WEBVTT - Objectivity in Journalism 0:00:01.760 --> 0:00:02.880 Also media. 0:00:06.519 --> 0:00:09.240 We had a very funny introduction. It was really good. 0:00:09.640 --> 0:00:13.920 Yeah, it referenced our company sexual harassment protocols. It was hilarious. 0:00:14.440 --> 0:00:16.360 You're never gonna hear it. We weren't recording. 0:00:17.000 --> 0:00:19.720 I was recording, so you can hear my section. Okay, Yeah, 0:00:19.840 --> 0:00:23.439 if you can just accept what Garrison said without context 0:00:23.520 --> 0:00:29.840 and we'll open with that, that'll be great. Yeah. That 0:00:29.960 --> 0:00:33.760 is a classic Robert Evans intro. You just did it. 0:00:34.320 --> 0:00:36.000 I feel like it always comes from inside. 0:00:36.600 --> 0:00:41.199 Welcome to it could happen here a podcast about journalistic objectivity, 0:00:41.320 --> 0:00:45.040 that's right, a thing that we've just demonstrated perfectly. 0:00:46.040 --> 0:00:50.640 Yeah, yeah, that's the professional media class. So let's have 0:00:50.680 --> 0:00:53.280 a little talk about media objectivity. Right. It's been a 0:00:53.320 --> 0:00:58.000 major tenet of traditional legacy media that they must remain unbiased. 0:00:58.880 --> 0:01:01.440 This hasn't all been the case in the United States. 0:01:01.480 --> 0:01:05.199 Right used to have explicitly partisan news sources, which we 0:01:05.360 --> 0:01:08.320 have now with Fox News, I guess. But that's why 0:01:08.360 --> 0:01:10.320 you have newspapers like I think Saint Louis has a 0:01:10.319 --> 0:01:13.399 Saint Louis Democrat or the so and so Republican like 0:01:13.440 --> 0:01:17.560 that they would be very explicitly a partisan newspaper. It's 0:01:17.640 --> 0:01:20.800 only really when journalism sort of took on this strong 0:01:20.959 --> 0:01:24.120 professional and I mean professional here in terms of like 0:01:24.240 --> 0:01:28.360 the professions right, like law, accounting, jobs that are associated 0:01:28.360 --> 0:01:32.959 with university education, and a class identity, that it started 0:01:33.000 --> 0:01:36.679 to assert this kind of it's an attempt to appear 0:01:36.760 --> 0:01:40.039 rational and scientific in its methodologies, right. And one of 0:01:40.080 --> 0:01:43.039 the ways that journalism did this was to talk about objectivity. 0:01:43.560 --> 0:01:46.720 I should indicate here that objectivity is supposed to be 0:01:46.800 --> 0:01:51.360 a means of verifying information. I like that we should 0:01:51.360 --> 0:01:53.520 objectively check that what we have written is correct. 0:01:53.720 --> 0:01:56.440 The example I always give is that if I'm in 0:01:56.480 --> 0:01:59.680 a protest scene where there's a clash between proud boys 0:02:00.040 --> 0:02:02.800 and you know, a group of leftists, and you know, 0:02:02.840 --> 0:02:04.640 someone on the left pulls out a can of mace 0:02:04.760 --> 0:02:08.079 and sprays it first, that's objectively what happened. Now, that 0:02:08.080 --> 0:02:11.880 doesn't mean that that's the only thing I report. For example, 0:02:11.880 --> 0:02:14.400 if the person they maceed is somebody who has been 0:02:14.600 --> 0:02:17.800 like harassing those individuals online for weeks, or has been 0:02:17.840 --> 0:02:20.600 doxing them or assaulted them at previous like, all of 0:02:20.600 --> 0:02:23.240 that is like relevant context, but it doesn't change what 0:02:23.360 --> 0:02:27.440 objectively happened in that instant, right, Like, it's not on 0:02:27.680 --> 0:02:30.720 me to pretend that I think these sides are equal, 0:02:31.080 --> 0:02:34.200 but it is on me to accurately report like what happens. Yes, 0:02:34.639 --> 0:02:36.960 And I think one of the one of the areas 0:02:36.960 --> 0:02:39.520 in which a lot of people, especially when we were 0:02:39.520 --> 0:02:42.799 talking about, like, you know, situations like this, a lot 0:02:42.800 --> 0:02:45.200 of folks in kind of legacy media get stuff wrong 0:02:45.320 --> 0:02:47.519 is they think that all that matters is what happens 0:02:47.560 --> 0:02:51.040 in that moment, right, and