• zephyreks@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • zephyreks@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.