A Shaky Future?
-
It's not that hard to fix. And it centers around the First Amendment and the press. I have no problem with freedom of the press. I have a huge problem with opinion touted as hard news. I also think the MSM has abandoned any semblance of fairness or impartiality.
I think the fix is pretty simple...First, reinstate what the country had for many years. Make the press adhere to the same level of slander and libel rules for everybody. Secondly, make the press liable for getting their facts wrong in a news story...Retractions or corrections must be on the front page of a website or newspaper and must be the first item on a broadcast. Third, if the media knowingly prints or broadcasts a lie as news, make them criminally liable, with fines and mandatory jail time for second and further offenses. Fourth, it's fine to have opinions or endorsements, but they must be prominently labeled as such.
The role of the press is to be society's watchdog, but a watchdog that lies when it barks, is no good. Put the facts before the American people and let them decide what they want, instead of being a wing of a political party.
Always remember, Operation Valkyrie was an act of sedition.
Warning: I post things that interest me. Read and comment at your own discretion. -
"Phase One: A weak, half-crazy neophyte and budding demagogue conned his way into the White House and opened the floodgates to Phase Two: BLM and its attendant destruction and death swept in like debutantes at the ball, all a-twitter and swinging their crowbars. And along comes Joe Biden,"
If that's how you see things, I feel sorry for you.
-
@Jolly said in A Shaky Future?:
It's not that hard to fix. And it centers around the First Amendment and the press. I have no problem with freedom of the press. I have a huge problem with opinion touted as hard news. I also think the MSM has abandoned any semblance of fairness or impartiality.
Fixing the problem requires proper diagnosis, which means you've got to do some things that aren't very fun.
There are two things that are hammered into you when you're in j-school: the collective liberal slant, which is pervasive in the industry, but much more than that you're brainwashed with the idea that you're a champion of the Truth, you're the fourth estate, and it's your God-given responsibility to serve the public interest. These people by and large want to be the next Edward R. Murrow; they don't want to be clickbait machines. If you only focus on the liberal slant, then you care more about feeling good because you hate the right people than you do trying to understand the situation. Reporters absolutely hate click-bait, too.
So while keeping that in mind:
Make the press adhere to the same level of slander and libel rules for everybody.
Sure.
Secondly, make the press liable for getting their facts wrong in a news story...Retractions or corrections must be on the front page of a website or newspaper and must be the first item on a broadcast.
That requires buy-in from the managers (that is, not the reporters and not their editors, but their bosses), and they have no incentive to do this. Retractions and corrections don't increase readership. So that's going to be a hard one to implement.
Fourth, it's fine to have opinions or endorsements, but they must be prominently labeled as such.
Good luck with that. Advertorials and the like have been a thing for quite some time now. The only way to stop it is to regulate by money trail, not by content. If a news agency (or hell, some influencer) gets money or free stuff, they need to be explicit about that in their reporting. Influencers already started doing this because their audiences demand it; news and media companies have been a lot less forthcoming.
The role of the press is to be society's watchdog, but a watchdog that lies when it barks, is no good. Put the facts before the American people and let them decide what they want, instead of being a wing of a political party.
Fox is no longer competing with CNN for your attention. It's competing against CNN, Instagram, Etsy, YouTube, Netflix, and God knows what else. The only way to win with that kind of intense competition is to play to your emotions and make you read their bullshit. Tucker Carlson would have no career if he wasn't abrasive. Neither would Anne Coulter.
Go ahead and start your own fact-based news agency if you don't believe me. Get all Bob Woodward or Matt Drudge up in there. You won't make it a year because no one's going to care. If it's a choice between getting informed about a global pandemic to keep your family safe and reading hunting memes on Facebook, the latter will win almost every time. They'll never get around to reading your stuff.
-
@Aqua-Letifer I like that you "tell it like it is".
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in A Shaky Future?:
Fox is no longer competing with CNN for your attention. It's competing against CNN, Instagram, Etsy, YouTube, Netflix, and God knows what else. The only way to win with that kind of intense competition is to play to your emotions and make you read their bullshit. Tucker Carlson would have no career if he wasn't abrasive.
Aqua makes interesting points. I wish I (we) knew more about exactly what he does, and why he seems to be on an inside track of what goes on in print news and online.
The reason for my selective quote of what Aqua said, is that it reminded me of observations made by the two guys on ADV China. They point out that EVERYTHING is under the auspices of the CCP, and the mainland Chinese know it. Yet, they believe what they are told, even though the people know it might not be true.
