We Are All Journalists Now

Maura Alwyen

HVAC/R Master Craftsman, Chef, Woodworker, Journeyman Metalworker, somewhat of a Blacksmith, & Author I do my own stunts & cinematography. Typos, poor word choices, wrong but similar sounding word choices are par for the course. All mistakes are artisanally crafted from the finest oopsies. Otherwise I'm just a regular girl with opinions and a point from which to shout into the void.

Related Post Roulette

31 Responses

  1. Oscar Gordon says:

    Memory cards are good, but authorities shouldn’t be trusted to preserve evidence they don’t like. Spend a bit more and get the bodycam that has Bluetooth or Wifi so it can stream the video through your phone to the cloud.Report

  2. Damon says:

    Some states have laws to restrict filming, at least with audio. I seems to recall my state views audio recording (in pair with video or not) as a violation. I’s suggest folks get familiar with those restrictions.Report

  3. Marchmaine says:

    I think I just saw a video of Austrlian police shooting (rubber?) bullets at retreating protestors.

    So, good points about filming.

    However, one of the things I’m noting in this post-journalism world is that I’m not sure what the video I just saw was about… Just now? Last week? Once upon a time at a different protest not about Covid? I don’t know or trust the source… videos come out all the time and are edited… not to mention deep-fakes (which I think will feature prominently in upcoming elections)… but then who are the curators and who’s curating the curators?

    What if the next Reichstag fire is a fake video? Or a consortium of fake videos?

    Not exactly gainsaying filming things… but I’ve also seen things on video that weren’t entirely what the video led us to believe.Report

    • Doctor Jay in reply to Marchmaine says:

      I love this comment.

      I wonder if there isn’t someone or ones out there who would even go so far as to make a good deep fake video, put it out there, and make sure it gets exposed, which in turn is meant to cast doubt on video sourcing.

      I mean, wow, I read that sentence and even I think I’m conspiracy-theorizing. And yet, this is the exact strategy of “information warfare”.Report

  4. Jaybird says:

    When the Capitol Hill Occupied Protest originally started, Raz the Warlord quickly established himself as the local peacekeeper.

    One of the first altercations recorded was him keeping law and order but being filmed doing it, and immediately turning to the people filming him and turning that into an altercation as well.

    The more people filming the better.Report

  5. Chip Daniels says:

    Sure, you can read the New York Times if you want, they get lucky sometimes.
    But if you want the straight dope, check out JGoebbels1488 on YouTube.
    He exposes the real truth the (((globalists))) don’t want you to know.Report

      • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

        That’s kind of my point.
        Judith Miller has a known bias and a known degree of credibility. So people can approach her writing with a reasonable degree of skepticism.

        Citizen Journalist is as often a lunatic or foreign agent as they are a credible source and very rarely is there any way to peirce the veil of anonymity to assess their credibility.

        There is no such thing as a perfectly credible source. But some are more credible than others.Report

        • Pinky in reply to Chip Daniels says:

          The answer to this and to Rufus below is to assess the media. Or, rather, each medium.

          There is a pattern that when people stop uncritically trusting the mainstream media, they start uncritically trusting the fringe media. This is the force behind modern conspiracy thinking. There’s a reason why the most violent acts are usually performed by the people I think of as “leftorightists”, who are willing to die for a set of impossibly contradictory beliefs. They haven’t bought into an extremist position, they’ve bought into the principle of extremism. I think Chip and I would at least agree that uncritical consumption of extremist media is dangerous.

          I know I’ve said this a lot, but the crucial skill of our time isn’t obtaining information, but accurately filtering it. We’ve got to be assessing the quality of our news outlets all the time, especially the stuff on our own sides, because that’s what we’re most familiar with. We need to call out the nonsense and discourage (or at least stop encouraging) others from consuming it.Report

          • Chip Daniels in reply to Pinky says:

            I agree with all of this.Report

          • Greginak in reply to Pinky says:

            I agree with chip on agreeing with this. We have a giant fire hose of info and data. Our key needed skill is processing all that into something useful.Report

          • Oscar Gordon in reply to Pinky says:

            Two new curriculum for middle and high schoolers (gotta start young, but not too young):
            1) Probability and Statistics (not just the algebra, but extracting context and meaning from it).
            2) Assessing authority, as in assessing who is saying what and how much authority on the ‘what’ we should give them. Include stuff like determining consensus, Gell-Mann amnesia, Dunning Kruger effect, and all the knock off effects (like uncritically giving authority of topic B to an expert of topic A, just because they are an expert on A).

