And there's the rub. What is "quality investigative reporting" in an objective sense, when most of the MSM outlets are owned by oligarchs, or simply "toe the line"?

In theory I would gladly support the theory of "quality investigative reporting", but the reality is a propagandist machine where opinion pieces replaces actual unbiased, adjective-free objective news.

Some examples of "oligarch news": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwA4k0E51Oo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksb3KD6DfSI

As a former developer who worked closely on Thomson Reuters News feed (in the 00's), I've seen how there is almost zero fact checking for the information that appears on news feeds. Instead, news outlets trust the 'upstream' feeds and then quote the reports verbatim.

To be fair, there are those who are really awesome at doing research and releasing information that are part of the MSM. Unfortunately, there are plenty others who are not affiliated with MSM news outlets and hence aren't regarded as "reporters" per-se. These latter ones are regularly attacked via "fact checking" websites as a way to discredit them.

An article on the latter is here: https://www.corbettreport.com/episode-381-who-will-fact-chec...

In short, there's a bunch of information out there and without each and every news report clearly citing original sources, then MSM or not, it must be regarded as suspect.

So for "quality investigative reporting", the actual reports must rigorously cite objective sources.

I find it mildly ironic that you link to a clip from the PBS NewsHour while, from my reading, you also imply that objective reporting or investigative reporting don't exist or are dwindling. There are clearly some sources left that are worth their salt.

In the US, I've found most PBS/NPR news broadcasts fairly objective, and the various NPR podcasts sometimes chart into investigative territory but there are other sources I rely on for this (e.g. ProPublica) which I don't expect to be just objective.

I'm not sure I understood exactly what you meant about quality investigative journalism, so forgive me if I misread. I generally agree with your comment.

> PBS/NPR news broadcasts fairly objective

For example, listen for ", without providing evidence" in NPR broadcasts. Notice how selectively it is used.

I consider Media Bias/Fact Check fairly objective and they rate NPR as having left-center bias.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/npr/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Bias/Fact_Check:

> The Columbia Journalism Review describes Media Bias/Fact Check as an amateur attempt at categorizing media bias and Van Zandt as an "armchair media analyst."[3] The Poynter Institute notes, "Media Bias/Fact Check is a widely cited source for news stories and even studies about misinformation, despite the fact that its method is in no way scientific."[4]

I doubt that we can achieve absolute objectivity, that's why I wrote that I consider it fairly objective, not that it is. That said I don't see a reason why should Columbia Journalism Review or Poynter Institute be any better arbiters of what is correct way to measure bias. (Especially because both are competition.)

Also Poynter Institute has record of "weaknesses in the methodology".[1]

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poynter_Institute

Having a bias doesn't in itself imply lack of objectivity, in relation to what we call 'facts' and 'truth'. It would seem somewhat of a coincidence if 'center' (politically) is right where that lies.

Not that I'm saying that 'reality has a liberal bias', as some would. I personally think it has a left bias, but I'm not nearly certain enough of my opinions to make that claim!

NPR isn't explicitly biased, but it does lean left. A recent example:

> Even In A Pandemic, WHO Believes That Public Protests Are Important

> June 8, 2020 5:40 PM ET

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/06/08/8724198...

14 minutes later

> Trump To Restart Political Rallies This Month Despite Coronavirus Pandemic

> June 8, 2020 5:54 PM ET

https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/0...

"Unbiased" or "factual" does not mean "we take both sides' opinions and put them next to each other without comment" - that's what the BBC does and it gives extremist, dangerous viewpoints far more legitimacy than they're worth. The fact that coronavirus got caught up in a bunch of political nonsense does not change that.

"Unbiased" != "Factual".

"Extremist" and "dangerous" according to whom?

That's precisely what unbiased and factual means. You're actually arguing that the media should be opinionated, which is a perfectly reasonable viewpoint, but please don't try to destroy the meaning of words to make disputing your preference impossible.

Edit: I should clarify that I meant "unbiased and factual" together. Of course it's entirely possible to be both biased and factual, by choosing which facts to include.

It's not. You can reproduce information in an unbiased manner, but being factual involves fact-checking, which rarely yields a neutral result.