So, even if you (mainland Chinese) know the news is not true or factual, they do believe that it's true and factual. Hard to figure, but I guess that's part of human nature: if someone says something, believe it's true, even if you know it's propaganda.
Of course we're also dealing with that post-modernist bullshit of "speak your truth" because, well, my feelings are just as right as that science nonsense, if not more so.
-
@Rainman said in A Shaky Future?:
So, even if you (mainland Chinese) know the news is not true or factual, they do believe that it's true and factual. Hard to figure, but I guess that's part of human nature: if someone says something, believe it's true, even if you know it's propaganda.
wasn't that the whole idea of the German Socialists in the 2nd War? Tell people a lie enough times and it will become the truth?
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in A Shaky Future?:
@Jolly said in A Shaky Future?:
It's not that hard to fix. And it centers around the First Amendment and the press. I have no problem with freedom of the press. I have a huge problem with opinion touted as hard news. I also think the MSM has abandoned any semblance of fairness or impartiality.
Fixing the problem requires proper diagnosis, which means you've got to do some things that aren't very fun.
There are two things that are hammered into you when you're in j-school: the collective liberal slant, which is pervasive in the industry, but much more than that you're brainwashed with the idea that you're a champion of the Truth, you're the fourth estate, and it's your God-given responsibility to serve the public interest. These people by and large want to be the next Edward R. Murrow; they don't want to be clickbait machines. If you only focus on the liberal slant, then you care more about feeling good because you hate the right people than you do trying to understand the situation. Reporters absolutely hate click-bait, too.
So while keeping that in mind:
Make the press adhere to the same level of slander and libel rules for everybody.
Sure.
Secondly, make the press liable for getting their facts wrong in a news story...Retractions or corrections must be on the front page of a website or newspaper and must be the first item on a broadcast.
That requires buy-in from the managers (that is, not the reporters and not their editors, but their bosses), and they have no incentive to do this. Retractions and corrections don't increase readership. So that's going to be a hard one to implement.
Fourth, it's fine to have opinions or endorsements, but they must be prominently labeled as such.
Good luck with that. Advertorials and the like have been a thing for quite some time now. The only way to stop it is to regulate by money trail, not by content. If a news agency (or hell, some influencer) gets money or free stuff, they need to be explicit about that in their reporting. Influencers already started doing this because their audiences demand it; news and media companies have been a lot less forthcoming.
The role of the press is to be society's watchdog, but a watchdog that lies when it barks, is no good. Put the facts before the American people and let them decide what they want, instead of being a wing of a political party.
Fox is no longer competing with CNN for your attention. It's competing against CNN, Instagram, Etsy, YouTube, Netflix, and God knows what else. The only way to win with that kind of intense competition is to play to your emotions and make you read their bullshit. Tucker Carlson would have no career if he wasn't abrasive. Neither would Anne Coulter.
Go ahead and start your own fact-based news agency if you don't believe me. Get all Bob Woodward or Matt Drudge up in there. You won't make it a year because no one's going to care. If it's a choice between getting informed about a global pandemic to keep your family safe and reading hunting memes on Facebook, the latter will win almost every time. They'll never get around to reading your stuff.
As I wrote in another thread, it all starts with the First Amendment and a hard look at the responsibilities that go along with those rights. If the press lies in a factual story, it seems to me that whether it be in omission or commission, the legal remedy must be there to help insure compliance to a standard. An honest mistake? Retraction or correction in a prominent spot. No retraction? Then the legal gate should open. And so on...
-
It’s tough to acknowledge Aqua’s point that social media has become a primary news source for many (most?) people. Social media by definition is POV and not unbiased news. I miss those days but I am slowly coming around to accept the reality and the MSM existential threat. I do think that CNN for example acts as social media and is very close to flat out admitting it outloud.
-
@Rainman said in A Shaky Future?:
@Aqua-Letifer said in A Shaky Future?:
Aqua makes interesting points. I wish I (we) knew more about exactly what he does, and why he seems to be on an inside track of what goes on in print news and online.
I've been switching between working as a journalist and a copywriter for about 13 years, and I've worked for a large handful of magazines and websites. Some extremely small, some get quoted here sometimes. My current day job is a very silly place that has nothing to do with this, or anything else, really, so I still freelance because I like it.
