fwiw, I think there is a whole contingent of Media People online who will defend other Media People because they see their own career aspirations in jeopardy if the consensus becomes “working for the New York Times raises ethical questions”

there certainly is a helluva lot wrong with those in prominent positions. The insistence on being umpires instead of being journalists, the framing of narratives instead of providing context are just a couple of the largest issues. The defense of propaganda outfits as being their peers is telling.

what would an independent guild of reporters, that functions similar to a company but would be democratic and horizontally structured, look like? would it include peer review instead of review by editors (who can control what you write about and what you say)? would this require dedicated new tech?

I saw the same thing when I criticized Taylor Lorenz’s interview of Chaya; the people leaping to her defense were, by and large, other people in media, the people agreeing it was harmful worked outside of it

Did notice this while blocking some of the worst offenders earlier, lots of bio mentions of writer/journalist/freelance reporter etc