Award Winning Journalist admits to writing Fake News

[notimp]

Seriously, you shouldn't even read any newspaper except if it's personally important to you somehow

And now - think about how long it would have taken for forum moderators to do something about this posting, because you cant catch it algorithmically - and you have kind of learned, why social media currently is the way it is.

Thank you for participating in this little experiment.

Meme posting stops from now on.

 

[Condarkness_XY]

I'm not surprised. This is politics, and as such everything is calculated. This is undoubtedly a calculated move. There is some motive behind it. That being said, I stopped trusting any "source" a long time ago. If given the choice to save a liberal, a republican, a journalist, or a random person on the street, I would choose 10/10 times to save the random person on the street.

 

[notimp]

This is politics, and as such everything is calculated. This is undoubtedly a calculated move.

Questions?

Never attribute anything to malice or "bigger concepts" that can be sufficiently explained by the stupidity of human people (including ones own).

Cui bono on this one is "the far right", so I'm not sure how they exactly would have masterminded a 10 year undercover operation at Der Spiegel... In Germany currently they are mostly occupied with giving themselves a new code of conduct, so that the security services would stop picking them up because of "protect the constitution" stuff - now that people finally are voting for them, and they can act like they are the valued members of society they always thought they were..

(Drei Brötchen bitte. )

 

[supersonicwaffle]

Never attribute anything to malice or "bigger concepts" that can be sufficiently explained by the stupidity of human people (including ones own).

I agree. However, I would say that it can look like a conspiracy if you think that journalists are living in a bubble which IMO is not an outlandish suspicion as you yourself said they often copy from one another.

This recent article on the hacks of German politicians and prominent figures with subsequent leaks of private information is a good example.
http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/web/...r-daten-von-politikern-kolumne-a-1246486.html

It's an article about how the perpetrator is most likely an alt-right, women hating, gamergate nazi. I can't even be angry if the author admits to bulshitting everyone by prefacing the article with:

Was folgt, sind überwiegend Vermutungen. Reine Spekulation, aber das hier ist ja auch eine Kolumne und kein Ermittlungsverfahren.

Which loosely translates as:

The following article is mostly assumptions. Pure speculation, but this is a column not an investigation

I mean can you really be angry with a guy who basically has to be transparent that he doesn't give a shit about what he writes and is just employed for literary diarrhea? Or with an editor that looks at this and thinks: "Yes, we should publish this"?
It's almost like Der Spiegel has become self aware is now trying to make it transparent that they're not even trying to be good journalists.

And to everyone who doesn't speak german and can't believe a news outlet would stoop so low here's the google translator link:
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&u=http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/web/hackerangriff-veroeffentlichung-privater-daten-von-politikern-kolumne-a-1246486.html

 

[Pippin666]

Never trust a German, going on since 1939.

Pip'

 

[notimp]

Never trust a German, going on since 1939.

Pip'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernher_von_Braun
German, rocket scientist, Nazi; Employed by the americans to get their first man on to the moon. Which brought us cellphones. And them a few centuries of collective "vision".

Check mate.

Here is the song and dance for it:

 

[FAST6191]

Never trust a German, going on since 1939.

Pip'

Why 1939?

 

[Pippin666]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernher_von_Braun
German, rocket scientist, Nazi; Employed by the americans to get their first man on to the moon. Which brought us cellphones. And them a few centuries of collective "vision".

Check mate.

Here is the song and dance for it:

Check mate ? Kid lol, listen, nothing in this mean they should be TRUSTED CHECK MATE KIDDO

Pip'

 

[notimp]

Check mate ? Kid lol, listen, nothing in this mean they should be TRUSTED CHECK MATE KIDDO

Pip'

Don't even have to switch my material for this one.

Here. Check mate.



You would have been the first time around if you weren't stiff enough to miss, that Tom Lehrer wasnt representing the majority view. The majority view was, that all those scientists you got for free after the war, were propper great chaps, because - only that way you could make them work with the same enthusiasm as in their former jobs *cough*..

This is another how the world works thing. If something looks like it will help you get your way - trust, turns out not to be important at all. Thats why you need interlinked dependencies. Eh, let me stop talking. Watch the new video.

edit: Oh, and btw - thanks for the Atom Bombs. We appreciate them.

