MSM can't be trusted

[silentkisser]

I see where you are coming from and that may play a part. But just watch the first minute or so of this clip. I think he nails it.

He is correct in this on some level. You can call in the BuzzFeed effect. Clip bait has changed things significantly for media, but its effects hit newer and less established media outlets than established ones (though they are also embracing some of these techniques). The MSM plays a bit of this game, mostly in newspapers. The big three American networks (ABC, NBC, CBS) don't really do that. Cable does. Fox News has been doing this for 20 years where they stoke outrage.

A couple of things:
Headlines. Very few reporters write a headline. It's the copy editor that does it. So, the headline can be sensationalized to catch eyeballs. This is not a new thing, it's been like this for probably 100 years or more. So, the article could be straight-forward and balanced, but the headline is designed to cause an emotional reaction and hopefully cause someone to read it. Which leads me into...

Analytics: The online world has changed the business model. Papers at one point just put stories on the web with no paywall. Then they wanted people to pay, which was difficult. But, the biggest thing in all this is they can now accurately see which stories are the most read, have the most shares, likes or comments. They can use this data to justify ad rates from Google or the other online ad companies and make a lot of cash. It also influences how papers (and TV channels) decide on what to cover. For example, if stories about Trump & Russia are getting a lot of interactions, they will dedicate more coverage to it. For the NYT, this might mean looking at other angles for this. For a far-left publication, they will devote space to spreading rumours or innuendos about what Trump did, the pee tape etc (with little to no evidence), while a right-wing publication will focus on defending Trump and trying to knock down the stories (again, with little to no evidence).

Now, as I said, most MSM outlets have changed things because of this new reality. However, they still have journalistic integrity and really try to cover all sides of the story. They are not always successful in that, or they make errors that can be embarrassing (some due to faulty info, rarely due to maleficence). But what separates them from propaganda outlets it they will acknowledge the errors and write a correction.

There are many reasons why the media is going through a lot of changes. They have competition from unlikely sources. I mean, who in their right mind would get news from Alex Jones and InfoWars....but it's happening. As Taibi said, 30 years ago everyone got the same news. Now you can get coverage on things from so many different perspectives, some which are just blatantly false or inaccurate. Having different views is important, but having alternative facts is where things get messy, and this is where the mistrust happens.

And about that distrust, it stems from right-wing news outlets. There is something called the Fox effect. Basically, it works like this. Fox makes a mountain out of a molehill on something a Democrat says. Wall to wall coverage,"experts" and commentators saying it is the biggest scandal in the world. But the MSM isn't covering it at all (because it isn't really a story). The right-wing viewer/reader sees this and instead of thinking Fox is going off the rails, they think the MSM is covering it up or ignoring a serious things.Then they start to wonder what other important stories do they bury? This causes centrist news organizations to start and cover some of these stories.

Now, what this does to the lefties, they see this and start to wonder why the MSM is giving air to something so silly and trivial. Then they start to question why the MSM seem to be so easy on the GOP for stuff they do, yet crucify Democrats for similar transgressions.

Basically, the news industry is facing challenges like never before. There are so many outlets all competing for eyeballs and attention for those sweet, sweet a dollars. And, because of this, all are sort of dumbing down their content, or stoking outrage to grab more eyeballs. I don't claim to have the answer to this, but it is something that is really destructive.

 

[silentkisser]

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.

The Facebook algorithm promotes right-wing outlets. Zuckerberg has even stepped in to help ensure right-wing pundits don't get banned or what not for saying a lot of stupid things. Just do a quick Google search and you'll see a ton of stories about this phenomena.

Zuckerberg feared Facebook's conservative users, so they received special treatment

While many publishers suffered, Ben Shapiro and other conservative outlets flourished on Facebook.

mashable.com

 

[silentkisser]

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.

There really isn't a liberal media, it's all owned by corporations who care mostly about the bottom line. There is not MSM equivalent of Fox, even as left-leaning as MSNBC might be.

 

[silentkisser]

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.



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.

I'm not arguing that MSNBC isn't leftist, but I'd argue they are not the fart catchers that Fox is. They nail Democrats when they do bad things, they don't try to spin it to make them look good. Fox does that. And Maddow doesn't act as a consultant or advisor for Biden or Obama, not like Hannity did for Trump. Tell me how that isn't a massive conflict??

I'd argue that the WSJ and NYT are fairly centrist, it's their opinion sections that have moved left and right.

 

[WyattEarp]

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

You don't know what articles and from what sources I click on. You don't know what my FB friends post.

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

Again, you don't know what I am reading. I don't search out authors. I can understand whether an author is biased from either left or right and trying to manipulate my thinking.

The ability to persuade makes for a great media commentator. The ability to manipulate not so much. The line between the two is very fine.

 

[WyattEarp]

There really isn't a liberal media, it's all owned by corporations who care mostly about the bottom line. There is not MSM equivalent of Fox, even as left-leaning as MSNBC might be.

I'm not arguing that MSNBC isn't leftist, but I'd argue they are not the fart catchers that Fox is.

