannot compete with the likes of the New York Times.

It's easy to say "more speech." It just doesn't actually mean anything...

FWIW, I also don't favor censorship so I am very sympathetic to the part of your argument. At the same time I feel the most journalism nowadays is less about information that is important for the public to know and more about PR, advertising, and simply capturing eyeballs as page hits.

The situation we have is not right, but I am not sure what what the proper level of interference or regulation might be instead.

And now we have idiocy like this:
https://twitter.com/pacelattin/statu...50905087721473

This shit is going to cause real fatigue over what should be a serious issue. A kind of equivalence between serious allegations and spurious ones is being created. What's the truth? What is a lie? Does it matter? What captures eyes?

[Rexosaurus]

Oh its real, she has since deleted it and made her Twitter private.

Well that's BEYOND messed up. I don't know how you even talk to someone so blatantly immoral.

[Mormolyce]

Trial by newspaper is when a jury votes to convict someone in a criminal case based on bias caused by negative media coverage. Yes that is terrible and can cause mistrials.

It has nothing to do with some rich guy getting his reputation ruined in the court of public opinion. The court of public opinion is exactly where a reputation exists. And yes that can lead to eg, your employer terminating you so that your bad PR doesn't hurt their PR. Sucks if you were wrongly accused, sure. Not so much if the allegations were true. But there's nothing you can do about it because that is your employer exercising their freedom of association. Unless you want "accused rapist" added to the list of protected classes lol.

And let's be real here. Most of these high profile cases involve some old rich guy who had gotten away with sleazy to outright abusive behaviour for decades ("allegedly" as they say), and now that the climate has changed it's all coming out. They aren't being sentenced to jail. Their punishment, after decades of this kind of thing, is to go back home to their mansions and sulk about how people don't like them anymore and aren't going to keep giving them more juicy movie deals and the like. Boo fucking hoo.