Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
In my experience science journalism tends to be as close to real science as Star Trek is.
I think that might have been what got me
what mindset is describing is a level of journalism I don't think I've ever seen associated with "scientific journalism" and comes incredibly close to scientists simply writing their own research papers
Originally posted by Mindset
News does have a standardized rule set, even if it isn't written out like the scientific method; it's supposed to be the "factual" relaying of events-seems to have empirical qualities, no? Both news and science are subject to bias and human error, that's the nature of the beasts
Agreed. But news isn't set up in a way to specifically test the validity of facts and reality. Science as it is practiced is not perfect, but it's far better, and the best way we have of understand facts and reality.
I don't think we're in disagreement here, I just dislike that you seem to be putting the two institutions on the same levels in terms of reliability and validity.
Originally posted by Mindset
News does have a standardized rule set, even if it isn't written out like the scientific method; it's supposed to be the "factual" relaying of events-seems to have empirical qualities, no?
Originally posted by Digi
Agreed. But news isn't set up in a way to specifically test the validity of facts and reality. Science as it is practiced is not perfect, but it's far better, and the best way we have of understand facts and reality.I don't think we're in disagreement here, I just dislike that you seem to be putting the two institutions on the same levels in terms of reliability and validity.
to be fair though, it isn't either practical or realistic to think that journalism could follow the scientific method
by design, journalism is supposed to describe the causes and provide an account of singular events, something which science is often not designed or even in a position to address (science addressed trends and patterns in large amounts of events)
Originally posted by DigiI'm not, nor have I in any of most posts put them on the same level, at least that wasn't my intention; I pointed out that they share similar faults.
Agreed. But news isn't set up in a way to specifically test the validity of facts and reality. Science as it is practiced is not perfect, but it's far better, and the best way we have of understand facts and reality.I don't think we're in disagreement here, I just dislike that you seem to be putting the two institutions on the same levels in terms of reliability and validity.
Originally posted by King KandyI'm not talking about what it is, I'm talking about what is supposed to be.
Not true at all. Journalism is not about simply telling the facts. Else we could never have anything like "Gonzo Journalism".
That's also just one branch of journalism.
Originally posted by King KandyIndividuals who hold to the ideals behind responsible news reporting?
Supposed to be according to whom?
You seem to be arguing something aside from my point. News should be factual, which according to you isn't true at all, that doesn't mean it's bereft of opinion. It should answer the 5 W's, but opinion can get muddled in with the why. But then there's the whole point of objectivity which most news organizations try to say they have.
David Simon, creator of The Wire (among others), argues much differently. He says the purpose of journalism is not simply the 5 Ws (which he says smart children could provide), but rather to understand a topic so well that they are able to inform people.
I don't think this is a challenge to anything people have said, but it is a different view of journalism as more than simply a repertoire of factoids
Originally posted by Mindset
Individuals who hold to the ideals behind responsible news reporting?You seem to be arguing something aside from my point. News should be factual, which according to you isn't true at all, that doesn't mean it's bereft of opinion. It should answer the 5 W's, but opinion can get muddled in with the why. But then there's the whole point of objectivity which most news organizations try to say they have.
Originally posted by inimalistI think that depends entirely upon what's being reported.
David Simon, creator of The Wire (among others), argues much differently. He says the purpose of journalism is not simply the 5 Ws (which he says smart children could provide), but rather to understand a topic so well that they are able to inform people.I don't think this is a challenge to anything people have said, but it is a different view of journalism as more than simply a repertoire of factoids
What's his take on objectivity, I wonder?
Originally posted by King KandyWho invented them, I don't know, I don't see how it matters.
But its just your opinion that it "should" be that way. Or the "ideals"; who invented those ideals? I don't recall that being a journalist oath. You are just declaring your own views as some kind of universal principle.
These aren't my views, these are the supposed views of reporters and news organizations, this is the whole reason why they tout their journalistic objectivity.
Originally posted by Mindset
I think that depends entirely upon what's being reported.What's his take on objectivity, I wonder?
I can't remember specifically, but I don't think he would suggest that people are simply reporting their opinion
iirc, the comment was made in regard to how few news outlets actually have people as like, real knowledgeable foreign and local correspondents, who can cover more than just the simple facts of a story, but who can provide context and background so people understand why the events are unfolding, rather than just the details about the event itself.
I personally think objectivity in reporting is over-emphasized, if only because I think it is impossible in the first place. I have no issue with people who wear their biases on their sleeve, because it is often fairly easy to tell which part is bias and which isn't. A case like Fox News would be different, as a lot of their "opinion" is either highly deceptive or an outright lie. idk, often it takes some form of an opinion about a topic to be able to understand it.
Originally posted by inimalistThen I can see exactly where he's coming from. I really don't have an issue with bias either, because I have the ability to read from multiple news sources who have differing opinions, which is the great thing about the internet.
I can't remember specifically, but I don't think he would suggest that people are simply reporting their opinioniirc, the comment was made in regard to how few news outlets actually have people as like, real knowledgeable foreign and local correspondents, who can cover more than just the simple facts of a story, but who can provide context and background so people understand why the events are unfolding, rather than just the details about the event itself.
I personally think objectivity in reporting is over-emphasized, if only because I think it is impossible in the first place. I have no issue with people who wear their biases on their sleeve, because it is often fairly easy to tell which part is bias and which isn't. A case like Fox News would be different, as a lot of their "opinion" is either highly deceptive or an outright lie. idk, often it takes some form of an opinion about a topic to be able to understand it.
@KK look up the Canon of Journalism.
I'm not sure why you think I'm passing my views of as what journalism should be. I'm restating what I've read in the journalistic community of what their ethical responsibilities should be.
Originally posted by Mindset
I'm not talking about what it is, I'm talking about what is supposed to be.
In that case, be careful not to make the double standard. When I first mentioned science, I was talking about what is supposed to be, not what is. If we're looking at both, even at their best, journalism falls short in comparison. It's just not a reliable means of obtaining objective facts. Occasionally it is, but not to a degree we could ever trust.
In the post I replied to you were saying what science is supposed to be and that news was pretty much shit.
I said they both have flaws.
I was making the double standard?
Certain news can be very objective..."a person got killed in a car accident" "the food is made out of humans". It's usually international events that are the problem.