I'm confused. There really isn't a liberal media, but you are not arguing that MSNBC isn't leftist?

All I can discern is that you have a bug up your ass over Fox News. You are entitled to hold that animosity.

 

[toguy5252]

I'm confused. There really isn't a liberal media, but you are not arguing that MSNBC isn't leftist?

All I can discern is that you have a bug up your ass over Fox News. You are entitled to hold that animosity.

It is undeniable than MSNBC has a liberal bias. I am not sure that anyone including MSNBC would dispute that. But if you look at the distance from center both to the left and the right there is no comparison between MSNBC and Fox. MSNBC certainly reports news that is more favorable to Biden or more critical of the other other guy but they do not simply invent "facts" and lie. Yes from time to time mistakes are made on MSNBC or CNN and they are corrected or withdrawn etc.. Fox is based more upon fiction than fact. The Fox demographic largely live in an alternative realty.

 

[Valcazar]

He is correct in this on some level. You can call in the BuzzFeed effect. Clip bait has changed things significantly for media, but its effects hit newer and less established media outlets than established ones (though they are also embracing some of these techniques). The MSM plays a bit of this game, mostly in newspapers. The big three American networks (ABC, NBC, CBS) don't really do that. Cable does. Fox News has been doing this for 20 years where they stoke outrage.

And this ties into what Butler1000 was saying above.
There are some very fucked up incentives in the news business right now, and those incentives push in favor of many of the pathologies around "opinion or analysis about news rather than the news itself".
It is extremely difficult to get real news or particularly investigative journalism funded anymore.
The move to make "objectivity" a false god in news reporting also screwed things up, because it acted as cover for all kinds of bullshit. "Fairness" was a better model, but fell to the wayside.

And about that distrust, it stems from right-wing news outlets. There is something called the Fox effect. Basically, it works like this. Fox makes a mountain out of a molehill on something a Democrat says. Wall to wall coverage,"experts" and commentators saying it is the biggest scandal in the world. But the MSM isn't covering it at all (because it isn't really a story). The right-wing viewer/reader sees this and instead of thinking Fox is going off the rails, they think the MSM is covering it up or ignoring a serious things.Then they start to wonder what other important stories do they bury? This causes centrist news organizations to start and cover some of these stories.

Now, what this does to the lefties, they see this and start to wonder why the MSM is giving air to something so silly and trivial. Then they start to question why the MSM seem to be so easy on the GOP for stuff they do, yet crucify Democrats for similar transgressions.

There was a pretty good short video on that effect a couple of years ago.
Of course, it was part of the explicit mandate of Fox news to cause that.

 

[Valcazar]

I'd argue that the WSJ and NYT are fairly centrist, it's their opinion sections that have moved left and right.

WSJ is kind of a unique case. For years, despite its editorial page being batshit right wing nutbars, the actual reporting in the WSJ was really very solid.
From what I've seen, that's drifted under more recent management though.
The NYT is catering to a very specific sort of "centrist"/"third way" crowd, which runs quite conservative but doesn't want to think it is.

The reporting in both cases has a slant but doesn't tend to run explicitly partisan too often. The Editorial pages are more likely to take a partisan position.

 

[WyattEarp]

The NYT is catering to a very specific sort of "centrist"/"third way" crowd, which runs quite conservative but doesn't want to think it is.

I'm not sure what this means exactly. From reading the NYT, listening to NYT reporters and editors in discussions, I would say they have a certain subtle elitism that they know what is best for the country. There can be open disdain for less gentrified and cosmopolitan parts of the country. I would guess many of their readers don't see that or are bothered by it.

Conservative politically? I don't think so. Conservatively socially? No again. It certainly could be some form of conservatism. A patrician view that NYC and Washington are the best places for decisions to be formulated and made perhaps?

Perhaps you don't find the NYT progressive enough. I don't know what their take is on New York Congressmen AOC. I think their younger reporters are very partisan and progressive. For me, that's the pull to the left.

 

[Valcazar]

I'm not sure what this means exactly. From reading the NYT, listening to NYT reporters and editors in discussions, I would say they have a certain subtle elitism that they know what is best for the country. There can be open disdain for less gentrified and cosmopolitan parts of the country. I would guess many of their readers don't see that or are bothered by it.

I think this is more or less correct.
There is absolutely a "New York is full of Masters of the Universe" and a strong institutional view of itself as having power to drive the agenda for the national news media (which it does have, although it is not nearly as uncontested in this power as it sometimes seems to think).

Conservative politically? I don't think so.

Very much so.
More in that particular "Centrist/Third way" view that used to call itself "fiscally conservative but socially liberal".
The "empty quadrant" of political views in the US.
It's more the "old-school don't be so vulgar about it all" conservatism, and definitely pro big-business over culture war populism.

Conservatively socially? No again. It certainly could be some form of conservatism. A patrician view that NYC and Washington are the best places for decisions to be formulated and made perhaps?

Which is a very conservative social view, but not the current form of movement conservatism.
You can think of the NYTimes's job as "finding a way to make the Conservative view and policies more palatable for the rich patrician New Yorker class that wants to pretend it isn't supporting those things really - just being practical".

