Thread: 46% say media makes up stories about Trump Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020332
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on
:
Including 20% of Democrats and 44% of Independents.
Almost three-quarters of Republicans.
This is not bias. This is saying the media makes up things.
The hosts reporting this got quite upset, seeing these stats as the media losing credibility. And seeing people who think this have a limited understanding of the media. And the reporters wondering why they do what they do if people believe this.
The fact 1 in 5 Democrats and more Independents think the media is making up stories about Trump shocks me. Is the media losing, or has it lost, people? Why? What causes this? Is it increased partisanship?
Cenk suggested it was partly due to media bias, or perceived bias.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
I don't live in America so I can't really speak meaningfully. But I would make three quick comments:
1. Hasn't there long been a feeling that the media makes things up, or at least aids and abets agencies and people which make news? For instance, the belief that all the reporting on the Apollo moon landings was faked. If so, then Trump et.al. are only tapping into (and possibly developing for their own ends) a strain of thinking that already exists.
2. As the British commentator Malcolm Muggeridge pointed out in his lectures on "Christ and the media" 40 years ago, all news runs the risk of being biased, simply because it is selective and written by human beings! He made the point too that the average TV bulletin may only have (say) 8 or 9 stories, so it's hardly presenting "all the news" but inevitably represents the priorities and choices of its editors. The newspapers of course include many more stories.
3. In Britain there is at least the hope that TV news is as objective as it can be - this is contested of course by both sides of the political spectrum! On the other hand all newspapers have a political bias, the danger is that one forgets that as one reads the paper which affirms rather than challenges ones' views!
(Too many "ones" in that last sentence!)
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Fox News terms of use: quote:
Company furnishes the Company Sites and the Company Services for your personal enjoyment and entertainment
I don't see any commitment to not making up stories there.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
They don’t need to.
His own tweets paint a clear picture of an unbelievably horrible person, unfit to be president.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
I would question the methodology of the survey. What exactly do they mean by 'the media makes up stories'? There are several possibilities.
1. Reporting something that actually happened, but with a partisan bias. The media does this all the time. There may have been a Golden Age when journalists reported things that happened without looking for an 'angle' or trying to 'spin' them. But not in my lifetime. Most people are aware of this, although they also believe that they themselves are unaffected by bias. Perhaps that's all they meant.
2. Twisting something that actually happened to fit their own narrative. This happens sometimes - for example, in the 1980s the then Bishop of Durham said that the Resurrection was 'not just a conjuring trick with bones' and was immediately misquoted, starting a controversy that is still remembered today.
3. Reporting something inaccurately, through laziness or incompetence (this happens more often than most journalists are willing to admit). If they ever print/broadcast a retraction it is invariably less prominently placed and in smaller print/shorter than the original article/news item.
4. Reporting something accurately which is so implausible that nobody believes them (a problem Mary Magdalene would sympathise with). I can't imagine why that might be relevant to this situation, though.
5. Making something up that never actually happened at all.
Only the last of these possibilities actually qualifies as 'fake news'.
I'm indexing a book at the moment which includes an article about the validity and reliability of research which includes the following quotation "If you're over-flexible with your data collection you can get significant results for just about anything, including support for the hypothesis that listening to the song "When I'm 64" literally does make you younger" [from Simmonds et al., 2011, 'False-positive psychology', in
Psychological Science 22.11, pp 1359-66].
This extract from Yes Minister may also be of interest.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
There is evidence that some media reporters jump to conclusions about the actions of Trump and his fellow Republicans.
Recently a reporter wrote a sneering article about Trump holding Boehner's arm while they went up the steps. The reporter didn't realize that Boehner is slightly disabled because of childhood polio. This ignorance is excusable, but what made the reporter think that this was a newsworthy story? It was a trivial episode. I assume the reporter was glad of an occasion to sneer at Trump and Boehner.
After the reporter had been told of Boehner's disability, she did not retract the article.
Moo
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
It is true that the media can =emphasize=. Wordage devoted to Angelina Jolie's divorce proceedings is wordage that cannot be devoted to child health care. The issue of the day may not be the most important issue facing us, and it's the media's duty to get us to pay attention to important things and leave Ms. Jolie's amours to her own management.
But this has to be balanced with the market. A magazine or newspaper is not in the business of improving humanity; they're out to make money, and they have stockholders who insist upon that. If readers passionately demand analysis of Ms. Jolie's love life, they'll pay for it, and magazines oblige them. Three pages devoted to her divorce may pay for the two pages later on in the publication devoted to child health care.
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Only the last of these possibilities actually qualifies as 'fake news'.
