Re: (The End of) Journalism Thread
Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2016 10:36 pm
It's the sixth version of The Swamp. What could possibly go wrong?
http://www.sportsfrog.net/phpbb/
Great example.Another issue, also a symptom of the 24 hour news networks, is the short shelf life of a story. Real journalism takes time, and most people don't care about the story by the time enough research is done to accurate tell the story. There are still a few good journalists out there, but most people won't read a longer, well written article. Most people don't read past the headline or first paragraph, so the context isn't there, just the shock value clickbait headline.
Americans are what they are and always have been. Journalists used to hold themselves to a higher standard (at least from the 1950s through the 1970s maybe?), and, in the old days when it was just newspapers and evening news, things were covered differently. That's all changed now. Journalism changed too (in fairness, maybe changed back to what it once was, reading old copies of the Memphis Commerical Appeal from the 1870s - 1940s, say, is horrifying in the bald racism). There have always been racists, obviously, but the somehow the gate-keeping function that had arisen against racists is gone again.brian wrote:The real problem isn't "journalism", it's "Americans". No more than you can force people to eat healthy can you force good journalism on them. Because if you do, then someone will come along with something less healthy and they'll eat it up.
brian wrote:The real problem isn't "journalism", it's "Americans". No more than you can force people to eat healthy can you force good journalism on them. Because if you do, then someone will come along with something less healthy and they'll eat it up.
Yeah, this a bigger part of the problem, but still doesn't absolve John Q. Media-Consumer. If people wanted better reporting they would seek it out. Instead they want clickbaity bullshit that confirms their own predispositions.A_B wrote:brian wrote:The real problem isn't "journalism", it's "Americans". No more than you can force people to eat healthy can you force good journalism on them. Because if you do, then someone will come along with something less healthy and they'll eat it up.
The problem being there are very few barriers to entry anymore to making online "journalism". When 100% of the news was coming form the newspaper, you could reasonably expect a certain level of reporting. When anyone can stab a few keys, that's out the window because even the legit outlets have to compete to be "FIRST."
Oh, absolutely.brian wrote:Yeah, this a bigger part of the problem, but still doesn't absolve John Q. Media-Consumer. If people wanted better reporting they would seek it out. Instead they want clickbaity bullshit that confirms their own predispositions.A_B wrote:brian wrote:The real problem isn't "journalism", it's "Americans". No more than you can force people to eat healthy can you force good journalism on them. Because if you do, then someone will come along with something less healthy and they'll eat it up.
The problem being there are very few barriers to entry anymore to making online "journalism". When 100% of the news was coming form the newspaper, you could reasonably expect a certain level of reporting. When anyone can stab a few keys, that's out the window because even the legit outlets have to compete to be "FIRST."
That bothers me significantly less than the stuff that is just patently false (or at best exaggerated). John Oliver is actually a great source for "real" reporting (albeit in a format meant to entertain) so if it's driving people to that then great. But each side has their own made up sites that seem like news and in reality are just propaganda at best if not outright falsehoods. Interestingly enough, Google today announced they won't be including most of those sites in their referral programs any more so it will reduce the financial incentive for a lot of them to exist. If Facebook would agree to do the same, they'd probably be in really bad shape.Shirley wrote:I'm pretty sure that there's as much good journalism as there ever was. Maybe more. It's just that there's SO MUCH other news out there competing with it. How is a thoughtful, long-form piece that covers both sides of a story supposed to compete with a zillion "John Oliver DESTROYS Trump!!" clickbait articles (and their TV equivalents)?
You know me...brian wrote:NBC News, huh? Typical libtard reporting.
You sure that isn't NTC News (Never Trump Company). That is more AB's style. Of course he is the only one reading, unless you live in Utah.A_B wrote:You know me...brian wrote:NBC News, huh? Typical libtard reporting.