what happened previously, what's happened 0:02:51.080 --> 0:02:53.760 in other engagements, what's happened like over you know, the 0:02:53.840 --> 0:02:56.360 last two or three years of however long the conflict's 0:02:56.560 --> 0:02:58.920 been going on that city is immaterial. Well, all that 0:02:58.960 --> 0:03:01.120 matters is what happened in the second when that reporter 0:03:01.280 --> 0:03:04.680 was scene. And if you're if you're thinking that way, 0:03:04.880 --> 0:03:07.360 you're going to miss more than someone who comes in 0:03:07.639 --> 0:03:09.720 with just an outright bias, you know. 0:03:10.080 --> 0:03:13.280 Yeah, And like I think very often it's seen as 0:03:13.360 --> 0:03:15.320 kind of instead of being like a value of the 0:03:15.360 --> 0:03:17.680 outlet in the way it verifies information, it's seeing as 0:03:17.680 --> 0:03:22.120 being a personal kind of like quality that journalists should 0:03:22.200 --> 0:03:25.119 have in every aspect of their lives. Yeah, Like I'm 0:03:25.160 --> 0:03:27.440 aware that it's some of the big legacy broadsheets in 0:03:27.480 --> 0:03:31.440 the US, like you can't attend to protest unless you 0:03:31.480 --> 0:03:33.079 are covering the protest, right. 0:03:33.680 --> 0:03:36.120 And there's even that famous case of that journalist being like, 0:03:36.160 --> 0:03:37.800 I don't vote because I think that that would be 0:03:37.800 --> 0:03:39.720 a violation of like my objectivity. 0:03:39.880 --> 0:03:41.640 Yeah, yeah, yeah, I remember that. I got it forgotten 0:03:41.640 --> 0:03:42.520 about that one. 0:03:42.640 --> 0:03:45.640 Like you're allowed to have opinions, that's just not supposed 0:03:45.680 --> 0:03:48.040 to be the entire basis of your reporting, you. 0:03:48.080 --> 0:03:51.960 Know exactly, Yeah, Like, and I think sometimes because people 0:03:51.960 --> 0:03:55.080 always do have opinions, right, but the opinions that are 0:03:55.120 --> 0:03:59.160 conceived of as neutral and the ones that are conceived 0:03:59.200 --> 0:04:04.160 of as being subjective are very telling, right, Like, the 0:04:04.240 --> 0:04:08.160 media for a long time has been the domain of educated, 0:04:08.200 --> 0:04:10.800 older white men, like people like me. I guess I'm 0:04:10.800 --> 0:04:13.480 not old, but getting that way. And it also has 0:04:13.520 --> 0:04:15.840 been the domain of like capital in the state, right, 0:04:15.880 --> 0:04:20.640 like Jeffrey Bezos owned several newspapers pro market biases, pro 0:04:20.720 --> 0:04:25.040 capitalism biases, pro state biases, that those are not really 0:04:25.080 --> 0:04:28.320 investigated much in the media in the way that other 0:04:29.080 --> 0:04:33.880 biases might be. Right, It's also created this idea that 0:04:34.320 --> 0:04:36.960 the media always needs to shoot for the middle in 0:04:37.040 --> 0:04:39.839 any given discussion, which I kind of want to investigate 0:04:39.880 --> 0:04:44.279 a bit, when Donald Trump says something which is overt, 0:04:44.320 --> 0:04:46.640 like Donald Trump has said things which are nativist, right, 0:04:46.720 --> 0:04:49.720 nativism is a form of racism. Donald Trump therefore has 0:04:49.760 --> 0:04:52.960 said racist shit. The way that this is far too 0:04:53.000 --> 0:04:56.480 often treated in the legacy media is it's the racist 0:04:56.480 --> 0:04:59.039 shit that Donald Trump said, correct, or like, maybe we 0:04:59.080 --> 0:05:02.800 should consider this racist thing that so and so has said, right, 0:05:02.880 --> 0:05:06.040 rather than this shit is racist Donald Trump has said 0:05:06.120 --> 0:05:08.240 of shit that it's racist, or other members of the 0:05:08.320 --> 0:05:13.839 Republican Party. All this serves to do is when we 0:05:13.880 --> 0:05:19.080 have a topic and the people in Congress anchor themselves 0:05:19.120 --> 0:05:21.839 on the very far right, what is acceptable discourse, the 0:05:21.880 --> 0:05:24.919 media then moves discourse to the right so that position 0:05:25.000 --> 0:05:27.200 is in the center, right, it serves to ratchet that 0:05:27.320 --> 0:05:30.359 overton window to the right. I'm demonstrating this for my 0:05:30.360 --> 0:05:33.080 colleagues with hand signals, which of course only two of 0:05:33.160 --> 0:05:36.520 the hundreds of thousands of people listening to me will 0:05:36.560 --> 0:05:39.040 be able to see the right way to our podcast. 