What's the more 'factual' language about the coronavirus pandemic in this case? It has to be one or the other, that's what unbiased means.

You investigate specific claims. For example, take the claim that Covid-19 is "no worse than the flu". You could report on people making this claim, and state that others disagree. That can be considered an example of unbiased reporting, but it's nevertheless problematic as it may leave a reader with the impression that all reported-on claims are equally valid.

Choice and presentation of opinions you report on is not a neutral acitvity.

edit: I was distracted when I wrote my answer, so I missed some context. Was your question about differences in tone pointed out in a sibling comment[1]? Without having read the articles in question, at first glace, I'd considere this an example of journalistic bias.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23611963

> take the claim that Covid-19 is "no worse than the flu"

That's an interesting example of how difficult unbiased fact checking is.

To start with, there are many interpretations of the statement. Does worse mean death rate, severity of symptoms, infectiousness, or something else? What strain of the flu, and in which country? Which paper or anecdote does the fact checker cite? Because of differences like these, two fact checkers will give different ratings for the same statement.

Journalists aren't experts and shouldn't act like they are by presenting a single perspective as if it were unchallenged fact, or by injecting their own unqualified opinions. Any issue complex enough to be a matter for serious debate isn't going to be solved in an article.

They can be unbiased and report what the leading figures have said, like a camera at a televised debate, or they can be opinionated and add their voice to one of the camps, but they can't (honestly) do both.

Not everything can be fact checked in the first place and if it can, who fact checks the fact checkers? There are numerous examples of fact checking websites being factually wrong.

I don't think that's fair. The first article explains the WHO position, it does not endorse it.

Compare the language in the first paragraph, describing the severity of the pandemic.

In the context of left-wing political activity, just:

> In the midst of the coronavirus pandemic

In the context of right-wing political activity, a far more frightening description:

> despite the deadly coronavirus pandemic, which continues to wreak havoc on the lives and livelihoods of households across the country.

If NPR didn't lean left, the second article could have started with a tone similar to the first: in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic, the Trump campaign will address another pressing issue, restarting the American economy. The rally has prompted fears that the close contact of thousands of attendees could lead to a spike in case counts.

A campaign rally is not the same thing as a grassroots political protest by far. It's an organised event that an organiser explicitly invites people to, which primarily serves party politics rather than any particular political issue.

That still doesn't change the very obviously biased framing of the information. You can objectively describe one as more important, or more justified if you will, but manipulating the reader by speaking to his subconciousness like they did is not what should be expected from serious journalism.

I disagree - stating the different situations in different ways is entirely reasonable and to be expected. Can you find me some "serious journalism", ever, which operated in the way you describe?

COVID-19 doesn't suddenly become a "different situation" depending on the political orientation of the mass gathering.

It's not the political orientation of the mass gathering - it's the purpose. One is the President organising a gathering in an attempt to boost his election campaign - the other is some random people who came together to protest a specific thing.

And yet, the virus is still the same virus, so why is it okay to describe it differently in each piece?

> It's not the political orientation of the mass gathering - it's the purpose.

What is the political orientation of a "mass gathering" (rally/protest/etc) if not its purpose? Seriously.

So?

>> COVID-19 doesn't suddenly become a "different situation" depending on the political orientation of the mass gathering.

> It's not the political orientation of the mass gathering - it's the purpose. One is the President organising a gathering in an attempt to boost his election campaign - the other is some random people who came together to protest a specific thing.

How does the purpose of a public gathering alter a virus? Does it have political awareness and dynamically modify its transmissibility according to the righteousness of the cause?

Or perhaps the purpose of a public gathering justifies journalistic framing (altering the description of the severity of the virus, which in turn alters readers mental model of reality). If it's this, what is the logic behind the justification?

Sure it does, when opposition to mask wearing, social distancing, and other such precautions are part of that political orientation.

(Plus, Trump's rally was indoors; protests are outdoors. We've got quite a bit of data now indicating outdoor transmission is less likely.)

I am not about to jump into a debate about which of the two is "worse", because no matter the outcome it is absolutely disingenious to frame COVID-19 as "deadly coronavirus pandemic, which continues to wreak havoc on the lives and livelihoods of households across the country" in one context and plain "coronavirus pandemic" in the other. It is the same virus. If you don't see the bias in that then consider the possibility that you share it.