Perhaps you don't find the NYT progressive enough. I don't know what their take is on New York Congressmen AOC. I think their younger reporters are very partisan and progressive. For me, that's the pull to the left.

Name a young reporter who is partisan and progressive for the NYT. I'd be curious who you think that is.
I would say the NYTimes isn't progressive at all. (Outside of a few token columnists.)

 

[silentkisser]

I'm confused. There really isn't a liberal media, but you are not arguing that MSNBC isn't leftist?

All I can discern is that you have a bug up your ass over Fox News. You are entitled to hold that animosity.

OK, I may not have done the best job of explaining that. Basically, if you are slightly left or right leaning, I still consider that centrist. MSNBC's opinion people, like Maddow, are obviously left-leaning. But, MSNBC's news team is centrist. Just like the WSJ news team is centrist (or slightly right), the opinion side is very right/conservative.

I do have an issue with Fox for numerous reasons. It spreads lies and really isn't a news organization like the other MSM. While not all channels will cover everything the others do, Fox appears to go out of their way to avoid negative coverage of Trump or the GOP. They bury damaging stories (or don't even cover them), so that their viewers are categorically less informed than viewers of virtually all other channels. There have been repeated studies showing Fox viewers know less about a story, or only know part of a story of major issues. Case in point: The invasion of Iraq. Something like 80% of Fox viewers believed the US found WMDs in Iraq, when in reality they found nothing.

 

[basketcase]

the shoe fits

View attachment 152616

Sweet. We earned a lot of Oscars for that.

 

[Frankfooter]

You don't know what articles and from what sources I click on. You don't know what my FB friends post.

What I do know is that multiple studies have reported that FB is flooded with fake news and disinformation, some of which looks quite legit.

Again, you don't know what I am reading. I don't search out authors. I can understand whether an author is biased from either left or right and trying to manipulate my thinking.

The ability to persuade makes for a great media commentator. The ability to manipulate not so much. The line between the two is very fine.

Doesn't everybody think that?'
Even while they end up with sources that support their confirmation bias?

 

[bver_hunter]

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

The right wingers have thrashed Reuters. Especially when they do some fact checking.

 

[WyattEarp]

WyattEarp said:
Again, you don't know what I am reading. I don't search out authors. I can understand whether an author is biased from either left or right and trying to manipulate my thinking.

Doesn't everybody think that? Even while they end up with sources that support their confirmation bias?

Isn't that kind of the big point some of us are making here? We all have confirmation bias to some degree and we respond positively to what we agree with. The mainstream media knows and exploits that. If people weren't drawn to media outlets that cater to their viewpoint, where would be the financial incentive for media outlets to have a biased slant.

As far as why I think I can differentiate bias left or right, no one can know for sure. As a Republican, I said here I can see quite a bit of bias in the Wall Street Journal.

Relating back to what I have said on another thread, it's not someone's ability to parrot what they heard that makes them knowledgeable. It's the ability to synthesize different information and perspectives. Here's an abstract example of biased bullshit and someone cutting through that bullshit. Russian media claims that their economy is fine. Someone got a hold of freight rates from St. Petersburg and Moscow and they have dropped significantly. Russian media is an extreme example, but if someone can think beyond what they are told they can cut through the bias.

 

[Frankfooter]

Isn't that kind of the big point some of us are making here? We all have confirmation bias to some degree and we respond positively to what we agree with. The mainstream media knows and exploits that. If people weren't drawn to media outlets that cater to their viewpoint, where would be the financial incentive for media outlets to have a biased slant.

As far as why I think I can differentiate bias left or right, no one can know for sure. As a Republican, I said here I can see quite a bit of bias in the Wall Street Journal.

Relating back to what I have said on another thread, it's not someone's ability to parrot what they heard that makes them knowledgeable. It's the ability to synthesize different information and perspectives. Here's an abstract example of biased bullshit and someone cutting through that bullshit. Russian media claims that their economy is fine. Someone got a hold of freight rates from St. Petersburg and Moscow and they have dropped significantly. Russian media is an extreme example, but if someone can think beyond what they are told they can cut through the bias.

That's a more reasonable position than the initial 'all media lie' that was the start of this thread.

And as a Canadian, I can say that we are lucky to have non-corporate or privately owned, media here.
That keeps all of our media more honest.

The debate about what is legit reporting is worthwhile if it can be divorced from dogma and partisanship.

 

[squeezer]

The right wingers have thrashed Reuters. Especially when they do some fact checking.

Of course, any media source that goes against their made up facts is an enemy of the people.

They turn on Fox when Fox tries to tell the truth and chased out some of their better hosts.

 

[Gooseifur]

The right wingers have thrashed Reuters. Especially when they do some fact checking.

Well not me. I trust them more than any other news outlet but that's not exactly a glowing endorsement

 

[bver_hunter]

Well not me. I trust them more than any other news outlet but that's not exactly a glowing endorsement

Reuters have more credibility than Fox News in the USA and The Sun and similar outlets in Canada!!