American election.

[tillingborn]

Most people don't really know what a wiki is.

The point about the wikipedia reference is not that I think it is authoritative; as I suggested, I don't think anyone would be much the wiser about the integrity of journalists in the past from reading it. You assert: "That's what it used to mean when journalists spoke of "getting a scoop" on the rest -- it meant beating other journalists to the truth, not merely making up wilder, more controversial or more partisan stories than they could." Have you been more thorough with your research than I?

The character of the righteous journalist who wishes only to inform is real enough, but nothing in my scant research suggests they have ever been the majority. It is an ideal we may wish other people to aspire to, but there are a lot of normal human beings in their way.

Indeed. But the important point is that there would be a point in differentiating between the ethical journalists and the unethical ones, because at least some would be ethical, and because all would be professionally obligated to approximate the ideal as best they could. So the ideal gives us not only the grounds on which to believe some journalism, but also the grounds to be skeptical and aware of bad journalism.

Abandon that ideal, and both vaporise.

This is where you lose me. The ideal exists, you even quote me saying "It is an ideal we may wish other people to aspire to." What practical steps do you think could be taken to raise standards?

I rather think democracy is continually fighting to ensure that people are allowed to express their opinion;

"Opinion"? What's an "opinion" worth, if it is devoid of, or contrary to facts? "Opinions" are only good things if they are relevant to the facts; otherwise, they're mere delusions. The hope and value of an "opinion" is that it will turn out to be closer to, or maybe even right on the truth. Otherwise, there's no merit in the proliferation of "opinions."

What then are the facts about the moral decline of journalists?

The problem as I see it is that if all news outlets are compelled report the same thing, all you need is one outlet.

Non-sequitur. That doesn't follow at all.

People can make honest mistakes. Two journalists attempting to report exactly the same incident may choose different details, and leave out different ones, in the natural course of shaping their accounts: that's inevitable. Furthermore, two journalists at the same scene will not be standing on the same ground, noticing the same things, so their knowledges will be different: that's inevitable. Moreover, if one of them is wrong about something, or corrupt, then the best corrective to his error or dishonesty is the set of facts presented by the other journalist. Facts can be checked. So there will always be cause for multiple news agencies reporting the same story. That's not going to change.

So multiple news agencies are necessary because some people are fallible, some are crooked and it's a slightly different story 6ft to the west. But everyone has to report the same story. In that case, who decides what stories to report?

But that''s not the problem we have in the Biden case. In that case, what we have is all the MSM journalists colluding NOT to report ANY of the facts, so the public cannot see what's being hidden from them at all. And we can all see how bad that is. Multiple, ethical journalists would be the curative to that sort of manipulation.

By collusion do you mean that there was a coordinated strategy not to report certain facts? Presumably some outlets reported them. Did those same outlets report the missing facts in addition to all the facts the colluding networks did report? Can you judge ethics by volume?

[Immanuel Can]

Have you been more thorough with your research than I?

I'm pretty sure that yeah, I have.

The character of the righteous journalist who wishes only to inform is real enough, but nothing in my scant research suggests they have ever been the majority. It is an ideal we may wish other people to aspire to, but there are a lot of normal human beings in their way.

Indeed. But the important point is that there would be a point in differentiating between the ethical journalists and the unethical ones, because at least some would be ethical, and because all would be professionally obligated to approximate the ideal as best they could. So the ideal gives us not only the grounds on which to believe some journalism, but also the grounds to be skeptical and aware of bad journalism.

Abandon that ideal, and both vaporise.

This is where you lose me. The ideal exists, you even quote me saying "It is an ideal we may wish other people to aspire to." What practical steps do you think could be taken to raise standards?

The procedure is no different from that used to impose special ethical standards on, say, doctors, lawyers or teachers, all of which follow particular ethical codes. Require anybody purporting to be a journalist to maintain a basic standard of integrity in how they practice their profession. Specifying such a code would take time, of course; but one of the obvious precepts would be this -- no withholding of information you know is true and that you know the public has a legitimate interest in. Another would be: always attempt to be as objective as possible, reporting facts rather than gratuitous opinions. Failure to follow the code would simply mean you weren't certified as a real journalist. You could continue to speak, of course, but no longer as a functionary of any reputable news organization.

