You will say what we want, when we want, and only if we want. sieg heil

all 39 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 110 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Going forward, journalists must sign a pledge not to gather any information, including unclassified reports, that hasn't been authorized for release.

Why even bother allowing journalists to come at all when they are just told what to ask/report? It's like a tv show where the crowd is fed questions to ask the host beforehand.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 43 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    First amendment is dying, when second coming to life?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago*

    It's amazing what passes for journalism these days.

    It's like this in every part of journalism. People just parrot whatever the police chief says, the tech CEO says, and the press release says. It's getting to the point now where you cannot even get an honest journalistic review of any product, and each major product launch is reported on the national news and sometimes repeated on the local news as if that's anything but just free marketing for the corporation releasing the product.

    We blurred all the lines together to the point where now the media is just a marketing and propaganda arm of whatever they are covering.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 49 points 1 year ago

    That's called censorship

  • source
  • [–] 42 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    "DoW remains committed to transparency to promote accountability and public trust," the document said. "However, DoW information must be approved for public release by an appropriate authorizing official before it is released, even if it is unclassified."

    In other related news, the sky is red, grass is purple, water is solid and the universe is only 6000 years old

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    See, that part is correct. An appropriate authority must provide the classification of a material before it's released. Everything coming out of the DoD has a release authority attached to it. Every picture of two people shaking hands is 'released' by the DoD...

    But the whole idea of a pledge before showing up to a press pool is downright silly.

    "Well, yes, Queef Hegseth, I didn't use any outside materials, the coauthors of the piece did though and my editor included it. Nothing I could do."

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 38 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Remember when Obama tried to exclude Fox from the press core and all the others in the press core said if you do we are out. We could use some of that principled reporter solidarity now.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 35 points 1 year ago

    Some might say it is an Oath of Allegiance

  • source
  • [–] 24 points 1 year ago

    Going forward, journalists must sign a pledge not to gather any information, including unclassified reports, that hasn't been authorized for release.

    hahahahaha

  • source
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago* (20 children)

    Finally NPR is showing a little backbone when it directly affects them.

    Love me some NPR but they have been sane washing orange mussolini for years.

  • source
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (14 children)

    Yeah, they're probably the best large American news reporting organization left, but they are far far far from perfect and their biggest problem is they try to normalize and sanitize everything the United States does

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (13 children)

    Well, they were partially funded by the US government and corporate sponsorships. That introduces some pro-US and pro-corporate bias.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago* (11 children)

    A lot of funding is from the fossil fuel industry (some call it National Petroleum Radio).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    I have listened to dozens of stories on climate change, pollution, etc. over the years. I mean look up "NPR fossil fuels" and you'll see pages upon pages of critical, factual reporting. I'm not sure they're beholden to the fossil fuel industry - have any more info?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    Sure they cover climate change, just like other commercial outlets -- but the coverage is extremely milquetoast ("stressed about climate change? Write a letter to the Earth!"). That is what their sponsorship dollars are buying.

    And in matters of foreign policy especially, public broadcasting has been extremely supportive of military mis-adventures in oil-rich countries. NPR lost a lot of support among totebaggers over their Iraq war coverage.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (8 children)

    It’s not the understood perspective. Its the descriptions. Their subtext is always “it’s fine, let them [insert horror action here]”

    So they’ll say “Critics say climate nearing point-of-no-return”.

    I actually remember the first time I ever heard the news refer to “an environmentalist”. Like - . . . We all live in the environment, so why single out people for . . why are they singling them out?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    NPR is highly critical of [insert atrocity here]. I doubt you can find an example where they're not.

    That's just how headlines work. "Experts say X," "Politician says Y" -- that's inoffensive.

    Environmentalist is a well-understood term with meaning. There are people who are not environmentalists. Yeah it is ridiculous that anyone isn't

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (6 children)

    Everyone was an environmentalist until they coined the term.

    They could have coined something to mean anti-environment before that but they didn’t. I wonder why.

    (Not that NPR coined it. That’s too bold for them)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    I mean, I agree that it's stupid to not be an environmentalist, but it sounds like you're criticizing NPR for correctly using the english language and adhering to journalistic practices

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

    The way they do those things is, to the point, centrist at best.

    Not once did they run a report about “enhanced interrogation” using the actual word for what it is. Not once.

    So, I left.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    Eh? https://www.npr.org/2023/03/21/1164916991/looking-back-on-shocking-revelations-u-s-forces-tortured-iraqis-at-abu-ghraib

    Im not old enough to remember any reporting at the time, but I have found NPR to be one of the best mainstream sources of news. These critiques are valid, but feel the typical leftist purity test

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    Oh in 2023? Well that’s useful.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Nice find!

    Of course NPR did not ban the word “torture”—but it did, according to ombud Alicia Shepard (6/21/09) a few months earlier, decide “to not use the term ‘torture’ to describe techniques such as waterboarding but instead [use] ‘harsh interrogation tactics,'” because “the role of a news organization is not to choose sides in this or any debate.”

    Yep. Thats it. Don’t pick a side between the fascist rapist and the progressive. No no no!

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Yeap.... I can barely listen to npr anymore. Their interviewing process is basically just a platform for fascist to make wild claims without any sort of actual pushback. At most at the end of the segment the host will make a mild rebuttal about one aspect of their interview. But most of the time it's just "well that's all the time we have".

    There's no pushback or fact checking, or even giving equal time to an opposing view. They should be hammering every inaccurate claim made by these assholes. If there isn't enough time in your programming to do so, then you shouldn't have these liars on your show to begin with.

    Journalism is dead, and it's because the whole field is a walled garden where the only people who can afford to get their foot in the door or take the unpaid internships are nepo babies and trust fund kids, and those people don't have backbones.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    And Geedubz for 8 more. And Bush the 1. And Ronnie Raygun.

    Shit, they got so thouroughly pwned after 9/11, I noped out then.

    I mean, it’s all you get in a small town, but it hasn’t been really left in forever and a day.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago

    Collect the information, pass the information to a colleague who doesn't have Pentagon press credentials, profit.

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago

    Treason is so boring now

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    Most journalists get into the profession to be investigative journalists and break open huge stories like Watergate. They don't get into the field to be secretaries and take dictation, now replacable with AI speech to text.

    If they comply to this request, they might as well quit their jobs.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    The Pledge be like:

    ::: spoiler


    (From Man In The High Castle TV Show, full clip here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=110&v=H4UHqFoB_5k ; btw you should watch the show, fits right into current events) :::

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    You will say what we want, when we want, and only if we want. sieg heil

    I'm going to choose to take this out of context.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • 10 comments in c/politics@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] [S] 19 points 1 year ago

    I'll take "What Is Journalism?" for 500, Alex

  • source
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago

    Not like it'll be held up in court LOLZ. A pledge.

    What a pack of fucking doofii.

  • source
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Any journalist that signs such a pledge should never be taken seriously again.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago

    Everyone who was supposed to protect America from a fascist takeover, they were off on a bender

  • source
  • What happens if a 'journalist' asks about the Epstiein files?

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    Freedom of the press is dead.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago*

    Don't hurt orange baby feewings.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago
    [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    I'm surprised he's not drinking bottles of Pledge.

  • source