#5 strikes me as being more about social media and the internet generally. Traditional media suffer too much reputational damage if they get caught.
Most complaints I hear about about fake news are about #2.
quote:
"If you're over-flexible with your data collection you can get significant results for just about anything..."
Relevant xkcd.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
The fact 1 in 5 Democrats and more Independents think the media is making up stories about Trump shocks me. Is the media losing, or has it lost, people? Why? What causes this? Is it increased partisanship?
Cenk suggested it was partly due to media bias, or perceived bias.
I'd say it depends on what qualifies as "the media". Is Fox News included in "the media"? Glenn Beck? Alex Jones? Various iterations of hate radio?
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
It also depends on how the question was framed. If it was asked against a background of questions about media reporting in general, I can understand why people might be led to answer in the way they apparently did.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
If they report his tweets and what he says, there's no distortion. Though he denies he said what he said and twitted. But people can be made to believe anything. If indeed nearly 50% disbelieve reportage, your democracy isn't. If your press is inventing like a Fox, it isn't a democracy. Ask your Jefferson.
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
Please tell me that the news I woke up to last year on November 9 was a fake story made up by the media!
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Please tell me that the news I woke up to last year on November 9 was a fake story made up by the media!
You mean like this guy?
quote:
Former hostage Joshua Boyle says he thought his captors were joking when they told him Donald Trump was president the United States.
Boyle, a Canadian, and his American wife, Caitlan Coleman, were held hostage for five years after being abducted by the Haqqani network. They were rescued last week with their three children by Pakistani forces.
In an interview with the Toronto Star, Boyle said he learned Trump was president when one of his captors told him the news before he was forced to make "a proof-of-life" video.
"It didn't enter my mind that he was being serious," Boyle said.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Hiro's Leap: quote:
#5 strikes me as being more about social media and the internet generally. Traditional media suffer too much reputational damage if they get caught.
Have you ever actually *read* the Sun or the Daily Mail? Or wondered why the Sun's sales figures in Liverpool are so low - it doesn't seem to have done them much damage in the rest of the country, though. Admittedly it took years to disprove their lies about the Hillsborough disaster.
'Fake news' isn't a new problem. It's just easier to find it nowadays because of the Internet. And because many if not most news stories have at least *some* bias, it's easy to conclude that fake news is more of a problem than it actually is.
Moo: quote:
Recently a reporter wrote a sneering article about Trump holding Boehner's arm while they went up the steps. The reporter didn't realize that Boehner is slightly disabled because of childhood polio. This ignorance is excusable, but what made the reporter think that this was a newsworthy story? It was a trivial episode. I assume the reporter was glad of an occasion to sneer at Trump and Boehner.
Of course, a reporter with a different bias (and a magnifying glass) could have spun this as 'President Trump Shows His Caring Side'. I agree it's not news, but then 90% of "news" nowadays seems to be celebrity gossip or speculation.
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
There is evidence that some media reporters jump to conclusions about the actions of Trump and his fellow Republicans.
Recently a reporter wrote a sneering article about Trump holding Boehner's arm while they went up the steps. The reporter didn't realize that Boehner is slightly disabled because of childhood polio. This ignorance is excusable, but what made the reporter think that this was a newsworthy story? It was a trivial episode. I assume the reporter was glad of an occasion to sneer at Trump and Boehner.
After the reporter had been told of Boehner's disability, she did not retract the article.
Moo
What article? Your link refers to a tweet.
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
Moreover, the tweet, or article, is not about Boehner, but Senator McConnell who is also elderly. I know I would have to hold onto something myself because of arthritis.
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
And, meanwhile, it is estimated about 69% of Trump's claims are at least mostly false by fact-checking organizations.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
They don’t need to.
His own tweets paint a clear picture of an unbelievably horrible person, unfit to be president.
I mean, right? What one can watch the idiot say on the telly, unedited and what the greasy cheeto says on PUBLIC social media is indictment enough by itself.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
And, meanwhile, it is estimated about 69% of Trump's claims are at least mostly false by fact-checking organizations.
He lives in a Schroedinger's universe of standing for various specific things which are simultaneously shown to be nothing at all. Lying, bullshitting, gaslighting - none of these things describe him, nor does attention deficit, impulse control, narcissism, psychopathy. When someone is so obviously full of it, and actually emphasizes this as a positive characteristic, it's hard to nail down, like trying to nail a turd to a wall. And there's a worry that he's not being reported accurately. WTF
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
3. Reporting something inaccurately, through laziness or incompetence (this happens more often than most journalists are willing to admit). If they ever print/broadcast a retraction it is invariably less prominently placed and in smaller print/shorter than the original article/news item.
