• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

State of Journalism......Crisis or A-Okay?

Should there be 2 simple requirements if you want to bill yourself as a news agency?


  • Total voters
    14

sKiTzo

DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2012
Messages
2,573
Reaction score
495
Location
OC California
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
I don't know about you, but when I read the news I want news, not somebody's "baseless" opinion. (SEE LINK) Shouldn't the reader decide whether the claim is "baseless"? Because the journalist zealously injected "baseless" in the title, I now have to wonder if whatever Trump is basing it on has been deliberately left out. This is because Trump is no idiot and doesn't make baseless claims. You can't regulate the media, but there should be 2 VERY BASIC requirements in place that must be met in order for news outlets to be allowed to continue to bill themselves as such. Those agencies unable to comply should have to put disclaimers everywhere that say something like "some or all of what we say here may be opinion or fiction".

I understand that regulating the media is a no-no, the press must be free. BUT the press must also be truthful and unbiased. Those would be the 2 rules. DON"T LIE and don't inject your opinion. That's it. It's possible to keep your opinion out of a story 100% of the time, but we acknowledge sources aren't always correct, so there would be multiple "strikes" allowed before they are suspended, then finally revoked (after a very generous predetermined number of violations).

I just know something needs to give - I'm tired of being the unwilling recipient of propaganda disguised as "NEWS".

https://www.aol.com/article/news/20...pect-of-democrats-investigating-him/23587643/
 
Last edited:

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
16,494
Reaction score
21,694
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
There is no requirement for "honesty" when it comes to "freedom of the press."

News organizations can create their own codes of ethics, but "yellow journalism" has been a fairly standard practice in news media for about as long as it's been around.

Hence we have tabloids like the National Inquirer, biased news organizations like CNN and The New York Times, and some which are still fairly trustworthy, like the Wall Street Journal.

Remember, News Agencies seek profit via their product, and that is obtained by both advertising and sales profits based on reader/viewership. Dirt and controversy sells.

No, the best protection against "propaganda" rests with each citizen, and their use of numerous sources of information.

Just like any other act in self-defense, it is up to you to be proactive and take such measures.
 
Last edited:

Risky Thicket

Sewer Rat
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
31,370
Reaction score
32,656
Location
With Yo Mama
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I don't know about you, but when I read the news I want news, not somebody's "baseless" opinion. Shouldn't the reader decide whether the claim is "baseless"? Because the journalist zealously injected "baseless" in the title, I now have to wonder if whatever Trump is basing it on has been deliberately left out. This is because Trump is no idiot and doesn't make baseless claims. You can't regulate the media, but there should be 2 VERY BASIC requirements in place that must be met in order for news outlets to be allowed to continue to bill themselves as such. Those agencies unable to comply should have to put disclaimers everywhere that say something like "some or all of what we say here may be opinion or fiction".

I understand that regulating the media is a no-no, the press must be free. BUT the press must also be truthful and unbiased. Those would be the 2 rules. DON"T LIE and don't inject your opinion. That's it. It's possible to keep your opinion out of a story 100% of the time, but we acknowledge sources aren't always correct, so there would be multiple "strikes" allowed before they are suspended, then finally revoked (after a very generous predetermined number of violations).

I just know something needs to give - I'm tired of being the unwilling recipient of propaganda disguised as "NEWS".

https://www.aol.com/article/news/20...pect-of-democrats-investigating-him/23587643/

Your understanding of what "journalism" is is based on Trump's definition or what exactly. Documentation please.

What is your definition of "the Press"?

Please provide us several recent examples that illustrate your argument.

Must government adhere to your demands? Why? Why not?

What is your definition of propaganda? You do know, for example, that when President Trump constantly repeats "No collusion" ad infinitum that doing so is an established form of propaganda.

Are you not comfortable in determining truth for yourself or do you prefer to have it handed to you under prescribed guidelines? And finally, who precisely will be the arbiter of truth?

If you are truly interested in receiving current unbiased truth the generally acknowledged best source is the Christian Science Monitor. I'm assuming that you are already depending on the CSM as your primary news source and your are still unsatisfied.

I would sincerely hope that you are not looking toward any broadcast source for unbiased and unvarnished truth. If so please include that FCC regs that justify your expectations.
 