            And to kick one my horses, when it comes to trusting authority, it is imperative that when authority is caught out lying, regardless of how or why, the individual needs to visibly suffer consequences, or trust erodes.Report

            • “Rank sets your pay, Authority gets things done, Accountability is what you pay for both” a wise old Chief told me once a long time ago…Report

            • Damon in reply to Oscar Gordon says:

              And start teaching critical thinking and logic. It’s not hard to tease out biases in reporting when you’ve watched enough of it it and know more about the topic matter than the “journalist”.Report

            • Pinky in reply to Oscar Gordon says:

              There’s a discussion happening in academics about this, but it seems like everyone outside the field, and a lot of people in it, don’t understand it.

              The traditional coursework has gone from basic mathematics, through algebra and geometry, and toward calculus. But that was originally the path for students in what we now call STEM. Students who weren’t bound for college science degrees wouldn’t have those requirements.

              (It’s funny to think about, but even within my lifetime the role of statistics has changed. Even biology was considered a very soft science in my youth, a collection of information rather than a discipline.)

              So, the question being asked today is whether non-STEM elementary and secondary kids should follow the sequence of courses which heads toward calculus. A different approach would have less pre-calc and highlight more practical stats. But this idea gets tied into the general lowering of standards (and sometimes, not unfairly). And it can encourage pushing even younger students onto tracks. It’s a really interesting area of potential reform.Report

              • Oscar Gordon in reply to Pinky says:

                You can do basic stats without an algebra class. You get more out of stats with an understanding of algebra, but you can get a functional understanding with arithmetic.

                The trick is making sure that the students don’t assume they have the deeper understanding without the higher level math.Report

              • Pinky in reply to Oscar Gordon says:

                Actually, you could apply that thought on a macro level. A better understanding of stats might help a lot of fields to realize that their statistics are only providing the illusion of scientific rigor, like poets walking around in lab coats.Report

              • InMD in reply to Pinky says:

                I don’t necessarily think the kind of critical thinking discussed has to come in a math class context. I still think there’s some great critical-thinking-for-laypersons out there from Carl Sagan. At the very least it gives quick tricks to spot the kind of weak and lazy thinking that seems to permeate a lot of journalism.Report

              • Pinky in reply to InMD says:

                Agreed. I didn’t really talk about the critical thinking side of things. That might actually be more messed up than the math and stats side. These days the authenticity of lived experience is winning out over whiteness expressed in the form of objectivity.Report

  6. Rufus F. says:

    This is all good advice and it gets me thinking about the idea that we cannot trust the media.

    I think there’s a way of coming up with a rule of thumb that’s a bit along on the lines of saying more that we can’t trust the media out of hand. In the same way we generally agree it’s good to get a second opinion for a medical diagnosis. I feel like just trusting the media out of hand is an obviously bad idea, but so is the sort of knee-jerk “the media always lies” position that some people take- which is NOT how I read the OP for the record- where it becomes what they call a “thought-terminating cliché.”

    Maybe “question the media”?Report

    • Brandon Berg in reply to Rufus F. says:

      As a rule the mainstream media rarely tell outright lies. What they often do is fail to properly contextualize the true facts that they do report, presenting a carefully curated set of cherry-picked a anecdotes and statistics that give a wildly inaccurate view of the bigger picture.

      In a sense, it’s worse than lying. Lies can be fact-checked. You can say that this factoid that the NYT reported just isn’t true, and here’s the proof. False narratives constructed out of true facts can’t be debunked so easily.Report