0:05:39.640 --> 0:05:43.920 Yeah, it was a very compelling mime of a ratchet 0:05:44.640 --> 0:05:47.240 like it looked like you basically were doing it. I 0:05:47.279 --> 0:05:47.960 could not tell. 0:05:48.400 --> 0:05:51.080 I couldn't tell the difference. No, that's why we call 0:05:51.160 --> 0:05:52.799 you ratchet. Straps out. 0:05:54.720 --> 0:05:57.160 Got me a ratchet, Jimmy. Yeah, it's This podcast is 0:05:57.200 --> 0:06:00.000 sponsored by Invisible Ratchet. Now it was time to pivot 0:06:00.120 --> 0:06:02.200 to add It's not time to figure to add yet. 0:06:02.880 --> 0:06:05.919 I think we should talk about the way other professions 0:06:05.960 --> 0:06:09.679 concerned with the truths deal with this topic, right, because 0:06:10.440 --> 0:06:14.280 journalism is pretty much unique and considering objectivity something that 0:06:14.960 --> 0:06:18.560 we as individuals have to embody in every action that 0:06:18.600 --> 0:06:20.800 we take. And I guess the most relevant one will 0:06:20.839 --> 0:06:24.479 be academia, which is something else I am unfortunate enough 0:06:24.480 --> 0:06:27.240 to have participated in for far too much of my 0:06:27.240 --> 0:06:31.599 adult life. So academia still not great, But we have 0:06:31.720 --> 0:06:37.200 accepted that everyone is biased in academia. Right, We rely on, 0:06:37.560 --> 0:06:40.800 among many other things, something called standpoint theory, right, which 0:06:40.800 --> 0:06:43.800 is a cornerstone of modern feminist thought. Most of you 0:06:43.800 --> 0:06:45.360 will be aware of it, even if you're not aware 0:06:45.360 --> 0:06:47.440 of it. Basically, it holds that we see the world 0:06:47.440 --> 0:06:53.200 differently based on where we see it from. Our gender, sexuality, raise, ethnicity, experience, age, 0:06:53.240 --> 0:06:55.520 and a million other things impact the truth we know 0:06:55.600 --> 0:06:58.520 in the world. We experience and standpoint theory posits that 0:06:58.560 --> 0:07:02.160 perhaps people not from a certain threating may have valuable 0:07:02.200 --> 0:07:05.240 insights into it. Right, So, sometimes the outsider perspective is 0:07:05.279 --> 0:07:08.159 a valuable one. But also people from that setting may 0:07:08.200 --> 0:07:12.040 see things outsiders may not see, and we have to 0:07:12.080 --> 0:07:15.800 acknowledge those biases, right, and then continue to tell the truth. 0:07:16.640 --> 0:07:18.720 How do we tell the truth? In academia? We do 0:07:18.760 --> 0:07:23.080 something called peer review. Peer review is bad. Peer review 0:07:23.560 --> 0:07:29.400 strongly reinforces the status quote right. I will give one example. 0:07:29.760 --> 0:07:32.640 I once had a journal article, right for a history journal, 0:07:32.880 --> 0:07:35.440 killed in peer review. The piece was about the nineteen 0:07:35.480 --> 0:07:39.200 oh nine tour of Catalonia that was a bicycle competition 0:07:39.240 --> 0:07:41.480 for those of you who aren't familiar. It was killed 0:07:41.520 --> 0:07:46.720 because my media analysis didn't mention television coverage. The television 0:07:47.000 --> 0:07:49.320 was kind of crudely invented in the nineteen twenties, and 0:07:49.360 --> 0:07:51.760 did it become widely available until the nineteen forties, Right, Like, 0:07:51.840 --> 0:07:56.559 this is not a reasonable objection. Nonetheless, someone was able 0:07:56.600 --> 0:07:58.520 to kill my piece because of it, because that's how 0:07:58.520 --> 0:08:00.640 peer review worked. Right. The people who are as people 0:08:00.680 --> 0:08:02.880 who are in petitions of power can kill your shit 0:08:02.920 --> 0:08:04.640 if they want to, and they can give the most 0:08:04.680 --> 0:08:08.200 ludicrous region. That is how peer of view, among