Hawkeye10

Buttermilk Man
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 29, 2015
Messages
45,404
Reaction score
11,744
Location
Olympia Wa
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Journalists are generally not interested in informing the citizens of what is going on, they now see themselves as brain molders ......"Let me explain the news to you so that you will hopefully think like I do" is increasingly how they describe what they are doing.

America pays a very heavy price for this failure.
 

joko104

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
64,659
Reaction score
22,741
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Private
Because of the Internet, it would seem everyone could claim to be a journalist and that almost everything they post online is "news," ie protected.
 

sKiTzo

DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2012
Messages
2,573
Reaction score
495
Location
OC California
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
There is no requirement for "honesty" when it comes to "freedom of the press."

News organizations can create their own codes of ethics, but "yellow journalism" has been a fairly standard practice in news media for about as long as it's been around.

Hence we have tabloids like the National Inquirer, biased news organizations like CNN and The New York Times, and some which are still fairly trustworthy, like the Wall Street Journal.

Remember, News Agencies seek profit via their product, and that is obtained by both advertising and sales profits based on reader/viewership. Dirt and controversy sells.

No, the best protection against "propaganda" rests with each citizen, and their use of numerous sources of information.

Just like any other act in self-defense, it is up to you to be proactive and take such measures.

Absolutely, but not everyone is as vigilant in their quest for truth. They allow themselves to be indoctrinated by the MSM and then take those mal-informed opinions to the voting booth. When CNN gets caught staging a phony protest with hired actors, you don't think they should be penalized? An official news agency broadcasting to millions of viewers staging a phony protest with hired actors should be considered a criminal act. This kind of treachery from a trusted news outlet should not be tolerated.
 

sKiTzo

DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2012
Messages
2,573
Reaction score
495
Location
OC California
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
Your understanding of what "journalism" is is based on Trump's definition or what exactly. Documentation please.

What is your definition of "the Press"?

Please provide us several recent examples that illustrate your argument.

Must government adhere to your demands? Why? Why not?

What is your definition of propaganda? You do know, for example, that when President Trump constantly repeats "No collusion" ad infinitum that doing so is an established form of propaganda.

Are you not comfortable in determining truth for yourself or do you prefer to have it handed to you under prescribed guidelines? And finally, who precisely will be the arbiter of truth?

If you are truly interested in receiving current unbiased truth the generally acknowledged best source is the Christian Science Monitor. I'm assuming that you are already depending on the CSM as your primary news source and your are still unsatisfied.

I would sincerely hope that you are not looking toward any broadcast source for unbiased and unvarnished truth. If so please include that FCC regs that justify your expectations.

If they are caught lying or complicit in a staged event, there should be some consequence. If they inject their opinion, they should have to put a disclaimer in the corner of the screen. That's all. You or I may be able to discern well enough but there are others who don't. CNN bills themselves as a trusted news source of information, so reporting on the Trump-Russia investigation endlessly without mentioning one thing about his news worthy accomplishments, is a malicious act because they are abusing their position as a trusted news source by attempting to influence opinion, politically, rather than just reporting the news.
 

PleasantValley

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2017
Messages
4,098
Reaction score
1,991
Location
Henderson, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I don't know about you, but when I read the news I want news, not somebody's "baseless" opinion. (SEE LINK) Shouldn't the reader decide whether the claim is "baseless"? Because the journalist zealously injected "baseless" in the title, I now have to wonder if whatever Trump is basing it on has been deliberately left out. This is because Trump is no idiot and doesn't make baseless claims. You can't regulate the media, but there should be 2 VERY BASIC requirements in place that must be met in order for news outlets to be allowed to continue to bill themselves as such. Those agencies unable to comply should have to put disclaimers everywhere that say something like "some or all of what we say here may be opinion or fiction".

I understand that regulating the media is a no-no, the press must be free. BUT the press must also be truthful and unbiased. Those would be the 2 rules. DON"T LIE and don't inject your opinion. That's it. It's possible to keep your opinion out of a story 100% of the time, but we acknowledge sources aren't always correct, so there would be multiple "strikes" allowed before they are suspended, then finally revoked (after a very generous predetermined number of violations).

I just know something needs to give - I'm tired of being the unwilling recipient of propaganda disguised as "NEWS".

https://www.aol.com/article/news/20...pect-of-democrats-investigating-him/23587643/

We went through all this once or twice before in our history.
Tabloid style newspapers were everywhere saying whatever they wanted.
That is where we got the term..." All the news that's fit to print ", because sensationalism and outright lies were everywhere and the general population could not tell the difference between what was fact or made up.
There was a certain portion of the population that thought if it was in writing, then it MUST be true.
The same now, but if it is in front of a TV camera, as per your example.
A certain portion of the population will believe anything.