 

[supersonicwaffle]

Oh, and btw - thanks for the Atom Bombs. We appreciate them

Maple syrup nukes?

 

[notimp]

Sharing is caring.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_sharing

 

[notimp]

It's almost like Der Spiegel has become self aware is now trying to make it transparent that they're not even trying to be good journalists.

I laughed at that point.

I cringed through the rest of the posting, not because of your output, but because of what you are describing. Its not wrong.

But thats what you get with popular opinion. Or opinion in general. First there is the emotion.

I've posted in here (this forum) a behavioral psychology newsarticle that explored, how far people take it not to have to leave their own belief systems. They even forfeit part of the "free money" you give them in psychological experiments. . - And what you get with "opinion based journalism" is more of that.

I mean, I do have my guilty pleasures as well - reading my favorite opinion based blogs and yes I am even copying opinions (Think "So videogames arent the devil?!" reaction of a typical member of society - we do it all the time.. ) but at the same time, I don't think that that can be the future of journalism.

We are getting more and more into "there might not be objective news at all" (everything is perspective) territory here. But before we do. The journalist thats writing that - probably really believes in what he writes. If you don't - one possible out is, that the journalist doesnt know what he is writing about. This has even become more likely with recent developments around financing media, time pressures, subversion (or at least agenda setting) through sponsors and even diminishing social status of journalists.

Now two things. First - the solution still is not not "burn it down" and only follow the bloggers you like on facebook. Second - this story (the journalist doesnt know what he's talking about), can be used by every ignorant person on this earth to discredit journalism "prima facie". Meaning - without looking at the article first. And in most cases they also do it on emotional grounds ("journalists dont "work", what have they even studied?"). So somewhere in this dichotomy lies problem and solution.

But then theres also a dictum ("geflügeltes Wort") that states, that every "expert in a field" has read journalistic articles about their field and thought to themselves - "they dont know what they are writing about". Not even just emotionally - but more factually. Some of it is oversimplification, some of it is thinking that follows social criteria, some of it is time pressure, some of it is the journalists personal opinion and some of it is that there are idiots among journalists as well. Coincidentally, they often are the most popular ones in terms of following..

Journalism is somewhere in between politics, responsible storytelling and truth. It isnt that they are right out political (sometimes they just publish what "sells"), it isnt outright making up a story - or "making" a story, and it isnt - "they are always lying". Its really a spectrum. It changes with age, with character. It changes with access and affiliation.
Its something that should be able to "dethrone" wrongdoers (that means for example "mobilize"), but at the same time should not be decoupled from the interests of their readers. Its hard.

But to bring it back - if you are going out of your way to dupe the audience with beautiful stories, that never happened - you arent a journalist anymore. But you still might be a blogger, or a youtuber - and dont even think twice about it. So in that sense, journalism is more a "sense of self" and "code of conduct" as well as having the funds to do any meaningful research at all. And the more people harp on them and tell them, that they are liars, while not paying for their work, and reading facebook feeds instead, the more this gets lost or harmed.

Journalists will be the first to be criticiszed by other journalists in any case. They at least have that going for them.. And it will be in public. So you all will know, and can point your fingers.

 

[notimp]

If you want to see what produces exceptional journalism (as I've liked their Interviews in here at least twice now - but there is also stuff there I cant even watch ):



Thats what you'd call the "human interest" side of the story I guess. Journalists as human beings.

 

[supersonicwaffle]

We are getting more and more into "there might not be objective news at all" (everything is perspective) territory here. But before we do. The journalist thats writing that - probably really believes in what he writes. If you don't - one possible out is, that the journalist doesnt know what he is writing about. This has even become more likely with recent developments around financing media, time pressures, subversion (or at least agenda setting) through sponsors and even diminishing social status of journalists.

Journalism is somewhere in between politics, responsible storytelling and truth. It isnt that they are right out political (sometimes they just publish what "sells"), it isnt outright making up a story - or "making" a story, and it isnt - "they are always lying". Its really a spectrum. It changes with age, with character. It changes with access and affiliation.

That's the point, if you can't tell a story responsibly because you haven't researched it but still write about it, make assumptions and speculate wildly, does that make you a journalist or a blogger? What about the editor that let's this slide, what makes him more trustworthy than Facebook? Is a column, op-ed or whatever you wanna call it held to a higher standard than things self published? If it isn't, why discredit others that do the same on a different platform and put those that do it for an outlet on a pedestal?

