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

[TheParser]

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

Sadly, there are none.

Because I am very old, I still subscribe to the Los Angeles Times because I feel somehow incomplete if I do not touch a printed newspaper every morning.

But I am really wasting my money.


I almost never read any articles, for everything is reported in politically correct terms. Even the headlines are mini-editorials.


After checking the cartoons, it goes straight into the wastepaper basket.


Of course, I almost never read the editorials, for they are always about how horrible President Trump is and how angelic are certain groups that are supposedly being treated so badly.

There are no more genuine journalists left in the United States.

 

[enderpotato00]

Sadly, there are none.

Because I am very old, I still subscribe to the Los Angeles Times because I feel somehow incomplete if I do not touch a printed newspaper every morning.

But I am really wasting my money.


I almost never read any articles, for everything is reported in politically correct terms. Even the headlines are mini-editorials.


After checking the cartoons, it goes straight into the wastepaper basket.


Of course, I almost never read the editorials, for they are always about how horrible President Trump is and how angelic are certain groups that are supposedly being treated so badly.

There are no more genuine journalists left in the United States.

I agree. I don't see any genuine news or journalism anymore. Its all "right-left" narrative.

 

[Divine_Wind]

I agree. I don't see any genuine news or journalism anymore. Its all "right-left" narrative.

"Newz' has always thrived on "If it bleeds, it leads". Sex, violence and controversy are big sellers. The media didn't start the "right-left" extremism but it certainly feeds off of it.

Example: It's not the "media's" fault Trump tweets his thoughts every time he takes his morning dump, but they certainly use that factual event for profit.

 

[upsideguy]

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/

Is this Business Insider article via AoL your idea of a "baseless" opinion? The article essentially blasts Trump for his baseless opinion as its completely contrary to prevailing analyst opinion. Analysts, as you know, are the experts in what makes the markets behave the way they do. Trump has no expertise in the markets; analysts do. They are the "base"; it is Trump that is baseless. The article herein was well sourced and linked, including a link to a Goldman analysts (an expert) opinion of what is driving the market.

If this is your example....well, the best I can say is that it is a ridiculously poor one.

Frankly, I would like to see Trump start disclosing the sources of his "facts". I'm sure it would be more than astonishing, though not surprising, to most thinking folk.

 

[upsideguy]

I agree. I don't see any genuine news or journalism anymore. Its all "right-left" narrative.

Read the Economist. They have no axe to grind on American politics.

 

[chuckiechan]

I will say “yes” but i dont know how to accomplish it. We almost need a fairness doctrine like we did with radio in the day.

If there is any case to be made about “fake news” it that they are so partisan, they all are suspect. They all bleat and beat with no facts, only to hide behind the opinon label since their only jobs now are to monituze the news.

The best way IMO is to break up the “news organization” whos views are standardized “from above” and reach national markets. The news market is effectively closed to new entrants, so our “opinion feed” is owned buy faceless bean counters.

They selling views to sell ads. That is the sum total of their existance. Ad revenue is what puts fat on the hog. The news is what comes out.

 

[sKiTzo]

who is 'we"?

Myself and others who are hyper-intelligent and therefore well-versed in the ways and over-used methods of the enemy.

 

[sKiTzo]

Sadly, there are none.

Because I am very old, I still subscribe to the Los Angeles Times because I feel somehow incomplete if I do not touch a printed newspaper every morning.

But I am really wasting my money.


I almost never read any articles, for everything is reported in politically correct terms. Even the headlines are mini-editorials.


After checking the cartoons, it goes straight into the wastepaper basket.


Of course, I almost never read the editorials, for they are always about how horrible President Trump is and how angelic are certain groups that are supposedly being treated so badly.

There are no more genuine journalists left in the United States.

Very well put and a testimony that people have opened their eyes and don't like what they see. Why can't they just report the news as it happens? Why can't they report the good things Trump does as well as the bad things? It's because the media works for its owners, not the American people, and its owners have a political agenda. Because of this, we are not getting "the news". We are getting propaganda.

I remember when statistics that reflected Trump's performance thus far were released - and they were record-breaking across the board. The media completely ignored it and continued their 24-7 coverage of the Russian "collusion". Even if you don't like Trump, that should bother you

 

[sKiTzo]

Is this Business Insider article via AoL your idea of a "baseless" opinion? The article essentially blasts Trump for his baseless opinion as its completely contrary to prevailing analyst opinion. Analysts, as you know, are the experts in what makes the markets behave the way they do. Trump has no expertise in the markets; analysts do. They are the "base"; it is Trump that is baseless. The article herein was well sourced and linked, including a link to a Goldman analysts (an expert) opinion of what is driving the market.

