[kk_cz]

> How the heck are we allowing reporters to "report" like this?

It's the price we pay for freedom of press and expression. The alternative is screaming "fake news" everytime a journalist makes a mistake. Normal distribution applies in every profession, not all journalists are great

[rcMgD2BwE72F]

> It's the price we pay for [x]

Is this actually inevitable? Why and why should you pay this much?

grecy asks "How the heck are we allowing" and you reply "just pay because the only other choice is [unacceptable alternative]".

This does drive the price up, doesn't it? How does that help?

[wiz21c]

Plus :

>>> not all journalists are great

The paper was written by a journalist, proof read by another one, reviewed by the editor. There's no price to pay for intended click bait.

[kk_cz]

> The paper was written by a journalist, proof read by another one, reviewed by the editor.

This used to be the norm, I agree. Modern technology did wonders to streamline the publishing process. :)

[kk_cz]

> Is this actually inevitable?

Yes, it's actually inevitable. You either have free press or you don't. It's a binary value, one or zero, there is nothing in between. If you are willing to handle for the price of the free expression then we have fundamentaly different ideas about what freedom represents.

[dragonwriter]

> You either have free press or you don't. It's a binary value, one or zero, there is nothing in between.

It's really not. Or, if it is, since the US clearly does not have a perfectly free press (and thus, if it's a binary value, has a zero not a one), nothing can be the price we pay for a free press, because we aren't getting a free press.

Now, if you say “its the price we pay for the degree of press freedom we have, and the loss of freedom necessary to avoid that cost is to high a price to pay for the cost avoided, that's an argument that can, at least, be reasonably discussed.

[kk_cz]

ok, back to the square one. English is not my native language, so sorry if my point doesn't get accross that well.

> How the heck are we allowing reporters to "report" like this?

keyword being "allowing". You either have a system where anyone needs to be "allowed" to write something or not.

> Or, if it is, since the US clearly does not have a perfectly free press (and thus, if it's a binary value, has a zero not a one), nothing can be the price we pay for a free press, because we aren't getting a free press.

In US you are generally not required to be "allowed" to write something. That for me is the definition of freedom of expression. As soon as you are required to be "allowed" to publish you don't have that freedom. The system is not perfect, but that imperfection is created by players (content producers and consumers) inside the system, not by artifical regulation from above.

Now we can discuss whether this "allowing" was meant as a call for action meaning: "don't support low-quality journalism" - in that case I agree, I am trying to avoid supporting low-quality press by not giving its publishers my money or my time. But if by "allowing" was meant that some wise know it all independent authority should be set up to allow certain things to be published and not allow some other things to be published, now that's the point where the discussion ends for me. There is nothing to discuss there, you simply lost your freedom. game over.