Journalists will be the first to be criticiszed by other journalists in any case. They at least have that going for them.. And it will be in public. So you all will know, and can point your fingers.

I this particular example he was attributing trump loving, right wing ideology and misogyny to a movement that started out criticizing a lack of ethics in journalism. You would think that if that's the argument from the other side that this would prompt a responsible storyteller to look more closely into the merit of the criticism and probably NOT look at journalistic content as there's a clear conflict of interest. In light of that his preface comes off as a freudian slip.
So, while I think I agree with you on that point, it doesn't hold much water in this particular case.

But to bring it back - if you are going out of your way to dupe the audience with beautiful stories, that never happened - you arent a journalist anymore. But you still might be a blogger, or a youtuber - and dont even think twice about it.

I'm with you in that I don't think there's a conspiracy here. I do, however, think that journalists are as much in a bubble as they make you believe people on social media are. What's disturbing is that they show the same behaviour: refuse to get off their high horse and listen to the other side.

 

[FAST6191]

"Journalists will be the first to be criticiszed by other journalists in any case."
Did I fall into an alternate reality again? From where I sit that more or less stopped around the time we got activist journalists being a common sight. Don't know if it is different in the non English/French worlds but I have every reason to suspect it isn't. They might attack one another if they differ in ideology or go across partisan lines but as a general professional trait applied consistently to all they meet? Please.

One exception. If said attack is coming from outside journalism, or some specific subset of it (it is not a protected title as far as I am aware), and in that case you do get a fair bit of "you don't know what you are talking about". See also various points where people have tried to set up rating systems for them all.

 

[the_randomizer]

More "journalists" like him need to be exposed and shamed. Got everything he deserved.

 

[notimp]

"Journalists will be the first to be criticiszed by other journalists in any case."
Did I fall into an alternate reality again? From where I sit that more or less stopped around the time we got activist journalists being a common sight. Don't know if it is different in the non English/French worlds but I have every reason to suspect it isn't. They might attack one another if they differ in ideology or go across partisan lines but as a general professional trait applied consistently to all they meet? Please.

One exception. If said attack is coming from outside journalism, or some specific subset of it (it is not a protected title as far as I am aware), and in that case you do get a fair bit of "you don't know what you are talking about". See also various points where people have tried to set up rating systems for them all.

Yeah, I guess theres something to that as well. There usually are media watchdog organizations in every country and usually also a "media council" where you can bring forward factual criticism, and they will shame, or mediate between you and the media outlet - and there were big scandals in german newsmedia in the past following "they really printed that!" narratives, by competing outlets, but those are few and far between, I have to admit..

I guess normally its mostly "trust the big cats, and copy their stories" huh..

Eh, there are also research collectives where different media outlets group their stuff and, ....

Ok, lets say everyone can do something about wrong stories, and should be able to get a retraction or apology printed/broadcast at the same "place" reaching roughly as many people. (Theres usually a law in place to grant you that.)

Also they compete on stories. So "one side says this" "the other side says that" is also a thing. ("We just factual reporters - bringing you opinions.. "). Theres some balance in there as well. (That was the part, where they had to go public with - "we did you wrong - for not reporting on the far right uprisings in germany for about a month"... )

 

[notimp]

I'm with you in that I don't think there's a conspiracy here. I do, however, think that journalists are as much in a bubble as they make you believe people on social media are. What's disturbing is that they show the same behaviour: refuse to get off their high horse and listen to the other side.

Noo, no no. "People on social media" on average are more in a bubble than a "non yellow press" journalist thats able to research a story (hopefully by not just googling it...). That just comes with the territory..

This just follows the "journalists are good for nothing - lets go with algorithms that feed us PR stories" yay! Concept of thought..

Most journalists will eventually become "experts in their fields" (whatever that means ) and should be halfway there when hired. Its just that - f.e. in some fields, stuff changes unexpectedly, or they are too broad and deep to be covered by lts say 5-10 people (f.e.: "science"), or that people make mistakes, or people follow conventions, or....

It also turns out that expert intuition is a bad predictor of things to come, scientifically speaking... at which point we are right back to actually there might not be such a thing as "objective news" at all.