other things, 0:08:08.240 --> 0:08:12.200 reinforces state just quo. Right. The other thing that we 0:08:12.400 --> 0:08:16.720 do in academias we declare our conflicts of interest, and 0:08:16.760 --> 0:08:19.160 this is something we don't do in journalism, right, Like 0:08:19.600 --> 0:08:22.200 outlets may have a conflict of interest policy. But again, 0:08:22.360 --> 0:08:27.080 like conflicts of interest aren't explicitly declared in a piece 0:08:27.520 --> 0:08:29.960 like you wouldn't see sometimes NPR does it. 0:08:30.040 --> 0:08:33.320 Actually, Yeah, I mean a number of outlets do declare like, 0:08:33.400 --> 0:08:36.760 for example, this outlet is owned by someone who has 0:08:36.760 --> 0:08:39.079 a financial interest in the company we're reporting on, or 0:08:39.120 --> 0:08:39.720 something like that. 0:08:40.000 --> 0:08:42.840 Yeah, if the Washington Post is doing a story about 0:08:43.160 --> 0:08:47.320 Jeff Bezos or Amazon, yeah, usually they will say in 0:08:47.400 --> 0:08:49.959 the bottom or the top that the paper is owned 0:08:49.960 --> 0:08:51.720 by said said figure. 0:08:52.280 --> 0:08:55.600 Yeah. Where it becomes more murky is like sometimes people 0:08:55.640 --> 0:08:58.720 have a financial interest or if something is your beat, right, 0:08:58.920 --> 0:09:01.520 you may have other fire financial interest within that beat. 0:09:01.880 --> 0:09:04.600 Well, and there's there's the very common case of people, 0:09:05.080 --> 0:09:08.720 especially now within kind of the sub stack journalism, being 0:09:08.800 --> 0:09:12.240 like friends and social with people that they are reporting 0:09:12.280 --> 0:09:14.480 on and not disclosing to their wider audience. 0:09:14.920 --> 0:09:18.280 Yeah, like access journalism more generally ready. Yeah, Like the 0:09:18.320 --> 0:09:20.520 way I got this piece was by being invited to 0:09:20.600 --> 0:09:22.360 the drinks party, And if I say anything I'm kind 0:09:22.400 --> 0:09:25.560 about this person, I won't be invited to the drinks party. Yeah, 0:09:25.800 --> 0:09:28.280 Or simply the conflict of interest that is presented by 0:09:29.000 --> 0:09:32.000 the more ludicrous my headline, the more people will click 0:09:32.040 --> 0:09:33.960 on this website, and the more time they will spend 0:09:34.000 --> 0:09:36.160 on the page, and the more advative you they might generate. 0:09:36.360 --> 0:09:39.719 Yeah, And that's really the largest issue with modern journalism 0:09:39.800 --> 0:09:43.480 is that that kind of determines almost everything for an outlet, 0:09:43.600 --> 0:09:46.480 is like what's what's going to get clicks, what's going 0:09:46.480 --> 0:09:49.480 to rile people up as much as possible, And that 0:09:49.679 --> 0:09:51.960 is that that doesn't count as financial interest, right, Like 0:09:52.040 --> 0:09:54.480 the fact that the outlet has invested financial interest in 0:09:54.600 --> 0:09:57.000 keeping you on the page as often and as long 0:09:57.040 --> 0:10:00.840 as possible doesn't count as like a conflictive interest in 0:10:00.880 --> 0:10:04.720 any way. And that's kind of one of the fundamental issues. Whereas, 0:10:04.840 --> 0:10:07.439 like a lot of times, a lot of outlets won't let, 0:10:07.679 --> 0:10:10.839 for example, a black journalist report on a black man 0:10:10.880 --> 0:10:13.120 being murdered by the police, right because they see that 0:10:13.160 --> 0:10:16.199 as like an inherent conflict of interest, and the gap 0:10:16.280 --> 0:10:18.880 between those two things is where a lot of the 0:10:18.920 --> 0:10:21.040 real problems, a lot of the worst problems in modern 0:10:21.080 --> 0:10:21.880 journalism arise. 