It's not really inconsistent to believe fighting against racial injustice is more important than the reelection of a specific president?

Making any kind of judgment about what’s “important” or “worthy” is exactly what OP was saying - that media suffer from bias and rarely confine themselves to neutral reporting of facts.

> neutral reporting of facts.

I don't know how this fiction has to be represented in every discussion. I don't want neutral unbiased reporting if it requires giving equal time to people who think that neutral unbiased reporting is real. The selection of what's important to report is literal biasing.

You're right, determining what's newsworthy is a biased process in and of itself. But that doesn't mean throwing the baby out with the bathwater, neutrality is still something we should constantly aim for, even if it's a moving target.

For example, if a media outlet compare actual vs expected turnout for a Trump rally and report that turnout was "lower than expected", it would be plainly biased not to do the same comparison for Biden. The lines are obviously going to blur at some point (where 'balance' involves publishing something far less 'newsworthy'), but it's a lot like the definition of pornography - you know it when you see it.

Besides, most modern media outlets are blatantly pushing their own narratives anyway - I'd say it's far more important that we fix this before moving on to the smaller problem of selection bias.

> What is "quality investigative reporting" in an objective sense, when most of the MSM outlets are owned by oligarchs, or simply "toe the line"?

I don't think better ownership changes anything. The Guardian is owned by a trust, yet falsely reported Mark Duggan was unarmed in a front page headline (if you're unaware, this was false and the Gruan had to retract the claim after a PCC ruling).

Not sure why you're being downvoted. The biggest German left-wing newspaper (taz) is owned by a cooperative. If anything, I find it more annoyingly partisan than other newspapers. It's a hard problem.

The problem isn't bias/partisanship. You can't have any one source be truly unbiased and if you're aware of the politics behind any given source you can neutralise it and temper it with multiple sources from opposite camps.

The problem is that we're not being delivered news-as-information, we're sold news-as-entertainment.

In some parts of tech people treat politics as a team sport, so criticism of their 'team' (even pointing out mistakes acknowledged by the publications) is considered to be punishable.

Indeed. The Guardian Trust has also ruled in editorial complaints that factual inaccuracies in the opinion section are fine, which seems to be to be incredibly irresponsible.

IMO we need some kind of data driven media/data driven reporting/data driven newspaper type thing.

Then we can have reporting/debate/conversation on the meaning of the data but without the filters we use to have in place all reporting has essentially become meaningless, untrustworthy, opinion pieces.

> I hope you'll consider this, because our society cannot function without quality investigative reporting.

Where do I find quality investigative reporting?

I support the Guardian and two regional/local newspapers and I' also forced to pay for the state run broadcaster here but I have to say that I also find myself reading a number of other sources to figure out what is really going on (for the Scandinavians here I'm one of those who will happily look to both Klassekampen and Document, in addition to vg.no and nrk to figure out what is really going on in certain cases, and I understand I am not alone in this).

Once you know a bit of history and a number of different angles you realize some things are horribly complicated and big media is making things worse by pushing misinformation, and by conveniently omitting facts. My favourite example from my favourite (i.e. least despised) local mainstream media source: X fired at a number of positions in neighbouring country Y yesterday. <Long article about this>. <Towards the end:> This happened after a barrage of rockets was fired from these positions shortly before. And that is the most honest of them. The rest seemed to just omit the fact that part Y fired first.

PS: The reason I support some of them is 1) because I feel it is the right thing to do. 2) because I feel at least one of them have actually managed to do some great quality investigative reporting as well as some great feature stories in between. We talk about certain companies and public healthcare organizations getting some much needed sunlight.

>> Where do I find quality investigative reporting?