This is just going to embolden the argument that the media wants to hide the truth. First, how do they determine "fake news?" Where do they draw the line? Many people use Breitbart as a primary news source, and I'm sure a lot of their content is factually accurate, but I've seen a lot of articles on there that are blatantly false. Move down the slope to something like World News Daily, which I often see cited as a source. Our old friend non-hyphen loved that site. Pretty much every article I've read on that is at best misleading, and often based on incorrect facts or a premise that flat out makes no sense or is blatantly not possible. If FB and Google faze out these sites, the readership of those sites will be convinced FB and Google are part of a Liberal conspiracy to blind the Sheeple. Then the rest of the RW sites will all join in, crying that the Left Wing media/Establishment/Jews/NWO/Globalists are preventing the truth from reaching the masses!A_B wrote:I think Facebook and Google are both trying to cut down on it:
http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/f ... ng-n684101
All they're doing is preventing people from profiting on sharing those sites. You can still read the sites if you want and share them if you wish, but people won't be getting paid for shilling insanely incorrect information.The Sybian wrote:This is just going to embolden the argument that the media wants to hide the truth. First, how do they determine "fake news?" Where do they draw the line? Many people use Breitbart as a primary news source, and I'm sure a lot of their content is factually accurate, but I've seen a lot of articles on there that are blatantly false. Move down the slope to something like World News Daily, which I often see cited as a source. Our old friend non-hyphen loved that site. Pretty much every article I've read on that is at best misleading, and often based on incorrect facts or a premise that flat out makes no sense or is blatantly not possible. If FB and Google faze out these sites, the readership of those sites will be convinced FB and Google are part of a Liberal conspiracy to blind the Sheeple. Then the rest of the RW sites will all join in, crying that the Left Wing media/Establishment/Jews/NWO/Globalists are preventing the truth from reaching the masses!A_B wrote:I think Facebook and Google are both trying to cut down on it:
http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/f ... ng-n684101
Infowars Life Silver Bullet Colloidal Silver
The Infowars Life Silver Bullet Colloidal Silver is finally here following Alex's extensive search for a powerful colloidal silver product that is both free of artificial additives and utilizes high quality processes to ensure for a truly unique product that has applications for both preparedness and regular use.
Use As Preparedness Survival Silver
Finally, we can now offer you a colloidal silver product that we recommend you add to your preparedness supply as well as your home cabinets. Concentrated to 30 ppm (parts per million) in a pure base of deionized water, this survival silver is the perfect fit for you and your family's routine and emergency supply.
And in addition to developing the Infowars Life Silver Bullet Colloidal Silver with preparedness in mind, the key elements of this product really also come down to its clean nature that is free of toxic artificial additives.
Working with one of the top colloidal silver manufacturing labs in the United States, where this colloidal silver is both created and bottled, the integral component of the Silver Bullet manufacturing process has to do with the unique protocol that forbids any form of artificial additives or animal proteins during creation.
Specifically, the Infowars Life Silver Bullet Colloidal Silver is produced using a highly unique electrical process that seeks to create a minute particle size while also focusing in on the stability of these particles -- all without the use of chemical additives that some manufacturers choose to place within their "natural" products.
Concentrated to 30 ppm, this survival silver has also been reduced to the lowest prices in a convenient dropper bottle to Infowars readers, and is exclusively sold through the Infowars Life store. Add the Infowars Life Silver Bullet Colloidal Silver to your preparedness supply or kitchen cabinet today and support the operation while looking out for your health -- because there's a war on for your body!
Note: We have made the decision to switch to blue colored bottles for this run of Silver Bullet Colloidal Silver. The formula itself has not changed.
The internet presents so much opportunity to read quality journalism from all over the world.Shirley wrote:I'm pretty sure that there's as much good journalism as there ever was. Maybe more. It's just that there's SO MUCH other news out there competing with it. How is a thoughtful, long-form piece that covers both sides of a story supposed to compete with a zillion "John Oliver DESTROYS Trump!!" clickbait articles (and their TV equivalents)?
Highly recommended (if I recall correctly from when I read it originally):Brontoburglar wrote:So I had no idea InfoWars sold "supplements"
http://www.infowarsstore.com/silver-bul ... fowars.com
I seriously have no idea what this product is. The description is... not descriptive.