0:10:22.360 --> 0:10:26.319 Yeah, talking of problems, we need to pay to ads, sure, 0:10:36.960 --> 0:10:40.840 all right, we are back. Part of this also manifests 0:10:40.840 --> 0:10:44.600 in like journalists being supposed to not have any individual 0:10:44.679 --> 0:10:47.679 opinions about anything, even if it's irrelevant to that beat. 0:10:48.280 --> 0:10:51.720 This has been the case for a lot of people 0:10:51.800 --> 0:10:55.480 regarding the genocide of Palestinian people. Right, Like you could 0:10:55.480 --> 0:10:58.720 be the weekend editor, you could write about brunch, and 0:10:59.320 --> 0:11:02.800 if you work at certain outlets, you are like under 0:11:02.840 --> 0:11:05.280 pain of losing your job, not allowed to post to 0:11:05.360 --> 0:11:08.640 what is happening in Gaza. It is a genocide to 0:11:08.760 --> 0:11:11.920 take a stance on these issues, right, And that is bad. 0:11:12.280 --> 0:11:16.160 Like journalists are human beings too, and it's ridiculous to 0:11:16.520 --> 0:11:20.360 suggest that that we shouldn't or can't have opinions on 0:11:20.400 --> 0:11:22.640 these things and still do good reporting, right we can. 0:11:22.720 --> 0:11:24.680 We just have to make sure that the reporting itself 0:11:25.280 --> 0:11:31.040 is accurate. Sometimes what this leads to is like like 0:11:31.080 --> 0:11:32.920 what I guess another, like Rubbie, you spoke about it, 0:11:32.960 --> 0:11:36.360 that like the inherent conflict of interests that like traffic 0:11:36.400 --> 0:11:40.600 on a website presents for journalism. Another like inherent issue 0:11:40.720 --> 0:11:43.880 is that like every source is seen as biased, right, 0:11:43.920 --> 0:11:45.760 Like you said, like black folks might not be allowed 0:11:45.800 --> 0:11:48.240 to report on black men being shown by the cops, 0:11:48.960 --> 0:11:52.120 accept state sources, which are far too often seen as 0:11:52.160 --> 0:11:55.040 speaking the verbatim truth, right, Well, this is what the 0:11:55.040 --> 0:11:58.040 police said. Yes, yeah, that is how we get I 0:11:58.040 --> 0:11:59.840 guess A pretty good example of this, I'll link to 0:11:59.880 --> 0:12:02.200 it in the show notes is a piece I wrote 0:12:03.000 --> 0:12:08.920 five years ago I think about police officers overdosing on fentanyl. 0:12:09.400 --> 0:12:11.160 Some of you will be familiar with this, some of 0:12:11.160 --> 0:12:14.319 you will not, But it is not possible to overdose 0:12:14.480 --> 0:12:19.360 on fentanyl just from being in its presence, like in 0:12:19.400 --> 0:12:22.120 an outdoor area next to a thing that has fentel 0:12:22.120 --> 0:12:24.800 in it. The piece I wrote dealt with the San 0:12:24.840 --> 0:12:28.959 Diego Union Tribune. Who I mean, this was a spectacular instance, 0:12:28.960 --> 0:12:33.040 I guess, of journalists like serving as police snographers. What 0:12:33.120 --> 0:12:35.840 happened here is that the police had produced an edited 0:12:35.960 --> 0:12:39.920 video with like music and shit of this supposed overdose. 0:12:40.000 --> 0:12:43.440 Right of a young cop who was like, I don't 0:12:43.440 --> 0:12:45.679 know what they call it. He's like apprentice with an 0:12:45.679 --> 0:12:48.960 older cop, like the with a more experienced cop and 0:12:48.960 --> 0:12:51.839 they were going around doing cop stuff. They found some stuff. 0:12:51.840 --> 0:12:55.240 They tested it for fentanyl, and this guy collapses. The 0:12:55.320 --> 0:12:58.280 younger cop, the older cop gives him several nacans. It's 0:12:58.320 --> 0:13:02.439 not just waste some yeah, no, just like I think 0:13:02.480 --> 0:13:05.520 there was one instant where someone received seven knock ants, 0:13:05.880 --> 0:13:11.079 which like, like, that's a threat to your fucking nasal 0:13:11.080 --> 0:13:14.280 integrity if nothing else. Yeah, if knokin doesn't work the 0:13:14.280 --> 0:13:15.839 first time, like I. 0:13:15.800 --> 0:13:18.560 Mean, people do sometimes often it's not especially like with 0:13:18.640 --> 0:13:21.400 serious ods. They'll often put people like in the hospital 0:13:21.400 --> 0:13:24.680 on drips, but you would have to take a massive dose, 0:13:24.840 --> 0:13:26.960 not just be near fucking. 0:13:26.720 --> 0:13:29.960 Fin Yeah, yeah, to like be like I think this instance, 0:13:30.000 --> 0:13:32.280 like they were outside testing it in like the boot 0:13:32.280 --> 0:13:35.760 of a car, Like it's ludicrous thing that you and like, 0:13:36.440 --> 0:13:38.560 it would be good if they familiarize themselves with some 0:13:38.640 --> 0:13:42.679 of the what an overdose looks like. Right, Yeah, And 0:13:42.720 --> 0:13:43.360 I'm mixed. 