Your argument just seems like classic bothsidesism. Yes, western media isn’t perfect, but western news media is far more free than Russian or Chinese media. So I’m gonna have a lot more skepticism about Russian and Chinese media than I do with US or European media.
In this case, I’d prefer something outside both regions. So maybe Indian news? Or my go-to, Al Jazeera.
No, our standard is, “we’re killing journalists (very rarely) and stifling perspectives (rarely), and that’s not okay, but at least that’s just not expected like it is with the other guys.”
That’s under the assumption that perspectives are only rarely stifled…
Which I’d love to think is true, but really is a question of whether you consider “publishable but no one will read it” to be a stifled perspective or not.
What it really comes down to is how often journalistic suppression actually happens. I like to look at the extreme examples, such as the Edward Snowdon case. There was certainly some interference there, but that’s surely nothing compared to what would happen if something similar happened in China or Russia.
The bigger issue that we have, imo, is that major media companies self-censor because they want to drive a narrative. But there’s still high quantity journalism going on, you just need to look outside of the major news networks.
But if your high quality journalism only reaches 1% of the population while the other 99% of the population considers it fake news, what’s the point? It’ll have no political impact anyway, which defeats the purpose of journalistic integrity because good journalism isn’t getting attention or shifting public perception.
Your argument just seems like classic bothsidesism. Yes, western media isn’t perfect, but western news media is far more free than Russian or Chinese media. So I’m gonna have a lot more skepticism about Russian and Chinese media than I do with US or European media.
In this case, I’d prefer something outside both regions. So maybe Indian news? Or my go-to, Al Jazeera.
So our standard is… “we’re killing journalists and stifling perspectives, but not as much as the other guys?”
Great. I guess Western news media is driven by profits instead of government objectives, which makes things so much better.
No, our standard is, “we’re killing journalists (very rarely) and stifling perspectives (rarely), and that’s not okay, but at least that’s just not expected like it is with the other guys.”
That’s under the assumption that perspectives are only rarely stifled…
Which I’d love to think is true, but really is a question of whether you consider “publishable but no one will read it” to be a stifled perspective or not.
What it really comes down to is how often journalistic suppression actually happens. I like to look at the extreme examples, such as the Edward Snowdon case. There was certainly some interference there, but that’s surely nothing compared to what would happen if something similar happened in China or Russia.
The bigger issue that we have, imo, is that major media companies self-censor because they want to drive a narrative. But there’s still high quantity journalism going on, you just need to look outside of the major news networks.
But if your high quality journalism only reaches 1% of the population while the other 99% of the population considers it fake news, what’s the point? It’ll have no political impact anyway, which defeats the purpose of journalistic integrity because good journalism isn’t getting attention or shifting public perception.