Fast forward to 2018 and we are right back there again.

Reuters and AP news feeds are available to the general public now.
They just basically say what happened and stop.
I also found it necessary to look at French, German, British, and Russian (yeah, Russian) news sources for comparison.

So, the short answers is, NO. There is no one place you can go to find any open and honest news stories without some SPIN put on them.

I can share with you some indicators so you can get an idea what is BS and propaganda and what is a truthful story.

1. Excessive use of negative adjectives.
2. Raw Emotionalism
3. Suffering children.
4. Only one side being told.

Some stories are very easy to cast aside as propaganda using these indicators.

These same indicators can be used to filter out posts on here too.
The record is 21 negative adjectives used in only two short paragraphs. While OP threads generally are one-sided, it is points 1, 2, and 3 that are the best indicators here.

Enjoy,
PV
 
Last edited:

PleasantValley

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2017
Messages
4,098
Reaction score
1,991
Location
Henderson, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Because of the Internet, it would seem everyone could claim to be a journalist and that almost everything they post online is "news," ie protected.

NEWS FLASH: joko104 makes a post. Number 5 will shock you !!!

You mean like this, my friend...:cool:
 

Tom Horn

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 22, 2018
Messages
1,854
Reaction score
207
Location
TEXAS
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Journalists are generally not interested in informing the citizens of what is going on, they now see themselves as brain molders ......"Let me explain the news to you so that you will hopefully think like I do" is increasingly how they describe what they are doing.

America pays a very heavy price for this failure.
thinking outside the box is a lost concept.
 

Hawkeye10

Buttermilk Man
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 29, 2015
Messages
45,404
Reaction score
11,744
Location
Olympia Wa
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
thinking outside the box is a lost concept.

Well ya, but actually any sort of thinking is increasingly depressingly rare.... what so many do is regurgitate the dogma that has been pounded into their heads from birth, primarily but not only in the so-called education system....to include the University......to include the Ivys.
 

Tom Horn

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 22, 2018
Messages
1,854
Reaction score
207
Location
TEXAS
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Well ya, but actually any sort of thinking is increasingly depressingly rare.... what so many do is regurgitate the dogma that has been pounded into their heads from birth, primarily but not only in the so-called education system....to include the University......to include the Ivys.

There are problem solvers, then there is everyone else. Unfortunately I see very few democrat conservatives on this site.
 

sKiTzo

DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2012
Messages
2,573
Reaction score
495
Location
OC California
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
Journalists are generally not interested in informing the citizens of what is going on, they now see themselves as brain molders ......"Let me explain the news to you so that you will hopefully think like I do" is increasingly how they describe what they are doing.

America pays a very heavy price for this failure.

Thank you, that is exactly my point. The magnitude of the problem is so underestimated when you consider the msm is being used to divide the people.
 

Hawkeye10

Buttermilk Man
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 29, 2015
Messages
45,404
Reaction score
11,744
Location
Olympia Wa
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Thank you, that is exactly my point. The magnitude of the problem is so underestimated when you consider the msm is being used to divide the people.

Americans are so ignorant generally that they imagine that we have plenty of leeway to continue to screw around and not get the work done as we have been doing for a very long time.

Wake up time is coming.

So are the Chinese.
 

Dutch Uncle

Militantly Moderate
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 7, 2012
Messages
10,766
Reaction score
3,115
Location
North Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I don't know about you, but when I read the news I want news, not somebody's "baseless" opinion. (SEE LINK) Shouldn't the reader decide whether the claim is "baseless"? Because the journalist zealously injected "baseless" in the title, I now have to wonder if whatever Trump is basing it on has been deliberately left out. This is because Trump is no idiot and doesn't make baseless claims. You can't regulate the media, but there should be 2 VERY BASIC requirements in place that must be met in order for news outlets to be allowed to continue to bill themselves as such. Those agencies unable to comply should have to put disclaimers everywhere that say something like "some or all of what we say here may be opinion or fiction".