I think inaccuracies are (A) more usually due to other causes, and (B) may get handled differently in print and broadcast, and differently in US vs. UK media due to differences in laws and practices.
First the media operate under two primary pressures: accuracy and time. The pressure to be first with a story sometimes interferes with the pressure to be accurate. During and immediately after Hurricane Katrina, for example, lots of inaccurate stories got reported. These were not due to laziness or incompetence; they were due to communications being sporadic, broken, and/or nonexistent. Second, due to communication difficulties, the usual rule about verification (that is, getting similar information from a minimum of two sources independent of each other) could not be followed and still allow the outlet to be first with the story.
As for corrections, it's now usual for corrections to be incorporated into updates of the original story (in broadcast media), with a brief note at the bottom/end of the story to note it's been corrected, without going into detail. This is due to time limitations.
The goal is to publish the best current information available.
Print media have space limitations. In the US, such corrections sometimes appear in italics, not necessarily smaller, print. They're smaller because the corrections themselves are in the current version of the story. Updates containing corrected data are not always labeled as such. More reputable outlets do this; the East Overshoe Weekly Patriot Express may not.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
Another possible reason for non-Trump supporters doubting the accuracy of media portrayals of Trump is that Trump's actions are so bizarre, chaotic, and mendacious that accurately reporting them may make some people believe the story is made up.
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on
:
You know...I can see the logic in that. Which is frightening.
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
They don’t need to.
His own tweets paint a clear picture of an unbelievably horrible person, unfit to be president.
I think that's what got me the most, and the hosts in the video raised it too. Never before, I think, has a President's stream of consciousness been so visibly on display. And it is easy to check (unless he deletes tweets, but some savvy people take screenshots).
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
At the risk of sounding patronizing ( oh, what the hell -- it is patronizing): A percentage of Trumpists -- helped along by a steady diet of Faux News, fundie lreachers and media demagogues -- see themselves as victims of perceived left- wing domination of culture and media.Furthermore, many of them do not havethe critical thinking and general information skills that would allow them to discern the difference between real journalism and junk journalism...or between real science and junk science. And, since their preferred information sources keep assuring them that tgeir ignorance is as good as educated people's knowledge -- actually, superior to it -- well, here we are in an idiotocracy supported by people dwelling in an alternnative reality.
[ 19. October 2017, 23:13: Message edited by: LutheranChik ]
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
Never before, I think, has a President's stream of consciousness been so visibly on display. And it is easy to check (unless he deletes tweets, but some savvy people take screenshots).
I think most of his supporters agree with his tweets. They read the, and see the same kinds of things that they say to their buddies in the lunch room.
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
They don’t need to.
His own tweets paint a clear picture of an unbelievably horrible person, unfit to be president.
Do you follow him on Twitter, or is this based on the tweets the media chose to broadcast?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
They don’t need to.
His own tweets paint a clear picture of an unbelievably horrible person, unfit to be president.
Do you follow him on Twitter, or is this based on the tweets the media chose to broadcast?
Really? You think there is a huge, sorry uuuge, body of tweets that explains and reverses the shite that makes the news?
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
Brief mention of money was made. That needs to be made loud. Money is the cause of a lot of - well, not printing something known to be real. Not printing it even though many in the news room know about it.
An old collection of Readers Digests from the 30s repeatedly insisted Hitler was a good guy, when we all knew he wasn't. Why? That's what money wanted them to say. And you say what the money want, or you change funding sources or die. Constitution notwithstanding, there no free speech in the expensive world of publishing.
When have you seen an article say a tourist destination was not worth seeing? A travel writer said it's not allowed because travel companies buy ads and they won't buy one if anything negative was said about them.
Think of all the people and places not written about honestly because their ads might be pulled. That's why Flint Michigan went with mud colored water while the managers said "no problem" and the media were quiet. Whistleblowers are not loved by business!
A man like Trump has enough money to silence many. The TV shows that pretend to be local news but pipe in the same character mouthing the same pro-trump speechettes to "local news" stations around the country, you don't think that man would have his job tomorrow if he dared say out loud his speech wasn't true!
Spicer is quite open about lying now; but when his paycheck depended in the lies, he lied.
You don't like one source, turn to another, they'll tell the opposite. In among the reporting you'll find some truth, but slanted for whatever will sell ads.
I watch PBS but give up in disgust whenever they run another show of the "there is no God." No escape from the game. The moneymen control the ads.
