121–130 of 205 posts
This is exactly the goals of their strategy
Simple solution - look at all the other western democracies that don't have this problem (I really mean have this problem less, obviously there is going to be biased tabloid rags in every country). Coincidentally, this seems to align pretty well with countries that don't have a bunch of media outlets owned by the Murdoch empire... curious.
> look at all the other western democracies that don't have this problem Which one is that exactly? The couple of western democracies I am familiar with all have similar problems with their mainstream medias.
The UK has the problem at a smaller scale. Other western countries have problems with trust in media but I'd argue they don't have the same level of invented reality as the US.
Why should MASS media be trusted? They exist to make money and they are free to use. How in the world they can be anything but a manipulation (which includes but not limited to, just simply a distraction)? If you need real news, use Bloomberg, AP, Reuters... Yeah that's $1500 per month, and even more importantly, they are too boring to read for an average person, so they wouldn't be popular even if they were free. Pe…
NPR, PBS, BBC, AustralianBC, CanadianBC, etc are not for profit and exist in the public interest. These are an important subset of the mass media in English. We need to make sure these organs hold to the public interest principle, and also that they can maintain reliable funding.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, they're supposed to exist in the public interest, but it seems like it could be true that they're vehemently opposed by at least half of the populations they're supposed to be serving.
So are the COVID vaccines[1]. Lack of universal popularity doesn't make something bad, wrong or unworthy of enthusiastic support. [1] I exaggerate the proportion, but maybe you did too.
> Reversing the decline is a monster task — and one that some journalists and news organizations have taken upon themselves. They're going to need help — perhaps from America's CEOs. Is this a bad joke? Distrust of media is largely brought about because it is (mostly) in the private sector and therefore always puts the sustainability of its business model above objective reporting. We've known for a while now that ne…
France has a public agency, AFP, being the news arbiter (it’s the Reuters competitor). Yet, information is bullshit. They choose to report on some topics and not others, and they choose to publish extremely biased news without quoting the opposing side to interview their defense. Happens with the wage gap, happens with the Traoré, happens with Sarkozysm, happens with Fillion... It sways elections. Owned 56% by the st…
> How it works: Media outlets can continue to report reliable facts, but that won't turn the trend around on its own. What's needed is for trusted institutions to visibly embrace the news media. This is an extremely weird and disturbing conclusion. Orwellian even. What’s needed is for news organizations to not only report facts, but stop telling stories in ways that only benefit their own ideological systems. That’s…
Trust can't really be gained as easily as it is lost, at this point I am skeptical there is a real (nice) solution available and the only path is for these institutions to continue to further dig themselves into their hole until there is no trust left to erode. We have to remember that the media is like this because this is apparently what people want to consume. The old, traditional way is not one that will keep the…
But their audience is decreasing, so I'm not sure that it's actually what people want. It seems to me that it's more of a "cashing in" thing. They built up trust for generations by mostly reporting factually with little bias, and the current generation is cashing in by abusing that trust to advance their personal politics (short-sighted as that may be), support "the system" (conspiracy!), or both.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Fox, to take an extreme examples, isn't really partisan. They have just found a juicy business model where they've learnt to titillate the sensitivities of a certain segment of the population to maximize revenue. That just describes their motivations as not being partisan. Their product is still highly partisan.
> Their product is still highly partisan. Fair enough, but they're not really a news source.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems Orwellian to me to have CEOs in general in some arrangement to lend trust to the media. The incentives for any kind of accountability would seem to be even worse than they are today. What do you mean by a ‘net of trust’?
I suspect they are just referring to the basic social fabric, so to speak. If everybody has a variety of mostly trustworthy sources that act as implicit or explicit verifiers of each other, then everybody has a fairly robust ability to gather information about the world - including the trustworthiness of the various parts of their 'net'. This sort of thing seems to have, however, somewhat broken down in recently year…
That's true, and it might only extend the trust-issues. You get someone to embrace a not-trustworthy institution and vouch for them, the trust in them will fade away as well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
NPR, PBS, BBC, AustralianBC, CanadianBC, etc are not for profit and exist in the public interest. These are an important subset of the mass media in English. We need to make sure these organs hold to the public interest principle, and also that they can maintain reliable funding.
I don’t know about the international organizations but I can tell you for the US-based “publicly funded” ones they are considered just as untrustworthy, for the same reasons as fox, CNN, NYT, etc.