I understand that regulating the media is a no-no, the press must be free. BUT the press must also be truthful and unbiased. Those would be the 2 rules. DON"T LIE and don't inject your opinion. That's it. It's possible to keep your opinion out of a story 100% of the time, but we acknowledge sources aren't always correct, so there would be multiple "strikes" allowed before they are suspended, then finally revoked (after a very generous predetermined number of violations).

I just know something needs to give - I'm tired of being the unwilling recipient of propaganda disguised as "NEWS".

https://www.aol.com/article/news/20...pect-of-democrats-investigating-him/23587643/

So, do you also want to empower the Feds to put restrictions on other First Amendment or Constitutional rights?
 

Dutch Uncle

Militantly Moderate
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 7, 2012
Messages
10,766
Reaction score
3,115
Location
North Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
thinking outside the box is a lost concept.

It's still there. The Internet changed things by giving stupid people a voice. Without the Internet, stupid people could rant all they liked in their local bar, but didn't have the assets to publish books, influence newspapers or get on TV. Now everyone with a smartphone can log in and scream as loudly as the NYT or WSJ. What's being lost is the smart voices in the loud din of stupid voices. Thinking outside the box still exists, but it's being drowned out by the white noise of stupid people.

Stupid people being defined as those on the backside of the IQ bell curve:
bell-curve.png
 

sKiTzo

DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2012
Messages
2,573
Reaction score
495
Location
OC California
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
We went through all this once or twice before in our history.
Tabloid style newspapers were everywhere saying whatever they wanted.
That is where we got the term..." All the news that's fit to print ", because sensationalism and outright lies were everywhere and the general population could not tell the difference between what was fact or made up.
There was a certain portion of the population that thought if it was in writing, then it MUST be true.
The same now, but if it is in front of a TV camera, as per your example.
A certain portion of the population will believe anything.


Fast forward to 2018 and we are right back there again.

Reuters and AP news feeds are available to the general public now.
They just basically say what happened and stop.
I also found it necessary to look at French, German, British, and Russian (yeah, Russian) news sources for comparison.

So, the short answers is, NO. There is no one place you can go to find any open and honest news stories without some SPIN put on them.

I can share with you some indicators so you can get an idea what is BS and propaganda and what is a truthful story.

1. Excessive use of negative adjectives.
2. Raw Emotionalism
3. Suffering children.
4. Only one side being told.

Some stories are very easy to cast aside as propaganda using these indicators.

These same indicators can be used to filter out posts on here too.
The record is 21 negative adjectives used in only two short paragraphs. While OP threads generally are one-sided, it is points 1, 2, and 3 that are the best indicators here.

Enjoy,
PV

Believe me, I know the indicators all too well. Click on the link below for an insane example of what I'm talking about. This is the media engaging in what I consider to be no less than election meddling. It's disgusting and unbelievable that there are no consequences for such deliberately irresponsible, dishonest, and deceptive broadcasting of the "news"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_uvhsvPdEo
 

TheParser

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2018
Messages
8,015
Reaction score
3,110
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
This kind of treachery from a trusted news outlet should not be tolerated.

The good news is that CNN is no longer a "trusted" news outlet.

Many people (including me) never watch it anymore.

President Trump is right: When he's gone, CNN will sorely miss him. CNN will not dare badmouth a Democrat. Thus, its ratings will continue to slide until (hopefully) it closes its doors.
 

Rickeroo

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 16, 2017
Messages
2,584
Reaction score
662
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I don't know about you, but when I read the news I want news, not somebody's "baseless" opinion. (SEE LINK) Shouldn't the reader decide whether the claim is "baseless"? Because the journalist zealously injected "baseless" in the title, I now have to wonder if whatever Trump is basing it on has been deliberately left out. This is because Trump is no idiot and doesn't make baseless claims. You can't regulate the media, but there should be 2 VERY BASIC requirements in place that must be met in order for news outlets to be allowed to continue to bill themselves as such. Those agencies unable to comply should have to put disclaimers everywhere that say something like "some or all of what we say here may be opinion or fiction".

I understand that regulating the media is a no-no, the press must be free. BUT the press must also be truthful and unbiased. Those would be the 2 rules. DON"T LIE and don't inject your opinion. That's it. It's possible to keep your opinion out of a story 100% of the time, but we acknowledge sources aren't always correct, so there would be multiple "strikes" allowed before they are suspended, then finally revoked (after a very generous predetermined number of violations).