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on
:
It’s worth remembering that fake news is not a uniquely right-wing phenomenon. The (left-wing) Canary puts out fictional crap as well as Breitbart. Fake news circulates widely because these days people are getting more news from Facebook than from any other source (and yes, that worries me and Facebook very much needs to be held to account).
I think it’s fair to say that Breitbart manage to propagate their fabrications more successfully and to a wider audience but they’re not the only ones. This is a problem. Because when Trump supporters claim that the “media is making stuff up”, to an extent it’s true. The Canary is peddling lies about the American right. And people, read, believe and circulate them.
I am emphatically not saying that because the left do it, it’s ok, and I agree that the right is doing it to a greater extent and frankly with much greater success. The playing field is by no means level. However, I don’t see a solution to restoring trust in the news media that doesn’t involve stopping the left, as well as the right, from fabricating lies. People crying “fake news!” aren’t listening to the traditional media in the first place. And the non-traditional sources which populate Facebook news feeds are a cesspit of nonsense. All of us need to work on our critical thinking skills and not blindly accept things which cater to our preconceived opinions without checking them out.
I highly recommend this book, which articulates the problem rather well.
Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on
:
In the latest development, that dastardly failing gallery, The Chicago Institute of Art, has been falsely claiming to have a genuine Renoir in its collection, when God Emperor Trump has the real one.
Ignoring the fact that the museum's is authenticated and its provenance is traceable, it is clearly fake, as Trump known he has the genuine one.
These museums must be stopped!
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
The Canary is clearly biased but I'd be interested to know what they've published that is an outright lie. What I've seen is, at worst, the left wing equivalent of the Daily Mail, not Breitbart, which is outright Nazi propaganda.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
I can' find the link now, but a group of Tennessee black persons signed on for a rally about police violence, only to discover that the event was organized by Russians. And the websites advocating Texas and also California independence were set up by Putin's pals.
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on
:
The book I mentioned earlier has examples of falsehoods published by the Canary. They include a supposed PR campaign against Jeremy Corbyn masterminded by Tony Blair. It was hogwash. It also published an untrue story about a junior doctor who supposedly left a suicide note to Jeremy Hunt. Untrue and distasteful in the extreme.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
The book I mentioned earlier has examples of falsehoods published by the Canary. They include a supposed PR campaign against Jeremy Corbyn masterminded by Tony Blair. It was hogwash. It also published an untrue story about a junior doctor who supposedly left a suicide note to Jeremy Hunt. Untrue and distasteful in the extreme.
There were allegations that Portland Communications were doing PR for and coordinating the chicken coup in 2016. I don't remember them blaming Blair, nor do I remember any proof that it was untrue or that it was made up by the Canary (rather than them reporting something that turned out to be false). Even if it did turn out to be inaccurate, that would place the Canary on the same level as all the outlets accusing Corbyn supporters of throwing a brick through Angela Eagle's office window.
I presume this is the junior doctor story:
https://www.thecanary.co/uk/2016/04/19/junior-doctor-kills-herself-and-leaves-a-message-to-jeremy-hunt-in-her-suicide-note/
Also found here:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3449031/Hopes-fade-missing-junior-doctor-walked-hospital.html
If the story is untrue (rather than badly written and not following ethical guidelines, as seems to be the case) then other (not notably left wing) sources have also been duped. The allegation was of making things up, which you seem to be the one doing here.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
The book I mentioned earlier has examples of falsehoods published by the Canary. They include a supposed PR campaign against Jeremy Corbyn masterminded by Tony Blair. It was hogwash. It also published an untrue story about a junior doctor who supposedly left a suicide note to Jeremy Hunt. Untrue and distasteful in the extreme.
There were allegations that Portland Communications were doing PR for and coordinating the chicken coup in 2016. I don't remember them blaming Blair, nor do I remember any proof that it was untrue or that it was made up by the Canary (rather than them reporting something that turned out to be false). Even if it did turn out to be inaccurate, that would place the Canary on the same level as all the outlets accusing Corbyn supporters of throwing a brick through Angela Eagle's office window.
I presume this is the junior doctor story:
https://www.thecanary.co/uk/2016/04/19/junior-doctor-kills-herself-and-leaves-a-message-to-jeremy-hunt-in-her-suicide-note/
Also found here:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3449031/Hopes-fade-missing-junior-doctor-walked-hospital.html
If the story is untrue (rather than badly written and not following ethical guidelines, as seems to be the case) then other (not notably left wing) sources have also been duped. The allegation was of making things up, which you seem to be the one doing here.