If this is your example....well, the best I can say is that it is a ridiculously poor one.

Frankly, I would like to see Trump start disclosing the sources of his "facts". I'm sure it would be more than astonishing, though not surprising, to most thinking folk.

My valid point just flew right past you. The news should be news, not news together with a statement about how I'm supposed to feel about it. The latter is an attempt to manipulate your thoughts and opinion. That's okay with you? They are supposed to provide the factual content only, then I can determine myself whether it's "baseless" or not. Until that happens we have a major, major, problem. Trump recognizes the problem of what could happen if the media in any given country is replaced by a propaganda machine (as is the case now). It doesn't end well for you or I.

 

[Divine_Wind]

Myself and others who are hyper-intelligent and therefore well-versed in the ways and over-used methods of the enemy.

Oh! Those guys! Seems like I remember you a few years ago seeking to attack the enemy on the Cleveland bridge.

 

[TheParser]

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

Hear! Hear!

We need the First Amendment to be expanded. Tech companies, for example, should not be able to remove controversial websites from the Web.

Regarding fake news, people are powerful. Just as they can break a business by not patronizing it, they can break any fake news entity by not visiting that website or buying that print publication or watching that TV show.

Some people (like me), for example, NEVER watch CNN or MSNBC and never read the New York Times. If more people would join us, those entities would quickly change their tune.


I have found that those brief radio newscasts at the top of each hour seem to be (comparatively speaking) fairly objective and to the point.

 

[upsideguy]

My valid point just flew right past you. The news should be news, not news together with a statement about how I'm supposed to feel about it. The latter is an attempt to manipulate your thoughts and opinion. That's okay with you? They are supposed to provide the factual content only, then I can determine myself whether it's "baseless" or not. Until that happens we have a major, major, problem. Trump recognizes the problem of what could happen if the media in any given country is replaced by a propaganda machine (as is the case now). It doesn't end well for you or I.

If you actually had a valid point it was completely lost in the poor example you put forth. The Business Insider correspondent, Bob Bryan, was merely doing one of the primary jobs of a national correspondent, fact checking the President. The President came out with an unsubstantiated claim about the markets falling because the Democrats were investigating him. Trump has no particular expertise in this area nor did he offer a specific cite for his claim. The reported investigated the claim with expert opinion and found it to be baseless. When the President is off base, it needs to be pointed out. That is exactly what a reporter is suppose to do.

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

Trump, OTH, shot off his mouth without any foundation with no regard to what was actually true or not. That is NOT what a President is suppose to do.

It was not an opinion piece; it was a fact check. Once again, the President was found to be devoid of a factual basis for his claims.

 

[Buzz62]

There is very little 'real' news anymore. It died with the 24 hour news cycle that needs 90% opinion pieces...or 'filler' to actually not be intensely boring after an hour. However...if you take the time to watch news from all over the world, you'll find certain commonalities develop, and can discern what is really happening. Oddly enough...or maybe not so odd...the one 'news' source that does not fit this mold, is CNN. Quite honestly...those people are a sickening pack of liars and the ultimate propagators of partisan division. They peddle pure hatred and should be shut down...in my humble opinion...of course.

 

[Bullseye]

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/

Those are great requirements but I don't think it would be possible to effectively enforce them.

 

[Olddemocrat]

Myself and others who are hyper-intelligent and therefore well-versed in the ways and over-used methods of the enemy.

Hyper intelligent? Well versed? In this forum? Please...

 

[<alt>doxygen]

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.

You are using your opinion as criteria for judging what is or is not news/opinion.

so reporting on the Trump-Russia investigation endlessly without mentioning one thing about his news worthy accomplishments

:roll:

Unfortunately, many people just want confirmation bias, and there are media that will feed it to them. You seem no different. You are looking for "trump accomplishments" and others are looking for "trump/russia". Those markets are both being served.

 

[Thoreau72]

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/

You're very right. Caveat Emptor applies to news as well. It is irrational to believe known liars.

 

[straykatz]

Bottom line - Every single word/event does not need to be disected in a million ways, a million times, by a million different opinions. It "is" a form of brain-washing done by "ALL" politcal talking heads. Should we be informed when our leader is lying to us? Absolutely! EVERY network should be reporting it not burying it - but once reported we do not need 24/7 coverage of it over and over and over until we become numb! We all get it - Trump is a liar and his supporters do not care nor can they be shamed into caring and vice versa his opposition is not changing their opinion on him either. There needs to be an impasse so we as a country can move forward instead of the constant tug of war let's dig in our heals to force others to agree or change. Time to find things we can agree on! Time to make the necessary changes that benefit the many not just the few!