This is not new. It used to be that checking your facts and reporting accurately were just accepted practices of journalism, and journalists who fell short of them (of which there were always some, of course) were automatically labeled as non-journalists. Why not bring back those kinds of standards?

Simple enough.

So multiple news agencies are necessary because some people are fallible, some are crooked and it's a slightly different story 6ft to the west. But everyone has to report the same story. In that case, who decides what stories to report?

Journalism has always depended on the journalist to decide what was interesting, what was relevant, and what was capable of being proved. That's not new. What's new is that today's pseudo-journalists find stories that are interesting, relevant and provable, and still don't report them for partisan reasons. That's quite a different state of affairs.

But that''s not the problem we have in the Biden case. In that case, what we have is all the MSM journalists colluding NOT to report ANY of the facts, so the public cannot see what's being hidden from them at all. And we can all see how bad that is. Multiple, ethical journalists would be the curative to that sort of manipulation.

By collusion do you mean that there was a coordinated strategy not to report certain facts?

Exactly so. The MSM decided they wanted Biden to win, at all costs. So they suppressed the news. And you can see that they did, because they're now reporting the very facts they had, but which they refused to report before the election.

Presumably some outlets reported them.

Yes, some did. But not the MSM: they colluded to suppress those same facts. And the fact that the other sources already had the facts is how we know the MSM also had them, but did not report them. Moreover , the MSM called all those other reports "fake news," and said, "there's no merit to the story." They pretended there was no corruption, no Biden laptop, and no investigation -- the very facts they are now reporting as true.

And now that the MSM is reporting them, we can safely say the MSM is self-condemned. They knew they were hiding the truth.That much, we know for sure.

[tillingborn]

Have you been more thorough with your research than I?

I'm pretty sure that yeah, I have.

Indeed. But the important point is that there would be a point in differentiating between the ethical journalists and the unethical ones, because at least some would be ethical, and because all would be professionally obligated to approximate the ideal as best they could. So the ideal gives us not only the grounds on which to believe some journalism, but also the grounds to be skeptical and aware of bad journalism.

Abandon that ideal, and both vaporise.

This is where you lose me. The ideal exists, you even quote me saying "It is an ideal we may wish other people to aspire to." What practical steps do you think could be taken to raise standards?

The procedure is no different from that used to impose special ethical standards on, say, doctors, lawyers or teachers, all of which follow particular ethical codes. Require anybody purporting to be a journalist to maintain a basic standard of integrity in how they practice their profession. Specifying such a code would take time, of course; but one of the obvious precepts would be this -- no withholding of information you know is true and that you know the public has a legitimate interest in. Another would be: always attempt to be as objective as possible, reporting facts rather than gratuitous opinions. Failure to follow the code would simply mean you weren't certified as a real journalist. You could continue to speak, of course, but no longer as a functionary of any reputable news organization.

This is not new. It used to be that checking your facts and reporting accurately were just accepted practices of journalism, and journalists who fell short of them (of which there were always some, of course) were automatically labeled as non-journalists. Why not bring back those kinds of standards?

Simple enough.

Avoiding wikipedia, I took another look into the history of journalism. There are several organisations dedicated to introducing or maintaining standards, but I didn't find any evidence for the sort of claim you are making, so if you have a reliable source, I would be grateful if you could share it.

So multiple news agencies are necessary because some people are fallible, some are crooked and it's a slightly different story 6ft to the west. But everyone has to report the same story. In that case, who decides what stories to report?

Journalism has always depended on the journalist to decide what was interesting, what was relevant, and what was capable of being proved. That's not new. What's new is that today's pseudo-journalists find stories that are interesting, relevant and provable, and still don't report them for partisan reasons. That's quite a different state of affairs.

Are you not imposing your own standards of what is interesting or relevant? Your original concern was that knowledge of the investigation into Hunter Biden might have resulted in 1 in 6 of the people who voted for his father changing their vote. Donald Trump was making a point when he said he could shoot someone in broad daylight and it would make no difference to his appeal. Allowing for the hyperbole, the point is well made. What do you think it is about democratic voters that makes them more concerned about the standards of politicians?

But that''s not the problem we have in the Biden case. In that case, what we have is all the MSM journalists colluding NOT to report ANY of the facts, so the public cannot see what's being hidden from them at all. And we can all see how bad that is. Multiple, ethical journalists would be the curative to that sort of manipulation.