Yeah, that was a bad example. I was really thinking of how HuffPo wrote one of those articles for damn near every Daily Show and Colbert episode. I assume now it's John Oliver. And those clickbait articles are only a small part of the problem. You have all of the celebrity crap. The jillion TV shows where they get two extreme ideologues to yell at each other (those are the only two possible positions, right?). Etc. Just waves upon waves of entertainment masquerading as news. It hides all of the good stuff.brian wrote:That bothers me significantly less than the stuff that is just patently false (or at best exaggerated). John Oliver is actually a great source for "real" reporting (albeit in a format meant to entertain) so if it's driving people to that then great. But each side has their own made up sites that seem like news and in reality are just propaganda at best if not outright falsehoods. Interestingly enough, Google today announced they won't be including most of those sites in their referral programs any more so it will reduce the financial incentive for a lot of them to exist. If Facebook would agree to do the same, they'd probably be in really bad shape.Shirley wrote:I'm pretty sure that there's as much good journalism as there ever was. Maybe more. It's just that there's SO MUCH other news out there competing with it. How is a thoughtful, long-form piece that covers both sides of a story supposed to compete with a zillion "John Oliver DESTROYS Trump!!" clickbait articles (and their TV equivalents)?
that was goodrass wrote:Highly recommended (if I recall correctly from when I read it originally):Brontoburglar wrote:So I had no idea InfoWars sold "supplements"
http://www.infowarsstore.com/silver-bul ... fowars.com
I seriously have no idea what this product is. The description is... not descriptive.
https://www.google.com/amp/uproxx.com/k ... -drug/amp/
I agree with Brian on this, and I also agree with Shirley that there is an awful lot of good journalism out there that people are just ignoring. More generally, I think that blaming the election results on the media goes too far in absolving American society as a whole. There's an underlying assumption there that if more people knew the truth about Trump, they would turn away in horror. But not enough consideration is being given to the possibility that voters knew exactly who he is and voted for him anyway. First the story was that once GOP voters paid more attention, they'd back Bush or Kasich. Then it was that once some candidates dropped out, they'd back Rubio. Then it was that Clinton's opposition research would doom Trump. At some point, we need to face the fact that tens of millions of Americans either agreed with Trump's bigotry, xenophobia and crudeness or were willing to condone it. That's not the picture we want to have of our society -- which makes it appealing to blame the media, or Wikileaks, or Russia -- but doesn't it seem like a very likely possibility at this point?brian wrote:Yeah, this a bigger part of the problem, but still doesn't absolve John Q. Media-Consumer. If people wanted better reporting they would seek it out. Instead they want clickbaity bullshit that confirms their own predispositions.A_B wrote:brian wrote:The real problem isn't "journalism", it's "Americans". No more than you can force people to eat healthy can you force good journalism on them. Because if you do, then someone will come along with something less healthy and they'll eat it up.
The problem being there are very few barriers to entry anymore to making online "journalism". When 100% of the news was coming form the newspaper, you could reasonably expect a certain level of reporting. When anyone can stab a few keys, that's out the window because even the legit outlets have to compete to be "FIRST."
Fair enough, but you did say that the media was "ill-equipped to deal with a threat like Trump." And I may be misinterpreting your post, but I took it to say that the media should have done more to expose him. My point is that Trump was plenty exposed, and 60 million people nonetheless voted for him. I view that as a societal failure much moreso than a media one.tennbengal wrote:For the record, I didn't blame the election on the media when I bumped this post with my thoughts.
tennbengal wrote:Bumping this thread because I have been trying to sort through just how badly journalists/the media has betrayed the country. And it isn't rooted just in the failures of the last 18 months. I think the issue for me, it seems, and it has been trending this way for at least 20 years, but probably back to the 80s, is in the rise of CNN and then the other 24 hour "news" networks (these thoughts set aside what Fox was from its birth). At some point, probably pretty quickly, news became programming. The networks needed things to happen to generate eyeballs and ratings. So life became, even before reality TV and the internet, something that was a necessary part of filling a program. Which made the politicians etc. simply players on a stage, even if that stage was real life. So journalists stopped being the type of journalists that I grew up with, for instance (with some exceptions to this day - Tiabbi among others) and simply started being, in effect, the persons behind the camera. Which left the media awfully ill-equipped to deal with a threat like Trump (and especially Trump w/ a Republican congress). Because Trump was an AWESOME character for the 24 hour news cycle/internet cycle, and drove ratings. And the coverage of HRC necessarily, from a programming standpoint, meant that she had to be cast in a certain way as well.