 

[MSgt]

I don't know about you, but when I read the news I want news, not somebody's "baseless" opinion.

Easy fix.

- Read a BBC article on an event.

- If you don't already understand the history of the event and actually care about the issue, read about three University Press books written by actual historians.

- When finished, then recognize that you know more about the issue than those in power...who makes decisions on how best to deal with it because the politics of nowism makes them so wise.

 

[Thoreau72]

Easy fix.

- Read a BBC article on an event.

- If you don't already understand the history of the event and actually care about the issue, read about three University Press books written by actual historians.

- When finished, then recognize that you know more about the issue than those in power...who makes decisions on how best to deal with it because the politics of nowism makes them so wise.

I guess we have all been through the phase where we think the BBC is a paragon of good and truthful information, but the truth is that the BBC is just as much a delivery method for propaganda as NYT is.

That was demonstrated in spades with the shootdown of MH17 back in 2014. First BBC put out video and reporting that actually contradicted the official story. Therefore, shortly after mistakenly showing truth, it was taken down by BBC.

 

[Divine_Wind]

I guess we have all been through the phase where we think the BBC is a paragon of good and truthful information, but the truth is that the BBC is just as much a delivery method for propaganda as NYT is.

That was demonstrated in spades with the shootdown of MH17 back in 2014. First BBC put out video and reporting that actually contradicted the official story. Therefore, shortly after mistakenly showing truth, it was taken down by BBC.

What, in your opinion, is the difference between “rushing to put out news without awaiting verification” and “propaganda”? What is your favorite source(s) of news?

 

[Thoreau72]

What, in your opinion, is the difference between “rushing to put out news without awaiting verification” and “propaganda”? What is your favorite source(s) of news?

The former is an error that might be committed by any publisher, the latter is the deliberate publishing of misinformation.

My favorite sources are anything NOT mainstream. They include Global Research, Veterans Today, RT and several others.

I do read the mainstream sites, mostly NYT, but usually only the front page. That, for the same reason I watch the mainstream TV news, to find out how they want me to think. Something I learned in Uncle Sam's Army. If I know how they want me to think, I tend to think differently than that.

 

[Divine_Wind]

The former is an error that might be committed by any publisher, the latter is the deliberate publishing of misinformation.

My favorite sources are anything NOT mainstream. They include Global Research, Veterans Today, RT and several others.

I do read the mainstream sites, mostly NYT, but usually only the front page. That, for the same reason I watch the mainstream TV news, to find out how they want me to think. Something I learned in Uncle Sam's Army. If I know how they want me to think, I tend to think differently than that.

The US “newz” industry is about profit, not news. It’s not about propaganda, it’s about money. Profit. The Almighty Buck. This all started about 10 years before Ted Turner started the first 24/7 cable news channel thus initiating a rush to be first rather than accurate in the news industry.

Interesting that you slipped “RT” in with two well respected, independent sources. IMHO, that’s like saying “Well, among charities, I support Red Cross, Habit for Humanity, the Nazis and others...” .

Oh yeah, I hope a Russian patriot liberates Russia by terminating Putin’s dictatorship with extreme prejudice.

 

[Phys251]

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/

First and foremost, I support the freedom of the press, something with which the Right has been severely struggling in recent years.

However, I would like them to be less sensationalist and more investigative. I do believe that some news organizations have done this in response to tRump's pathetic behavior, however.

 

[Thoreau72]

The US “newz” industry is about profit, not news. It’s not about propaganda, it’s about money. Profit. The Almighty Buck. This all started about 10 years before Ted Turner started the first 24/7 cable news channel thus initiating a rush to be first rather than accurate in the news industry.

Interesting that you slipped “RT” in with two well respected, independent sources. IMHO, that’s like saying “Well, among charities, I support Red Cross, Habit for Humanity, the Nazis and others...” .

Oh yeah, I hope a Russian patriot liberates Russia by terminating Putin’s dictatorship with extreme prejudice.

LOL, that's a funny comparison.

I recognize that to some degree or the other, RT represents the Russian perspective. It's not rocket science. I recognize the US perspective in NYT and other western media, just as I recognize the Indian perspective, Chinese perspective or Russian perspective from any of their respective publications. I understand it and respect it, but that doesn't mean I believe everything they print.

It was my time in the US Army that taught me to at least TRY to separate the wheat from the chaff, the elements of truth from the propaganda.