MSM can't be trusted

[WyattEarp]

Considering that Facebook overly promotes content from right-wing media sources should be the answer you're looking for....Maybe they course corrected a bit and banned the most egregious examples of people who lie and spread disinformation, but Daily Caller and other right-wing stuff is heavily promoted by the algorithm.

Facebook overly promotes from right-wing media sources??? Huh?

Perhaps at their worst, Facebook is politically agnostic and will take money from any sources. However when they had the chance to join the crowd in shutting down information on Hunter's laptop, they chose a team.

 

[WyattEarp]

Very true and mostly because you can't get to the really well paying gigs in journalism without the audience, therefore offending them is, these days, a career suicide. The viewing audience that actually cares about the news is extremely divided and likes their party lines. There are still a few decent guys out there like Bob Fife in Canada or Stossel and Greenwald in US, but they're few and far between. The rest go for the easy common denominator coverage and, even then, in support of the commentary side because that's where the real money is made.

 

[WyattEarp]

LOL - You think Fife, Stossel and Greenwald are not partisan???

I don't know Fife, but I could not tell you for certain that Stossel and Greenwald voted for Republicans across the board. That last observation seems to frost many Liberal's asses. Why won't Stossel and Greenwald play the liberal media game?

Cynically, I am willing to consider that they see a nitch in the media industry melee where they can stand out from all the liberal voices. Or perhaps they found a nitch just being themselves.

 

[Frankfooter]

Frank, do you remember not too long ago when I caught you in a spin? A previous thread was discussing media misinformation. And in regards to reporting facts, you in effect said the CBC was reported what their audience expects.

You didn't say they were objective and unbiased. You didn't say they reported facts. You said the CBC reported what matched the mainstream CBC audience's perspectives.

It's not a big deal, but it inadvertently admitted bias to correspond with the audience's bias. Most of the media reports only what they think will match the sensibilities if their audience.

CBC's audience = Canada

There are two points here.
1) journalism - the actual reporting is solid, not biased and trustworthy. CBC still has some money to do investigative work and they do it. And they do report on all parties.
2) commentary - there is some commentary as well as implied commentary in what stories make the front page. This reflects the views of Canadians in general.

Those two things aren't exclusionary, you can do both.
Which gets you solid and trustworthy reporting that reflects the views of Canadians so doesn't come across as politically biased.

 

[Frankfooter]

I think whataboutism is overused, but you need to accept that today's media is horseshit.

No you don't.

That way leads to fascism.
You fight for accurate reporting, without that governments and businesses can fleece you.

 

[WyattEarp]

CBC's audience = Canada

There are two points here.
1) journalism - the actual reporting is solid, not biased and trustworthy. CBC still has some money to do investigative work and they do it. And they do report on all parties.
2) commentary - there is some commentary as well as implied commentary in what stories make the front page. This reflects the views of Canadians in general.

Those two things aren't exclusionary, you can do both.
Which gets you solid and trustworthy reporting that reflects the views of Canadians so doesn't come across as politically biased.

You actually are doubling down on this idea that the CBC reflects the views of Canadians in general so they're good and decent. Don't you get it? They can't be objective if they simply reflect their audience's perspective. That's like 80-90% of the theme in this thread. Media outlets are competing to gain and hold an audience at all costs.

No offense. I don't give a shit what the average Canadian thinks about things. I don't even give a shit what the average American thinks about things. I really just want unadulterated information and reporting that doesn't digest the current events and news for me.

All you are really saying (again) is that you like the shit the CBC serves up. Three out of five Canadians prefer this shit so you know it's good.

 

[Valcazar]

Publications like USA Today do not "find" that their journalist cheated/lied. Publications like Breitbart "find" it for them.

Interesting theory.
So your argument is that USA today didn't get a complaint from someone she falsely attributed a quote to and do their own investigation, but rather were called out by Brietbart?

I was listening to The Joe Rogan Podcast a little while ago and he had Matt Taibbi on. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Taibbi

What was discussed is that most journalism today is take journalism not dig journalism.

Meaning they're not searching for the truth and where the story leads them. They made up their mind ahead of time and set out to argue that hypothesis.

Taibbi would be able to comment on that - he is all about doing take journalism these days and has been for years.
He stopped pretending to doing "dig" journalism years ago.

You are a much better man than I… you at least pretend he cares about factual journalism. He doesn’t.

This isn’t about who can be trusted…. It’s just a “gotcha” post. Anything to sew discord against actual news organizations that investigate and print the fuckery going on in politics… and these days those scales are tilted heavily to the right. The GOP are rigging elections, all while claiming the Democrats are rigging elections. It’s a master class in how to steal democracy.

Yes, I know.
But sometimes pretending people care about what they claim to care about is effective.

 

[WyattEarp]

No you don't.

That way leads to fascism.
You fight for accurate reporting, without that governments and businesses can fleece you.

I actually agree with you. However, the internet has a lot of objective (or slightly biased) news sources that can be synthesized. The fault of the audience is getting enraptured with a few biased commentators or network(s).

This is what is so different than 1930s Europe. The multitude of media voices is a blessing.

So let me clarify, mainstream media right or left is horseshit.

 

[Frankfooter]

You actually are doubling down on this idea that the CBC reflects the views of Canadians in general so they're good and decent. Don't you get it? They can't be objective if they simply reflect their audience's perspective. That's like 80-90% of the theme in this thread. Media outlets are competing to gain and hold an audience at all costs.

No offense. I don't give a shit what the average Canadian thinks about things. I don't even give a shit what the average American thinks about things. I really just want unadulterated information and reporting that doesn't digest the current events and news for me.