0:13:43.559 --> 0:13:46.560 If they weren't cops, I'd respect the desire to like 0:13:46.880 --> 0:13:48.880 time theft from work, because I think that's what a 0:13:48.880 --> 0:13:50.920 lot of this is. It's like, oh shit, if I 0:13:50.960 --> 0:13:54.839 have an overdose, like I get to stay out of 0:13:54.880 --> 0:13:55.920 work a couple. 0:13:55.600 --> 0:13:59.040 Of days with day that's what that's a that's a framing. 0:13:59.080 --> 0:14:02.760 I'm amenable to you. Unfortunately, they are gods. Ver If 0:14:02.760 --> 0:14:07.520 you're a reporter, though, like it is absolutely on you to, oh, 0:14:07.559 --> 0:14:09.960 this person having an overdose? What are the symptoms of 0:14:10.000 --> 0:14:13.040 an overdose? What does an overdose look like? Should I 0:14:13.120 --> 0:14:16.240 talk to a medical professional? Or you could just ask 0:14:16.760 --> 0:14:20.160 the perlice information officer who shared this with you, how 0:14:20.200 --> 0:14:23.080 did you verify this as an overdose? With whom did 0:14:23.120 --> 0:14:27.080 you discuss the toxicology report in this case? That information 0:14:27.160 --> 0:14:29.760 wasn't available right the way I was able to obtain 0:14:29.800 --> 0:14:32.840 that just to do I guess clarity is first of all, 0:14:33.120 --> 0:14:36.400 I saw the publication where they didn't mention any fact 0:14:36.480 --> 0:14:40.000 checking that they'd done. You can also pra the emails 0:14:40.200 --> 0:14:42.080 to the police as well as from the police, right, 0:14:42.120 --> 0:14:44.640 so you can see if other reporters have done fact 0:14:44.720 --> 0:14:47.040 checking that way or have asked any follow up questions 0:14:47.120 --> 0:14:49.400 that way I done, that they would have found out 0:14:49.400 --> 0:14:52.120 that you say that you can't overdose in fentanyl this way. 0:14:52.520 --> 0:14:54.720 They didn't even try. And like both sides this, I 0:14:54.720 --> 0:14:57.480 guess like sometimes you'll see outlets doing that now, like 0:14:57.600 --> 0:15:01.320 this cop overdose from fentanyl but doctors say they can't. 0:15:01.680 --> 0:15:05.280 Like it's a which I still think is an absolutely 0:15:05.320 --> 0:15:09.440 ludicrous practice. Right. That's like saying this person tried to fly, 0:15:09.720 --> 0:15:12.440 but you know that people say gravity will make them 0:15:12.480 --> 0:15:15.200 fall to the ground, like one of these things we 0:15:15.280 --> 0:15:18.920 know to be true. So I guess what I would 0:15:18.960 --> 0:15:23.160 propose we do instead of this ludicrous practice of like 0:15:23.200 --> 0:15:26.400 pretending to be objective about everything all the time, is 0:15:27.040 --> 0:15:30.480 that we are honest about our biases, honest about our 0:15:30.480 --> 0:15:33.360 conflict of interests. We're honest about like our standpoint, and 0:15:33.400 --> 0:15:37.480 then we do reporting, which is obviously verifiable, right, And 0:15:37.480 --> 0:15:39.440 that means, like you'll see that at the end of 0:15:39.480 --> 0:15:42.680 these episodes, right, we share our sources that we used 0:15:43.240 --> 0:15:46.040 after we're try and communicate where we got information from 0:15:46.160 --> 0:15:48.320 and how we got it. And I think we should 0:15:48.320 --> 0:15:52.320 strive for moral clarity in the way we say things 0:15:52.360 --> 0:15:55.000 instead of driving to this mill ground. So, like, what 0:15:55.040 --> 0:15:56.760 do I mean by moral clarity? I mean saying the 0:15:56.840 --> 0:16:01.560 cops killed someone, not officer involved shooting. Right. If you 0:16:01.680 --> 0:16:04.600 work with fucking words and you find yourself writing something 0:16:04.640 --> 0:16:09.400 as convoluted as officer involved shooting, then you have strayed 0:16:09.440 --> 0:16:14.440 from the foundational reason for journalism existing. Yeah, you have 0:16:14.520 --> 0:16:17.400 gone beyond God's light. Yeah yeah, yeah, you live in 0:16:17.440 --> 0:16:21.280 the darkness. There is I think a place for fact checkers. 