One that is limited, but wonderful is: ProPublica

According to https://www.propublica.org/supporters ProPublica gets funding from:

Abrams Foundation, Altman Foundation, Arnold Ventures, Barr Foundation, The William K. Bowes, Jr. Foundation, The Peter and Carmen Lucia Buck Foundation, Carnegie Corporation of New York, Craigslist Foundation, Davis Wright Tremaine, The Geraldine R. Dodge Foundation, Democracy Fund, The Richard H. Driehaus Foundation, Dyson Foundation, Emerson Collective, The Ford Foundation, Open Society Foundation, Goldhirsh Foundation, The Jerome L. Greene Foundation, Heising-Simons Foundation, The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, The Joyce Foundation, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, Leon Levy Foundation, The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, Metabolic Studio, Park Foundation, The Lisa and John Pritzker Family Fund, Charles H. Revson Foundation, Sandler Foundation, Select Equity Foundation, Skoll Global Threats Fund, Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, Solidarity Giving

maybe:

https://www.allsides.com/news-source/propublica

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/propublica-is-the-lefts-b...

I've come to really enjoy long-form podcast investigative reporting, as there's enough content that it's pretty obvious whether proper journalistic work has been done or not.

My favorite in that vein is 'In The Dark' by APM Reports, which was a massive eye-opener for me in terms of flaws in the justice system (especially Season 2).

I'm all for quality investigative reporting, but that is not something that 99% of journalists do.

I've been interviewed by journalists a few times and I've seen at least a half-dozen other people be interviewed. The articles published are totally disconnected from what was actually said. Heck, I've had a journalist make up a quote and attribute it to me.

Don't talk to journalists. If you must, record everything.

How would you measure good journalism? In OP’s case they could only see a given journalist was bad by personally witnessing the falsity. You don’t get many opportunities like that unfortunately.

I do think some journalism is good. Many reporters at the Financial Times come to mind for example. But I found your reply did not really address the nature of OP’s complaint.

Financial Times is considered one of the least biased papers out there. I feel the quality dropped a bit recently but in general,they are ligh years ahead compared to the usual suspects of this world.

Yeah, always my favourite to read. I really do like a lot of journalism, I just thought the comment I replied to was unfair.

A propos of nothing, here is the story of a photojournalist I just came across. Took many photos of the cultural revolution and hid them for decades: https://twitter.com/tony_zy/status/1275267759216222209

Also stopped reading any news and reports from big media about 3 years ago.

Just curious are there any independent investigation journalists that work on the patreon/subscription model? Would consider donation them rather than NYT or WSJ.

It's difficult (for values that soon reduce to impossible) to get press accreditation as an independent journalist.

There are plenty of scrappy little online micronewspapers now, usually with an evident political slant, and some of them do real investigative journalism.

But there's no chance they'll get the direct access to the political system their mainstream cousins do.

It's also incredibly easy to astroturf fake news at that level, so not all of those sites are reliable.

The point about the MSM is that they're mass media with a huge subscriber/reader base. That's what gives them their leverage.

Journalism is much less influential without that.

Exactly. The main problem is MSM with corporate money behind it. Getting things wrong is normal, getting things wrong intentionally (or recklessly) is malicious.

There are many. But they're difficult to find and get into. My favorite is http://www.noagendashow.com/.

> My favorite is http://www.noagendashow.com/.

Are they doing independent investigative journalism, though? I jumped around in the episode a bit and it just sounds like talk radio commentary/opinion that cites MSM sources.

It's more like media analysis I think. Both John and Adam take clips from main-stream/internet media and try to examine it. I think they do a very good job at that. There's a long donation segment because the show is produced by listeners. Sound effects and such started out as a joke but listeners like it, and almost everything around the show is done by the community, including the website, shownotes, and transcripts.

Adam was on Rogan in March. I recommend watching that episode.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaPKrZTUoUs

Pretty partisan tho. I couldn't listen more than 5 minutes, "No one should vote x candidate".

I don't think so, but I've been listening to them for years. They criticize all sides, but one needs to listen to a few episodes to get into it, because they do have their own style of inside-jokes/jargon that might make first-time listener feel a bit lost, but that's the case with most indie/alternative media I think.

> The main problem is MSM with corporate money behind it

Plenty of non-profit MSM, including the BBC, The Guardian, AP, and so on.

ProPublica. I have to admit I don't read enough of what they write, but I became a monthly supporter after their reporting on Intuit/TurboTax lobbying: https://www.propublica.org/article/inside-turbotax-20-year-f...