Here's the New Statesmen on one of the more recent examples of the Canary not being quite accurate. Although towards the end of the article they do grudgingly allow for the possibility that the Canary's journalists just aren't very good.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
and here's another example which would tend to support the "not very good angle" - splashing on a story about the Sun which just didn't allow for the fact that any paper (God knows I hold no brief the Sun) might change headlines between the first and second edition based on something happening *after* the first edition has gone to press...
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
Don't both articles indicate that The Canary made mistakes and then corrected them, just as other new outlets do? You can (quite correctly) argue that they're biased and quick to jump on anything that they like the sound of without looking at it too closely, but that just makes them a left-wing equivalent of the Mail, Express, Sun et al.
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
I highly recommend this book, which articulates the problem rather well.
Bought. Thanks.
Not directly related to Trump, but perhaps it may be:
Do you want a strong leader who makes decisions without interference from the parliament or courts?
- USA - 22%
- Australia - 19%
- UK - 26%
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
This morning I got a text message enjoining me to pray for Christians in imminent danger from mass killings by Buddhists in India. Sure enough it's fake and I relayed this information to the sender.
He told me that he'd also had a reply from a friend from the Open Doors organisation who had said "it's a hoax, but Christians are persecuted in India so you can pray anyway".
It strikes me that with this attitude the propagandists' job is done. At best, people go away with the idea "that wasn't true, but it is a bit true all the same".
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
I find it interesting that the book being peddled as an antidote to fake news is by a 9/11 truther. And a climate change denier. And someone who claims Diana was murdered by the royals.
[ 21. October 2017, 08:25: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
That must be a thing. I have a book denouncing conspiracy theories that is very good until it gets to the last chapter about mind control by the FBI.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
that just makes them a left-wing equivalent of the Mail, Express, Sun et al.
This is not actually a defence.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
that just makes them a left-wing equivalent of the Mail, Express, Sun et al.
This is not actually a defence.
Good thing my goal wasn't to defend The Canary, then. All I was saying was that the comparison with Breitbart was silly, and that this supposedly "new" phenomenon is just what the right has been doing for a century and more.
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I find it interesting that the book being peddled as an antidote to fake news is by a 9/11 truther. And a climate change denier. And someone who claims Diana was murdered by the royals.
Where did you get that from? Because I saw it in the Amazon comments, and found it very odd. I'm sure that if the book had said that, I would have remembered.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
That's where I got it. Are the reviews wrong?
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on
:
Well I certainly don't remember any 9/11 conspiracy theories. And it sounds like the sort of thing I would remember.
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on
:
I did a quick author search before I bought it: BuzzFeed, ex-Guardian, ex-WikiLeaks..., tweets seemed normal.
Of course I could've missed something, but I'd like some hard evidence [not reviews by the anonymous] before accusations are thrown around.
[ 21. October 2017, 21:49: Message edited by: Ian Climacus ]
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
I found reviews in the Financial Times and in the Times Literary Supplement, neither of which mention anything about Ball's supposed fringe positions on climate change, 9/11, or Diana's death.
I suspect it's possible that the Amazon reviews are somewhat less than entirely reliable.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
I am shocked! ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Surely you aren't suggesting Amazon reviewers could ever be motivated by anything other than a sincere desire to accurately describe the product? ![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
Mainstream journalists do themselves no favors by being lazy. I note that, during important stories, too many media soirces just copy the dominant narrative, across networks, And if the story turns out to be premature, they all.wind up walking it back. That tends not to inspire confidence in the press.
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on
:
I was listening to a snippet of an interview with Naomi Klein last night. Not sure people's general thoughts on her outlook, I tend to have a bit of time for it, but she was saying she found it more and more difficult to get interviews on US programmes these days... Other countries: not so much.
I'm not crying censorship, there could be any number of reasons.
I can't tell, not living in the US, but is this a case of the media has simply moved on to another 'capitalism has issues' person, or is that view so distasteful to mainstream media, given their owners, that there is some rather selective editing of viewpoints represented? Or option C?
I'm not linking this directly with the survey results, but just wondering about the media landscape in general.
And thanks all for the comments. Lots of food for thought.
[ 23. October 2017, 20:04: Message edited by: Ian Climacus ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Mainstream journalists do themselves no favors by being lazy. I note that, during important stories, too many media soirces just copy the dominant narrative, across networks, And if the story turns out to be premature, they all.wind up walking it back. That tends not to inspire confidence in the press.
It isn’t necessarily laziness but a combination of the 24 hr news cycle, the instant distribution of content and the reduction of staff.
But you are correct in that it doesn’t help.
[ 23. October 2017, 20:14: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0