By collusion do you mean that there was a coordinated strategy not to report certain facts?

Exactly so. The MSM decided they wanted Biden to win, at all costs. So they suppressed the news. And you can see that they did, because they're now reporting the very facts they had, but which they refused to report before the election.

Presumably some outlets reported them.

Yes, some did. But not the MSM: they colluded to suppress those same facts. And the fact that the other sources already had the facts is how we know the MSM also had them, but did not report them. Moreover , the MSM called all those other reports "fake news," and said, "there's no merit to the story." They pretended there was no corruption, no Biden laptop, and no investigation -- the very facts they are now reporting as true.

And now that the MSM is reporting them, we can safely say the MSM is self-condemned. They knew they were hiding the truth.That much, we know for sure.

One thing I found in my research was this: "The investigation was launched in 2018, before the elder Biden announced his presidential run, according to the Associated Press. A Justice Department policy surrounding elections prohibits overt investigative acts, which is why investigators did not reach out to the younger Biden prior to the election." I think this suggests an alternative explanation to what you say we know for sure. If there is such a policy, then perhaps the person who disregarded it only felt comfortable doing so with news agencies that they believed were sympathetic.

[Immanuel Can]

...f you have a reliable source, I would be grateful if you could share it.

Source for what? You mean the basic standard of journalistic integrity? Or do you mean source for whether or not the MSM have had any?

Journalism has always depended on the journalist to decide what was interesting, what was relevant, and what was capable of being proved. That's not new. What's new is that today's pseudo-journalists find stories that are interesting, relevant and provable, and still don't report them for partisan reasons. That's quite a different state of affairs.

Are you not imposing your own standards of what is interesting or relevant?

Not me. It's the job of a journalist and his/her editor to make such decisions. It always has been. But we, the public, have looked to them to do it with some integrity...which means we expect them not to use their own personal interests as the basis. That's why the standard of journalistic objectivity used to be emphasized. It was their job to report facts, and to eliminate as much opinion and bias from their decisions as they could. And the fact that they have now given up that struggle leaves us with no reason to trust them anymore.

Your original concern was that knowledge of the investigation into Hunter Biden might have resulted in 1 in 6 of the people who voted for his father changing their vote.

No, that was a point I made: namely, that journalistic misdeeds are capable of influencing important events. I think that point is well made. You can continue to doubt the sources that quote the 1 in 6; it doesn't change the point. I'm quite certain you know it's true.

But since you mention the Biden laptop again, how do you explain the MSM reporting it now, when the story first broke over two months ago? And if it wasn't a worthy story then, how do you explain that they suddenly reversed and think it's an important story now?

"A Justice Department policy surrounding elections prohibits overt investigative acts, which is why investigators did not reach out to the younger Biden prior to the election."

You should recognize this as a red herring. A mere "policy" is not a legal requirement. Moreover, it pertained only to the Justice Department itself, not to any news reporters. So when the Biden laptop appeared in the hands of the store owner, just prior to the election, the news media were all perfectly free to report on it. A few did, but most denied the story even existed, and those that admitted it did said it amounted to nothing -- the opposite of what they're saying now.

We've seen enough off the laptop already to know that Hunter Biden is a druggie loon who, under any conditions, should never have been given a mysterious million-dollar-per-year capacity on the board of a Ukrainian oil company, in an industry in which he had zero expertise. So what was he selling to Burisma? What precious value did he bring to them? It sure as heck wasn't any technical or business knowledge. And why did Joe Biden brag about getting the investigator who was looking into the company fired...admittedly, by Biden, by dangling a billion in guaranteed American loans? What was Joe Biden doing interfering in foreign oil companies, or doing deals with China? Does the public not have a concern if Joe Biden is making money from foreign powers, and Hunter Biden is making a career of selling time with the vice president of the United States?

All this we now know happened for sure. We have the laptop, and we have the Bobulinski testimony for all of that, as well. Can anyone think the public had no interest in knowing all that before they voted for the guy? And if we suppose that's what the MSM actually supposed at the time, why are they now reporting things that, according to them, the public has no legitimate interest in knowing?

[tillingborn]

...f you have a reliable source, I would be grateful if you could share it.

