'Journalists are not supposed to be liked'
tarahenley.substack.com
Jan 11 • 28M
'Journalists are not supposed to be liked'
A conversation on the media with Rupa Subramanya, staff writer at The Free Press
Appears in this episode
Tara Henley
Conversations with heterodox authors and journalists from around the world, asking the questions that are not being asked.
Episode details
3 comments
In recent weeks on the Lean Out podcast, we’ve been doing a deep dive into the rise of independent journalism, and looking at some of the big stories that independent journalists broke this past year.
My guest on today’s program, taped in December, saw several of her own pieces draw international attention in 2022 — including her reporting on the trucker convoy crisis in Ottawa, and, as we’ll discuss today, her reporting around Canada’s controversial Medical Assistance in Dying program, also known as MAID.
Rupa Subramanya is a staff writer at The Free Press, and a columnist at the National Post. Rupa Subramanya returns to the show, today on Lean Out.
Transcript to come for paid subscribers.
'Journalists are not supposed to be liked'
This is a ubiquitous point. Craving or pursuing being liked is an indication of psychological dysfunction and/or weak moral character. Truly moral, self-confident and whole people don’t focus on being liked, but for them being liked is likely a common secondary outcome.
The problem today is the pursuit of likes trumps morality. Little shits will mob destroy good people just to feel the acceptance of the mob. It is borderline evil.
The central issue/principle regarding MAID is, "Who decides?" It is not, "Does the desired outcome meets MY moral compass?" (The mother 'saved the life' of her son... while removing the autonomy of her adult son without a hint of criticism or questioning of her 'right' to do so.)
The same is true for free speech. Who decides... not, does what's being expressed meet MY ethical compass. (Twitter, Paypal, etc.)
The same is true for the approach of legacy media: it has gone from having reliable sources of good information to providing 'approved' narrative messaging. (CBC, especially for Canadian subscribers, but also entire print and radio/television networks)
In all cases, when the issue of debate ignores the principle at stake - or whether it is at risk - and substitutes the desirability of an approval result, the debate has already missed the mark.
I fear that growing independent media that uses Substack is beginning to go off the rails in exactly the same way, from providing good information/good journalism of asking insightful questions to allow the public/readership to evaluate whether or not an important principle is being supported or undermined by this entity or that (usually with an agenda) to a gradual shift towards pleasing the 'captured/targeted' audience. Content can be geared this way, of course, but the actual questioning is moving away from the journalistic quest and more towards providing comfort and compliments of the guest. Maybe I'm rare, but that's NOT why I subscribe.