I just know something needs to give - I'm tired of being the unwilling recipient of propaganda disguised as "NEWS".

https://www.aol.com/article/news/20...pect-of-democrats-investigating-him/23587643/

I think we need regulation of the term "news". We have no issue with the government defining exactly what Caciocavallo siciliano cheese is:

https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?fr=133.111

Unfortunately I don't think we'll see such a definition. After each word that a "reporter" utters, in the back of our minds we all ask, "Which political party is this supposed to benefit?".
 

Tom Horn

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 22, 2018
Messages
1,854
Reaction score
207
Location
TEXAS
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
It's still there. The Internet changed things by giving stupid people a voice. Without the Internet, stupid people could rant all they liked in their local bar, but didn't have the assets to publish books, influence newspapers or get on TV. Now everyone with a smartphone can log in and scream as loudly as the NYT or WSJ. What's being lost is the smart voices in the loud din of stupid voices. Thinking outside the box still exists, but it's being drowned out by the white noise of stupid people.

Stupid people being defined as those on the backside of the IQ bell curve:
bell-curve.png
i read your blurb all the way till your inclusion of the WSJ with a common rag. Sorry. I won’t make that mistake anymore. ( I know better. I used to not only deliver papers from my bike, but read them too. )
 

Dutch Uncle

Militantly Moderate
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 7, 2012
Messages
10,766
Reaction score
3,115
Location
North Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
i read your blurb all the way till your inclusion of the WSJ with a common rag. Sorry. I won’t make that mistake anymore. ( I know better. I used to not only deliver papers from my bike, but read them too. )

Translation: I disagree because you listed the NYT.

Thanks for confirming exactly what I was writing about. :)
 

Dragonfly

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
24,595
Reaction score
13,691
Location
East Coast - USA
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
The good news is that CNN is no longer a "trusted" news outlet.

Many people (including me) never watch it anymore.

President Trump is right: When he's gone, CNN will sorely miss him. CNN will not dare badmouth a Democrat. Thus, its ratings will continue to slide until (hopefully) it closes its doors.

Just out of curiosity, would you please make a short list (three to five places would be great) of "trusted" news outlet?
 

sKiTzo

DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2012
Messages
2,573
Reaction score
495
Location
OC California
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
Just out of curiosity, would you please make a short list (three to five places would be great) of "trusted" news outlet?

You realize that when we say that we are excluding those who know better and are on board. "Trusted" by the masses who still think everything's legit are just your biggest networks like CNN, MSNBC, etc. Basically, the ones you don't have to go out of your way to seek out. I'm really glad to find that people here on DP are well aware of the problem and they even realize this is no small issue. I think that a biased media spewing out propaganda day in and day out is the BIGGEST problem we have right now. Bigger than any war being fought. Those who control the media are hell bent on taking America down so they can usher in their "NWO". The MSM is their No. 1 tool of deception extremely critical to their operation. Without it, they wouldn't be able to pull off the sht that they do.

I was saying that if too many people still listen to them, it needs to be addressed in some way. But, thankfully it looks like Americans have woken up, having seen enough of the msm, having given them plenty of rope to hang themselves, and now tune them out. Or like me, watch them for entertainment. They are good for one thing - and that is to see what it is that the enemy needs the people to believe, or what fabricated info they are "pushing"at that given time that will justify their next move.
 

Dutch Uncle

Militantly Moderate
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 7, 2012
Messages
10,766
Reaction score
3,115
Location
North Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
You realize that when we say that we are excluding those who know better and are on board. "Trusted" by the masses who still think everything's legit are just your biggest networks like CNN, MSNBC, etc. Basically, the ones you don't have to go out of your way to seek out. I'm really glad to find that people here on DP are well aware of the problem and they even realize this is no small issue. I think that a biased media spewing out propaganda day in and day out is the BIGGEST problem we have right now. Bigger than any war being fought. Those who control the media are hell bent on taking America down so they can usher in their "NWO". The MSM is their No. 1 tool of deception extremely critical to their operation. Without it, they wouldn't be able to pull off the sht that they do.

I was saying that if too many people still listen to them, it needs to be addressed in some way. But, thankfully it looks like Americans have woken up, having seen enough of the msm, having given them plenty of rope to hang themselves, and now tune them out. Or like me, watch them for entertainment. They are good for one thing - and that is to see what it is that the enemy needs the people to believe, or what fabricated info they are "pushing"at that given time that will justify their next move.
who is 'we"?
 
Top Bottom