My opinions about the above just come from what I know from colleagues and my own biased and limited experience. I've some relatively boring stories I rather tell in person, but basically I hate the downward spiral our reporting sources are in now, and I'm not sure anyone here knows more first-hand about how media bias works than I do. But that's not the only thing there is to contend with if we're to fix the problem. My buddy Matt and I spent many, many a lunchbreak trying to figure it out from a revenue perspective. Never got very far.
-
Imagine if this thread in which we are participating, was a correspondence between Jefferson and Adams. Our back and forth perspectives take place in a matter of hours. In their day, the same took place, but would take months. Yeah, I know, "duh."
But I don't think anyone has come close to understanding the bad, in the good and bad of instant communication. Adams or Jefferson would have thought about something for days, pondered, let it sit, and then write their thoughts.
In today's world, it's immediate. I can't help but think THAT is a central part of all problems and issues, and that maybe historians years from now will point to this as the "novel" catalyst which caused a civil war to occur in the 2020's.
-
-
@Horace said in A Shaky Future?:
is that why they all seem to have written so beautifully? Because whenever they did write, it was a dissertation they'd been mulling over for days?
Well, that and the fact that they were fucking geniuses. Joseph Plum Martin was far more eloquent than your average 'Murrican on the Twitters, but our founders were still on another level entirely. Gotta hand it to 'em.
-
@Horace said in A Shaky Future?:
is that why they all seem to have written so beautifully? Because whenever they did write, it was a dissertation they'd been mulling over for days?
Nope. Sorry dude, some of us just have it, some don't. I'd call it a natural gift, like my incredible beauty and awesome strength.
Keep trying, Horace.
Or, ask Ax for help.Ax, are you busy, budd??
-
-
@Rainman said in A Shaky Future?:
@Horace said in A Shaky Future?:
is that why they all seem to have written so beautifully? Because whenever they did write, it was a dissertation they'd been mulling over for days?
Nope. Sorry dude, some of us just have it, some don't. I'd call it a natural gift, like my incredible beauty and awesome strength.
Keep trying, Horace.
I am also good looking and strong. Where we differ is that I am not fat.
Education is extremely important.
-
@Horace said in A Shaky Future?:
@Rainman said in A Shaky Future?:
@Horace said in A Shaky Future?:
is that why they all seem to have written so beautifully? Because whenever they did write, it was a dissertation they'd been mulling over for days?
Nope. Sorry dude, some of us just have it, some don't. I'd call it a natural gift, like my incredible beauty and awesome strength.
Keep trying, Horace.
I am also good looking and strong. Where we differ is that I am not fat.
Well, I wear fat proudly. Stand tall, hang low.
It took me a lifetime, so why be modest.
I'm hungry. Think I'll go find a Mik thread and look at good things to eat. -
-
@Catseye3 said in A Shaky Future?:
Aqua, thanks for sharing your profession. You'll right there in amongst the wars, aren't you?
Eh, not right now I'm not. I had this great idea to go for something closer to a living wage and as a result, I've been in professional limbo for a bit lately. Which is okay. There's been a lot of other stuff going on, and I know now that I have to at least give a shit a little bit about how I spend my time. As I've gotten older I've unfortunately not become more flexible with nonsense. Makes jobs and professional relationships hard.
Journalism was what I was born to do. I turned away from it at a young age, and it remains to this day my greatest regret.
I wouldn't be too hard on yourself. Watching its collapse has been interesting. By dumb luck alone I've made it past six massive layoffs and three company turnovers in about the past decade. One day I stopped to speak with my layout person about my upcoming issue and her stuff was gone. Same thing happened to my marketing person weeks later. Then my co-worker. I spent about six months waiting for my boss to come have a chat with me. But it never came, and I helped him find and hire my replacement before I left to get my master's. They tanked the whole damn publication and others like it just three months later. All that was prior to '08. Lots of similar shit since then.
It's not really a profession anymore, most places. (Like I said I don't know much about broadcast news.) The vast majority of the legwork is done by contractors and freelancers for peanuts. You've missed a long, dramatic collapse. Be glad you have!
Please love yourself.
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in A Shaky Future?:
You've missed a long, dramatic collapse. Be glad you have!
Yeah, I've had that thought over the years: How I would have done in the new, late-age whatever-it-is that passes for journalism. I think it wouldn't have much resembled the Bogart/Hepburn movies that so captured my very young imagination. I could see myself on the phone yelling, Get me rewrite!
Heh!
-
Reality is less glamorous, more... I dunno, dumb, and people dress much more shabbily.
That last might be just me, but I don't think so.
Please love yourself.
