341–350 of 844 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> With a mountain of examples It would be great if you could provide some, as I am not from the field. Thanks.
Manufacturing Consent by Herman and Chomsky is a great start. Messengers of the Right and Dark Money are also great.
I formerly worked as a news editor at a metro daily newspaper, and before that I worked at various other news outlets and magazines. Here's the reality: The average journalist values the truth and desires to report on the news with accuracy and fairness. I worked with a bunch of really talented reporters and editors throughout my career, and almost without exception, they highly valued those things. Moreover, many ha…
Journalists are welcome to burn their own reputation, it is theirs. But don't blame others.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> Every organization, every person has their own biases and agenda Yes, but not really the issue... thats why there is an editing process. If an org has a proper editing process then a lot of that gets accounted for. Most of the skewed stories come from organizations that don't employ trained editors, don't have a clear editorial workflow, don't have a corrections policy, and don't have fact-checkers. I would argue…
> Yes, but not really the issue... thats why there is an editing process. If an org has a proper editing process then a lot of that gets accounted for. Because... Editors couldn't possibly have motives that similarly contain bias, corruption, out other such common frailties of the human condition?
Think of it from a coding point of view.
Many people think that some developers write code directly on production, to their personal style, and thats it. That certainly happens.
Other teams have coding standards, style standards. Tabs versus Spaces. CamelCase for Class names but something different for variables?
The commit their code, and do a pull request and someone else reviews it. Edits are proposed or demanded. Code is reviewed again, then maybe it goes to production. Its been known for production code to have issues, but generally after going through a process most are prevented then if the developer was able to merge in code without review.
The larger orgs I mentioned have a involved editorial process for editing stories.
There are literal mountains of sociological studies on how (state and corporate) media have been in service of the powers that be, for decades, and how exactly this works. With a mountain of examples. So, for sociologists, this feels like "wow, it only took half a century to trickle through." Though of course this is the wrong reaction; it has always trickled through. Only that, in the past, it took a few years or de…
Thanks for this. Nice to see it at the top of the conversation. Two words: Operation Mockingbird. The big news outlets get daily intelligence briefs. This isn't even controversial. But the real problem within that setting is self-censorship. You don't get the job unless you've proven than you know what not to say. Many credible books on that topic to read.
> Many credible books on that topic to read.
Yes, exactly as credible reporter guy explained how the US blow up the pipeline. Many credible substacks!
Only takes me one minute and thirty six seconds to convince anyone I meet of this point: "This is Extremely Dangerous to our Democracy" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZggCipbiHwE
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> Seeing footage of Trump supporters and speaking with them is sufficient to expose them as bad people You just classified 46% of voting Americans as bad people, as if they have no other motive than to do evil. I didn’t like him either, but give me a break and try to let go of that media narrative. His supporters were just people. Both sides have outspoken nut jobs stealing the spotlight
So? You judge the moral and intellectual merits of things by how popular they are? That's your call. I don't.
> Both sides have outspoken nut jobs stealing the spotlight
Not really. Only one set of nutjobs actually stormed Congress in an attempt to overturn the results of an election. You've bought into a narrative that minimizes what is an insane fact.
If you dig a little deeper, how many people realize there are different formats like opinion, commentary, and analysis? Opinions can't be WRONG, but they sure can be BAD.
You can only fact check facts. You can't fact check analysis. You have to apply critique (aka critical thinking skills, or a critical framework).