0:16:21.800 --> 0:16:26.000 I think people got a bit carried away with fact checking. 0:16:26.280 --> 0:16:28.920 I don't quite know how to phrase this correctly. I 0:16:28.920 --> 0:16:30.720 had an experience once where I had written a piece. 0:16:31.200 --> 0:16:35.080 The fact checking of that piece centered on the fact 0:16:35.080 --> 0:16:37.440 that I had used the noun beach chair to refer 0:16:37.520 --> 0:16:42.840 to this chair. Yes, the fact checker believed that it 0:16:42.880 --> 0:16:48.200 was a lawn chair. To me, did not impact the 0:16:48.280 --> 0:16:52.600 overall thrust of the piece, right, like the nature of 0:16:52.640 --> 0:16:55.600 the chair. Unfortunately, that ended up killing the story. We 0:16:55.680 --> 0:16:58.239 ran out of time to go over the court documents 0:16:58.360 --> 0:17:00.960 because of the nature of the chair discussion. And I'm 0:17:00.960 --> 0:17:02.280 not sure that's what we need to do. 0:17:03.360 --> 0:17:06.120 No, I mean, and I think the other and probably 0:17:06.240 --> 0:17:09.880 larger problem with fact checking is fact checking is an 0:17:09.880 --> 0:17:12.040 in in and of itself is ha. I showed that 0:17:12.080 --> 0:17:14.160 they were wrong. I checked the fact where it's like, yeah, 0:17:14.160 --> 0:17:16.679 but what they wrote got out to thirty million people 0:17:16.720 --> 0:17:19.280 and your fact check got out to like sixty So 0:17:19.320 --> 0:17:21.080 what you did didn't really matter. And what we should 0:17:21.080 --> 0:17:25.080 probably be doing is looking at an intervention higher up 0:17:25.119 --> 0:17:27.560 on the line to stop the bullshit from getting out, 0:17:27.640 --> 0:17:30.720 rather than being obsessed with well I fact checked it, like, well, 0:17:30.760 --> 0:17:33.399 but that didn't really help you know, yeah, right, just 0:17:33.440 --> 0:17:35.000 at what point do we give that up? 0:17:35.080 --> 0:17:40.719 Is pointless? Yeah, you are like not even a footnote 0:17:40.840 --> 0:17:42.280 to this other thing that this person. 0:17:42.440 --> 0:17:45.000 No, we need to the intervention needs to be happening 0:17:45.080 --> 0:17:47.640 earlier because the bullshit is still getting out. 0:17:48.440 --> 0:17:51.560 Yeah, absolutely, And this happens like we're inly this a 0:17:51.560 --> 0:17:55.399 bizarre situation where like writing outlets can say what the 0:17:55.440 --> 0:18:00.720 fuck they want, right like, Like we have whole massive 0:18:00.800 --> 0:18:03.160 media empires going in on this idea that the twenty 0:18:03.160 --> 0:18:06.960 twenty election was stolen. Then we have like centrist outlets 0:18:07.680 --> 0:18:10.200 instead of being like, no, the election wasn't solen. That 0:18:10.200 --> 0:18:15.080 that's bullshit, constantly trying to like investigate those claims as 0:18:15.119 --> 0:18:18.760 if they were credible and useful, rather than illustrating why 0:18:18.760 --> 0:18:21.199 they should be dismissed and then moving on, right like, 0:18:21.320 --> 0:18:25.560 instead of investigating why this conspiracy is so important. We 0:18:25.600 --> 0:18:28.960 see that a lot with immigration right now, but we 0:18:29.040 --> 0:18:32.199 saw it a ton in the presidential debates, right Like, 0:18:32.440 --> 0:18:34.040 It's a good example of what you were saying JD. 0:18:34.160 --> 0:18:38.240 Vance can just lie and even Donald Trump actually can 0:18:38.320 --> 0:18:41.760 lie about people eating dogs and cats and it doesn't 0:18:41.880 --> 0:18:45.280 hugely matter if an hour later and use outlet tweets, oh, 0:18:45.320 --> 0:18:47.520 we fact check him, and it's not okay. Right, You're 0:18:47.520 --> 0:18:51.640 still broadcast to millions of people that Haitian migrants eat 0:18:51.680 --> 0:18:54.320 dogs and cats and that's not true. And I think 0:18:54.359 --> 0:18:57.560 we need to strive for something that it's closer to 0:18:57.600 --> 0:18:59.840 the truth, and it's closer to fairness, and it gives 0:18:59.920 --> 0:19:03.440 us moral clarity because what we're all doing right now, 0:19:03.520 --> 0:19:06.480 what the legacy media doing is doing right now, is 0:19:06.560 --> 0:19:10.200 like woefully inadequate to meet the moment. Yeah, I mean 0:19:10.200 --> 0:19:11.359 I agree. 