But at least proper journalists try for eight ours a day not to be ignorant. The average human being on facebook...

But theres also the thing that news cycles have become faster. Take for example news that "breaks" on Twitter. Journalists are supposed to cover that in a first story within lets say an hour - where in the past, they had at least a day, and if they were breaking the story, at least a few days, where thy could - talk to people, wait and see... So yes some forms of "journalism" became more "bubbly" as well.

Its complicated..

 

[supersonicwaffle]

Noo, no no. "People on social media" on average are more in a bubble than a "non yellow press" journalist thats able to research a story (hopefully by not just googling it...). That just comes with the territory..

https://de.statista.com/statistik/d...erenz-von-politikjournalisten-in-deutschland/

Journalists lean much farther left then the general population, whereas conservativism in German journalism is almost non existent. Journalists will spend most of their time around other journalists and ALSO heavily use social media, follow each other and are therefor be subject to the same algorithms and all your "nah uh" and "but, but, but, muh journalizm" won't change it.
I don't have a problem with political preferences of journalists, everyone has them and disclosing it is honest and transparent.

But at least proper journalists try for eight ours a day not to be ignorant. The average human being on facebook...

Journalists are openly trying to frame the discussion around on their values (opninions), how that consitutes trying for eight hours a day not to be ignorant is beyond me

We're running in circles

1. You put journalists working for outlets on a pedestal and discredit any journalists that don't work in a traditional setting
2. You continously attribute stupidity and ignorance to the general population
3. You're saying that journalists are impervious to echo chambers and bubbles while they're even moreso forced to hang around politically likeminded people at the workplace than anyone else and are subject to the same algorithms

 

[notimp]

We're running in circles

1. You put journalists working for outlets on a pedestal and discredit any journalists that don't work in a traditional setting
2. You continously attribute stupidity and ignorance to the general population
3. You're saying that journalists are impervious to echo chambers and bubbles while they're even moreso forced to hang around politically likeminded people at the workplace than anyone else and are subject to the same algorithms

@1: No I did not, I just said, that they will always produce better news in aggregate. Meaning, not the individual story - but in the end as a reader I dont see me profiting from "individual - personalized" journalism as much.

@2: That comes with having looked at the marketing side of things.
(Q: And the masses? A: They were stupid. See: h**ps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnPmg0R1M04&t=1951 Now thats not me agreeing with the entire quote in that video, but with the assessment on mass behavior. (edit:Votes are slightly different. Thats you telling people to inform themselves about a certain handful of topics first. That allows for some behaviors and biases to be canceled out. In theory.))

@3: Im saying that Facebook (or the concept of aggregated news by "personal interests") is a worse echo chamber in every way. I'm saying that I dont remember any twiitter "discussion", or facebook comment, that made be think, that I was better off for reading it.

I'm also saying, that I lay credence into the public message of facebook factcheckers in the guardian, that they think, that their work has no influence whatsoever. In the facebook economy, fact checking stories doesnt matter whatsoever.

The thing facebook now does is, that it plays "gatekeeper" as well, and only lets (not friend recommended or promoted) stories into your newsfeed, if one of the ten major news outlets has reported on it. Thats about as much editorial "care" as they really are able to provide. Thats also them killing regional papers, and centralizing the news economy even further.

Also - people getting their news from an advertising company. Literally. Thats outrageous. Also, facebook has done behavioral experiments in the past (A-B tests), on keeping you on the platform longer, affecting your mood, facebook consistently censors stories and images without an opportunity of recourse, and they do it by a PR playbook of "general world morals - based partly on puritanical believes" and US politics...

Facebook is the worst. No people are the worst for still using facebook after everything that happend. Or insta. Or whatsapp. (Same company.) (But nothing happened to me.... Yes, but theres a thing called you looking out for the fringe cases as well, who might be impacted more than you.) But thats the network effect for you, no one wants to feel responsible, that everyone is participating.

If facebook still largely "transports" conventional media, and their only way of handling BS stories is to look at conventional media, why on earth do you pay the advertising company for showing you advertising, instead of the journalistic outlets. Doesnt make sense.

But you are welcome to go with Jeff Jarvis and make "journalism on Twitch". No one is hindering you.
Just know, that you will then make journalism under the Amazon umbrella, and so does the Washington Post, so I will probably always go with the Washington Post regardless.