Source for what? You mean the basic standard of journalistic integrity? Or do you mean source for whether or not the MSM have had any?

Journalism has always depended on the journalist to decide what was interesting, what was relevant, and what was capable of being proved. That's not new. What's new is that today's pseudo-journalists find stories that are interesting, relevant and provable, and still don't report them for partisan reasons. That's quite a different state of affairs.

Are you not imposing your own standards of what is interesting or relevant?

Not me. It's the job of a journalist and his/her editor to make such decisions. It always has been. But we, the public, have looked to them to do it with some integrity...which means we expect them not to use their own personal interests as the basis. That's why the standard of journalistic objectivity used to be emphasized. It was their job to report facts, and to eliminate as much opinion and bias from their decisions as they could. And the fact that they have now given up that struggle leaves us with no reason to trust them anymore.

As a boy in the 1960's I worked for a newsagent delivering papers. It became obvious from the type of house and the car outside whether I would be delivering a Daily Telegraph or a Guardian, a Daily Mail or a Daily Mirror. As a child I understood perfectly well that different interest groups refer to different information sources, and that while the events being reported were precisely the same events, the headlines were often unrecognisable. Your claim that there was a golden age when journalists were more objective has not been true at any time in my life, in any place with which I have been familiar. If your experience has been different, or if you have research that shows my path through life has been unusual, I should like to hear it. As someone who advocates full and open disclosure, perhaps you can lead by example.

[Immanuel Can]

Your claim that there was a golden age...

Fake news, T. -- I never, ever claimed that, nor have I ever implied it in anything I did claim.

What I said was that objectivity is the ideal toward which journalism used to be oriented, in terms of its professional expectations and the public's expectations as well. The fact that everyone was inevitably going to fall at least a little short of perfection in that was no reason to abandon the ideal. In fact, abandoning that objective has only left the field open to unrestricted dishonesty and corruption, and inevitably, to the failure of the MSM to be really credible to a thinking person anymore. And it's stolen from us the standard by which we critical thinkers ought to judge the media and condemn the partisans -- namely, for willfully abandoning all aspiration to impartiality, integrity and factuality...in short, to objective reporting.

But I notice you never address the most important point: that regarding Biden, the MSM are now reporting as true what they labeled as "not news" two months ago. I know you can see it's inescapable that they are corrupt in this.

Yes, you can see it. You just don't seem to want to say it.

Maybe we could all use a dose of objectivity, eh?

[tillingborn]

Your claim that there was a golden age...

Fake news, T. -- I never, ever claimed that, nor have I ever implied it in anything I did claim.

Perhaps I am misreading this:

It's the job of a journalist and his/her editor to make such decisions. It always has been. But we, the public, have looked to them to do it with some integrity...which means we expect them not to use their own personal interests as the basis. That's why the standard of journalistic objectivity used to be emphasized. It was their job to report facts, and to eliminate as much opinion and bias from their decisions as they could. And the fact that they have now given up that struggle leaves us with no reason to trust them anymore.

Why should I not conclude that you mean to say that journalistic standards are not what they were?

[Immanuel Can]

Your claim that there was a golden age...

Fake news, T. -- I never, ever claimed that, nor have I ever implied it in anything I did claim.

Perhaps I am misreading this:

It's the job of a journalist and his/her editor to make such decisions. It always has been. But we, the public, have looked to them to do it with some integrity...which means we expect them not to use their own personal interests as the basis. That's why the standard of journalistic objectivity used to be emphasized. It was their job to report facts, and to eliminate as much opinion and bias from their decisions as they could. And the fact that they have now given up that struggle leaves us with no reason to trust them anymore.

Why should I not conclude that you mean to say that journalistic standards are not what they were?

Again, T...one should say what I said, not assume what I did not say. Where are the words "golden age," or any such hyperbolical claim? All I say there is what I will say again now: that the standard of journalistic objectivity used to be held as the correct orientation point or ideal for journalists to seek --- not that it was ever fully achieved, far less that it issued in a "golden age" of journalism.

One thing for sure, though: this isn't any "golden age" right now, and it's because we've abandoned any intention of pursuing that ideal anymore. I suspect that Postmodern stupidity in the modern training of journalists is largely responsible, because the present-day apologists seem to parrot its rhetoric -- like arguing that objectivity is impossible, so we should abandon it altogether and embrace "opinion" instead. But I don't insist that's what's done it; I only suspect it. Either way, something has.