0:19:11.920 --> 0:19:14.760 I think where I don't actually know how to solve 0:19:14.840 --> 0:19:19.040 things is the incentive structure, Yeah, is so broken. And 0:19:19.400 --> 0:19:22.239 to an extent, all of this talk about objectivity. And 0:19:22.560 --> 0:19:24.199 when I say that, I mean, like the talk that 0:19:24.600 --> 0:19:28.359 outlets and editors have about objectivity, is there more than 0:19:28.359 --> 0:19:33.520 anything to obscure the fact that the economics of journalism 0:19:33.760 --> 0:19:36.960 make it almost impossible for it to be anything but 0:19:37.119 --> 0:19:41.800 a willing agent of disinformation. That's the real issue is 0:19:42.359 --> 0:19:45.080 you can have the Washington Post, and you can have 0:19:45.119 --> 0:19:49.480 the New York Times host good reporting, but a huge 0:19:49.520 --> 0:19:53.400 amount of their income will always come from having columnists 0:19:53.520 --> 0:19:57.399 whose entire job is to piss people off or to 0:19:57.760 --> 0:20:01.560 stoke the egos of people in power. And I don't 0:20:01.600 --> 0:20:05.040 know that the good work those outlets does outweighs the 0:20:05.240 --> 0:20:10.680 crap that they spill into the public discourse, because that's 0:20:11.840 --> 0:20:15.320 what's incentivized. And so I think to an extent, there's 0:20:15.320 --> 0:20:20.639 almost no point in actually engaging with the objectivity debate 0:20:21.000 --> 0:20:22.960 with the people who are pushing it, because they're not 0:20:23.040 --> 0:20:25.879 pushing it honestly, they're pushing it as a way to 0:20:25.920 --> 0:20:28.880 obscure the fact that they make their money the same 0:20:28.920 --> 0:20:33.520 way Mark Zuckerberg makes his money, which is by spreading fear, anger, 0:20:33.720 --> 0:20:34.240 and doubt. 0:20:34.960 --> 0:20:38.560 Yeah. Yeah, that's the bad op ed industrial complex. Like 0:20:39.320 --> 0:20:41.600 I've been guilty of that. Right, you see a fucking 0:20:41.640 --> 0:20:44.639 headline on social media and you're like, that's bullshit, and 0:20:44.640 --> 0:20:47.080 then you click and read. Right. I used to like, 0:20:47.119 --> 0:20:48.840 when I was a little baby, channel let's engage with 0:20:48.840 --> 0:20:51.600 this and be like that's bullshit because and I try 0:20:51.600 --> 0:20:54.040 and write about it somewhere or post it on social media. 0:20:54.119 --> 0:20:56.240 But I have come to realize and in doing that, 0:20:56.280 --> 0:20:59.600 I'm doing exactly what they want me to do, which 0:20:59.640 --> 0:21:02.520 is in you sending people to their website to click 0:21:02.560 --> 0:21:04.680 on adverts and to make the money. So I think 0:21:04.680 --> 0:21:06.360 it's better that we do not do that. But yeah, 0:21:06.359 --> 0:21:11.280 that is the fundamental conceit of journalism right now. How 0:21:11.320 --> 0:21:14.159 it pays the bills is keeping you on that page, 0:21:14.160 --> 0:21:15.600 and a way it keeps you on that page is 0:21:15.720 --> 0:21:19.119 making you angry. There is like a model, I think. 0:21:19.680 --> 0:21:23.960 Then you see this like in community small community newspapers 0:21:24.040 --> 0:21:26.480 right now, like I guess outlets like Left Coast Right 0:21:26.520 --> 0:21:31.160 Watching in California and Oregon, where like people genuinely buy 0:21:31.280 --> 0:21:34.600 building trust and telling the truth, gain the support of 0:21:34.920 --> 0:21:38.840 their communities and financed by them. But I mean the 0:21:38.960 --> 0:21:42.600 orders of magnitude and income difference are like they're not 0:21:42.640 --> 0:21:44.920 making Washington Post money over at Left Coast Right Watch. 0:21:45.160 --> 0:21:49.240 I know this should be true. So yeah, pretty fucked 0:21:49.800 --> 0:21:53.600 and it will only get worse. I think, like, as 0:21:54.720 --> 0:21:57.520