[gr33nman]

I agree that it’s not the job of news media to herd their audience into thinking the right things. However, it is their duty to uncover and report the truth.

“If someone says it's raining, and another person says it's dry, it's not your job to quote them both. Your job is to look out the [expletive] window and find out which is true” -Jonathan Foster

[tinalumfoil]

The author of this article probably doesn't have the expertise to find and interpret the data to make a judgment about what the doctors in question are saying. Quoting others is really the best can do. Sometimes there really is just no window look through.

And even if they did that it wouldn't really serve what the author here is trying to cover. This is an article about Youtube censoring two doctors. The reason why is relevant (and they quote Youtube's reasoning) but it's not the main story.

Not that the article is amazing, but it's just frustrating people are piling on because it's not the story they wanted the author to write.

[gr33nman]

If this were a story about the Kardashians, it might not matter, but journalists have a responsibility to do better than this when lives are on the line. This article does not meet basic standards for ethical journalism:

https://www.spj.org/pdf/spj-code-of-ethics.pdf

[beaner]

I really disagree with this. Sometimes the important thing to know is just that a debate is happening. Then the reader can view both sides and make up their own mind. More often than not, the supposed responsibility to "uncover the truth" results in journalists inserting their own bias.

[gr33nman]

I share your concern about journalists inserting their own bias. A good journalist would investigate the factuality of claims by all parties in a story, not just the ones they agree with. Of course, bias does happen even with the best intentions, and that is why it is a good idea to read multiple news sources with good journalistic ethics (https://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp).

Lazy “he said, she said” journalism, sometimes called “bothesidesism”, is dangerous to a free society because it enables propaganda and disinformation. Lay public do not have time or resources to debunk lies and find out which side in a public debate is telling the truth (if any). That is the sacred duty of a free press.

[remarkEon]

>That is the sacred duty of a free press.

And this press has proven time and again to be in the aggregate incompetent in this duty. Perhaps it's the fault of the changing landscape, with media chasing clickbait and online ads all the time. I'm a lot more skeptical of journalists today than I would've been a few decades ago, and there's plenty of evidence that the game is up and the political class if fully aware of how these people are unable to do this job in a way that doesn't enable propaganda and disinformation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/obama-officia...

>“All these newspapers used to have foreign bureaus,” he said. “Now they don’t. They call us to explain to them what’s happening in Moscow and Cairo. Most of the outlets are reporting on world events from Washington. The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That’s a sea change. They literally know nothing.”