There's plenty of independent journalists on YouTube/Patreon/Alt-Tech, some more reliable than others. Hopefully, in the future, more people will start getting their news from the independent YouTube/Alt-Tech journalists who wound up migrating to those platforms after they were laid off from their mainstream media publications during the past decade of layoffs for that industry. Anyone can find a list of such YouTube/Alt-Tech channels by searching Reddit. Of course, that also means having to go through the process of weeding out the biased low quality journalists. Hard hitting debates are rather rare on YouTube, but, as a general rule, I have found that the YouTubers who are willing to debate others (and who present facts during that debate) are better sources of information than those who are unwilling to ever debate anyone.

Vice (NYT reporter involved in the overall ordeal) got a person they doxxed to be kicked off Patreon aka their livelihood for some period of time before after she (the person) retaliated against Vice — SexyCyborg. Not sure if there’s a space or not.

Matt Taibbi

https://taibbi.substack.com/

Though they are sunsetting their platform, there were a bunch of high quality newsrooms on Civil which can be supported via donations. I recommend checking out https://readsludge.com/ & https://popula.com/, for local news Block Club Chicago, FAQ NYC, Gotham Gazette, The Colorado Sun.

https://civil.co/registry/approved

That is deed my criterion as well: I support independent investigative publications only (and I read few other sources, haven't had TV for nearly two decades for instance).

I'm not sure about individual journalists, but The Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project has a donate button. If there's a journalist whose work you admire, you could check if they have Patreon. https://www.occrp.org/en

Don't know about investigative journalism, but https://thecorrespondent.com/ claim they're only supported through their reader's subscriptions.

> Disengaging based on an N=1 is not the type of individual action that improves our society.

Statistical significance is not the only epistemological tool around. I would even argue that, outside of some scientific fields, it is really not that important (and might even lead to a lot of wrong conclusions in the context that is used nowadays, but that is a different discussion altogether).

We are not some dumb statistical machine. We have an entire model of the world in our heads, and one single observation can have profound implications on it. The journalist reports to an editor, who maintains a system of job promotions, and all of this is connected to an institution that holds very real power. The OP observed this journalist manipulating the story, not in a random direction, but in their view in a direction that would appeal to the status quo. It is normal to update one's map of reality when confronted with first-person experience of an event that goes against what you've been told, and when the simplest explanation for how the world works changes in light of this direct observation.

And this is also how your mind works, and this is also how you formed your views on reality, including repeating the "N=1" cliché. None of it has anything to do with p-values.

My point is that ceasing to participate will make nothing better. Democracy requires participation, invluding engaging with whatever you see as wrong.

Quality investigative reporting is even more tricky because it's even harder to double-check

In my country, there's a supposedly quality investigative reporting outlet. I did trust them for years. Then one time they did report on something I happened to know more details from other sources. Their reporting was complete BS bending facts to come to opposite conclusions.

Months later it turned out that political party loved favoured by those journalists had an internal struggle and the dude in article above happened to be on the "wrong" side. The report was about his overseas business, not political affairs. As a bonus point, "good" side was involved in bribery scandal.

Another investigative outlet recently published a series of reports on another politician that comes from unfavourable party in among mainstream media journalists. So far all of those reports seem to have little substance and they seem to be in she-said, he-said gray area at best. I'm pretty sure the dude do have skeletons under his bed. But investigative journalists seem to just post whatever rumors they got and see what sticks. Which is not exactly helping their quality investigative reporting image.

I was going to say that we could defer to whistleblowers instead but I realized that that term has also been loosely used. That said, it’s not journalists but news organizations that shouldn’t be trusted.

Most of the reported news is N=1 events. If the news reported averages instead, it wouldn't sell

That's a problem specific to news reporting, not journalism as a whole. I consider news reporting seperate from investigative journalism. What happened is far easier to report and consume than a report on why it happened. So, a better filter against biased news reporting, better than averaging, is taking a longer view and reading more comprehensive analyses. You can spin everything, but I find the more the article tends towards a study (investigative journalism), the blatant spinners drop off exponentially. Any bias is usually clear in such texts and therefore easily accounted for.