Now, what do you think of what the MSM has done with the Biden laptop story? How do you account for their earlier failure to report what they now report?

[tillingborn]

But I notice you never address the most important point: that regarding Biden, the MSM are now reporting as true what they labeled as "not news" two months ago.

You must have noticed because you responded. To remind you:

"A Justice Department policy surrounding elections prohibits overt investigative acts, which is why investigators did not reach out to the younger Biden prior to the election."

You should recognize this as a red herring. A mere "policy" is not a legal requirement. Moreover, it pertained only to the Justice Department itself, not to any news reporters.

It strikes me as odd that you apparently think that journalism should be subject to more stringent requirements than the justice department.

I know you can see it's inescapable that they are corrupt in this. Yes, you can see it. You just don't seem to want to say it.

Maybe we could all use a dose of objectivity, eh?

Would it be unobjective to point out that the Biden investigation is ongoing, and that no one has yet been convicted. Should that happen, I would have no qualms about affirming the result.

[tillingborn]

Again, T...one should say what I said, not assume what I did not say. Where are the words "golden age," or any such hyperbolical claim? All I say there is what I will say again now: that the standard of journalistic objectivity used to be held as the correct orientation point or ideal for journalists to seek --- not that it was ever fully achieved, far less that it issued in a "golden age" of journalism.

Fair enough, I shall choose my words more carefully. Do you have any evidence, some data perhaps, that the standard of journalistic objectivity used to be held as the correct orientation point or ideal for journalists to seek?

[Immanuel Can]

It strikes me as odd that you apparently think that journalism should be subject to more stringent requirements than the justice department.

I said absolutely nothing at all about what requirements pertain to the justice department. Nothing. Again, say what I said, not what I did not.

Would it be unobjective to point out that the Biden investigation is ongoing, and that no one has yet been convicted.

It would be irrelevant, at the moment. The MSM is now reporting the investigation, not the conviction.

The MSM didn't report the laptop; now they are. The MSM said that there was nothing to seen Hunter Biden's business dealings; now they are reporting five investigations. They didn't report anything on the Bobulinski testimony; now they are.

Why didn't they report any of that before the election?

[Immanuel Can]

Do you have any evidence, some data perhaps, that the standard of journalistic objectivity used to be held as the correct orientation point or ideal for journalists to seek?

Sure. Just search "journalistic objectivity and ethics," and you'll get dozens and dozens of such pages, ranging from professional codes to academic papers, all citing the history.

[henry quirk]

A pretty pathetic one at that. Martial law? Really???

these are politicians...why does anything they (any of 'em) do surprise you?

Not surprised, only appalled.

a repub suggests martial law to, in his view, preserve a presidency

dems, in effect, declare martial law to, in their view, blunt a virus

which is more appalling?

[Gary Childress]

these are politicians...why does anything they (any of 'em) do surprise you?

Not surprised, only appalled.

a repub suggests martial law to, in his view, preserve a presidency

dems, in effect, declare martial law to, in their view, blunt a virus

which is more appalling?

One is in the name of saving lives, the other is in the name of political greed.

[Immanuel Can]

a repub suggests martial law to, in his view, preserve a presidency

dems, in effect, declare martial law to, in their view, blunt a virus

which is more appalling?

One is in the name of saving lives, the other is in the name of political greed.

Not so, Gary. You should see how many of the Global Leftists are drooling over the COVID crisis, dreaming of the opportunity it offers them to seize power and reconstruct society in their image. The last thing the Globalists, or PM Trudeau, or Prince Charles, or Klaus Schwab's pals at Davos want to see happen is for COVID to end. They want more misery, so that people become more desperate, and put up with more and more radical restructuring of society and suspension of rights. They're salivating like kids in a candy store right now.

The nominal thing is "saving lives." But that's not really it. They call this their "golden opportunity," one that "cannot be missed" (their terms). And by it, they're going to institute what they call "The Great Reset." Their saddest day would be when vaccines end COVID for everybody. So unfortunately, even COVID has been politicized by the Left. And we no longer can trust our politicians to tell us where we really are on it.

You're right about this, though: exploiting COVID would be the nastiest kind of political manipulativeness.