I am not being very clear, I think. But I am trying to work this out. Everything that happens now, good or bad (mostly bad) in the world, is covered not as a news event, but as a part of continued programming, if that makes sense. Train crashes, plane disappearances, elections, whatever it may be, the news types cover that not as if it is something real but as if it is programming. So they distance themselves and the viewer from what they are watching, in some important ways. Which makes any coming horrors, if there are to be horrors, from the Trump administration simply more tasty programming, to drive eyeballs and ratings, which in turn makes the media/journalists less likely to be what was once a line of defense. The idea of the media as a fourth estate at this point is so laughable, it is almost beyond belief that we ever thought of it that way.
So if Trump does crack down on protestors at some point (which is where my money is) and people are jailed and/or killed for protesting, a large part of the media will be delighted by that turn of events in this particular program (ratings will be through the roof). I guess I am saying the media has, on some very important level, removed themselves from that which they cover to the point that the void that is left is breathtakingly dangerous.
Ramble over, sorry if none of that made sense.
The excellent podcast "On The Media" has put out a number of "Breaking News Consumer Handbooks" that break down how media cover enets. From reporting on health scares to coups.tennbengal wrote:Everything that happens now, good or bad (mostly bad) in the world, is covered not as a news event, but as a part of continued programming, if that makes sense. Train crashes, plane disappearances, elections, whatever it may be, the news types cover that not as if it is something real but as if it is programming. So they distance themselves and the viewer from what they are watching, in some important ways. Which makes any coming horrors, if there are to be horrors, from the Trump administration simply more tasty programming, to drive eyeballs and ratings, which in turn makes the media/journalists less likely to be what was once a line of defense. The idea of the media as a fourth estate at this point is so laughable, it is almost beyond belief that we ever thought of it that way.
So if Trump does crack down on protestors at some point (which is where my money is) and people are jailed and/or killed for protesting, a large part of the media will be delighted by that turn of events in this particular program (ratings will be through the roof). I guess I am saying the media has, on some very important level, removed themselves from that which they cover to the point that the void that is left is breathtakingly dangerous.
Matt Taibbi also weighed in, pointing out that the Post had not bother to contact us, Chris Hedges of TruthDig or presumably anyone else and added:Greenwald wrote:The group commits outright defamation by slandering obviously legitimate news sites as propaganda tools of the Kremlin…That is because a big part of the group’s definition for “Russian propaganda outlet” is criticizing U.S. foreign policy. … [T]he website conflates criticism of Western governments and their actions and policies with Russian propaganda…
Even more disturbing than the Post’s shoddy journalism in this instance is the broader trend in which any wild conspiracy theory or McCarthyite attack is now permitted in U.S. discourse as long as it involves Russia and Putin…
As is so often the case, those who mostly loudly warn of “fake news” from others are themselves the most aggressive disseminators of it.
Given the rash of recent stories about “fake news,” the Post’s article looks to be part of a push to get certain sites designated as purveyors of “fake news” and to have links to them banned on Facebook and Twitter, delegitimating them and cutting their revenues.Matt wrote:This is the ultimate in stupidity and self-annihilating behavior. The power of the press comes from its independence from politicians. Jump into bed with them and you not only won’t ever be able to get out, but you’ll win nothing but a loss of real influence and the undying loathing of audiences.
Helping Beltway politicos mass-label a huge portion of dissenting media as “useful idiots” for foreign enemies in this sense is an extraordinarily self-destructive act. Maybe the Post doesn’t care and thinks it’s doing the right thing. In that case, at least do the damn work.