All you are really saying (again) is that you like the shit the CBC serves up. Three out of five Canadians prefer this shit so you know it's good.

Are you going to claim that there is such a thing as totally unbiased reporting?
How does that work?
Can you give one example of unbiased media?
How do they decide which stories are on the front page?

As for unadulterated information, CBC news stories are what you're looking for.
This is the top story tonight, explain how you think its inaccurate or biased.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/blair-lucki-nova-scotia-shooting-gun-control-1.6496511

 

[Frankfooter]

I actually agree with you. However, the internet has a lot of objective (or slightly biased) news sources that can be synthesized.

List them, I'm curious what you think is objective news sources.

 

[WyattEarp]

List them, I'm curious what you think is objective news sources.

I said slightly biased as well. A lot of news pops up on my Facebook and Google threads. I am a curious person so I read a lot of it if it interests me. As I said on another thread, I can determine if an author is trying to manipulate me with bullshit or is allowing me to think for myself.

Sorry bud, but the multitude of articles (and I do mean multitude) you post here are generally biased spins that pass for information. I personally find many of them distressing because they insult the average person's intelligence.

If you must have an answer, I would say the L.A. Times, Chicago Tribune and a few other American newspapers outside NYC/Washington strive to present diverse perspectives. Again, it's not just the outlet. It's also the author.

 

[toguy5252]

You're upset they caught this guy in an audit of their own work and forced him to resign?

LOL. much better to double down on a mistake or even a lie if you are the only twice impeached POTUS in history. Never admit error.

To a sentient being this world actually be a reason that the MSM should be trusted. They investigate and call out and retract or correct errors.

 

[WyattEarp]

Not what I'm saying at all. But there is a difference between a news organization that tries to be centrist and one that is a propaganda arm of the GOP. As left-leaning as MSNBC might be, it is not the equivalent of Fox.

My bias detector went off. Did you not watch Rachel Maddow's elaborate Trump-Russian conspiracy theories? They were quite the yarns. She made Adam Schiff look like a nonpartisan, moderate searching for the truth.

Now is Rachel worse than the Fox prime time team? No, not really. I think what differentiates Fox is the news folks in the afternoon. Some are center-right and others good luck determining their politics. In my opinion, MSNBC and CNN generally employ news lackeys all day long that will spin the management message like nobody's business. That message will sound a lot like the daily messaging from Jen Psaki and the DNC. Please forgive this graphic analogy, but watching Nicolle Wallace is like watching a chick spit out someone else's cum before she's about to blow you.

I'm not forgetting the Fox prime time team is in bed with and blowing the RNC. What I am saying is that some time after noon, Fox news anchors can be fairly informative without messaging. I think it's a deliberate strategy to differentiate news from commentary.

The Wall Street Journal is a great example of a centrist paper, as is the New York Times. You can tell if a media outlet is centrist when both the left and the right are angry at them from time to time.

No, the Wall Street Journal is not a centrist paper. They abandoned that position several years ago for a more clearly Republican tone. The WSJ is pro-Trump, anti-stolen election conspiracy which is quite the balancing act. Let's just say the WSJ might rally around a DeSantis who is Trump without the hyperbole.

The New York Times was always a left-leaning paper and moved further left in the recent years. Both the NYT and WSJ will publish other opinions and that is to be commended. However, they are not centrist papers. I think their editorials will support that view.

 

[WyattEarp]

LOL. much better to double down on a mistake or even a lie if you are the only twice impeached POTUS in history. Never admit error.

Thanks for staying on topic.

 

[toguy5252]

Thanks for staying on topic.

You mean the topic isn't the trustworthiness of the MSM?

 

[WyattEarp]

You mean the topic isn't the trustworthiness of the MSM?

Thank you......very much?

 

[Butler1000]

The problem with bias in the MSM isn't that they have it, they always have. The problem is they won't admit it and have allowed what was once declared by editorial boards and individual newscasters as opinion to become the de facto print and news.

In many cases, especially on the cable news networks the opinions are now the news. The opinion makers the focus and not facts presented in an unbiased way. If, they just clearly presented the opinion as opinion, after presenting straight facts, people would have a lot more respect for them.

But to say clear party cheerleading, especially in the USA, isn't happening, is ridiculous.

40 years ago the networks ran the news divisions without regard for profit. It was considered a public service. They didn't care if they lost advertisers if say a drug company had a scandal, or a military contracter was gouging. Now they do, thats why so many advertise on them. They control what goes on the air. Corporate scandals, lawsuits, and malfeasance is no longer reported. Its all culture war now. With overpaid talking heads pushing what gets out.

And the real danger isn't just what goes on the air, it's what doesn't.

 

[Gooseifur]

So who do you trust? Name your sources!!

That's the problem. I don't trust any media outlet. I find Reuters the most credible.

 

[Frankfooter]

I said slightly biased as well. A lot of news pops up on my Facebook and Google threads. I am a curious person so I read a lot of it if it interests me. As I said on another thread, I can determine if an author is trying to manipulate me with bullshit or is allowing me to think for myself.

FB is the least trustworthy source with multiple studies showing that articles posted there are nonsense.

If you must have an answer, I would say the L.A. Times, Chicago Tribune and a few other American newspapers outside NYC/Washington strive to present diverse perspectives. Again, it's not just the outlet. It's also the author.

If its the author, you're looking for commentary that you agree with.
Not factual reporting.

 

[Frankfooter]

That's the problem. I don't trust any media outlet. I find Reuters the most credible.

CBC is at least as trustworthy.