51–60 of 205 posts
Um, no. You gain people's trust by being consistently worthy of trust. This article seems to think that trust is it's own fungible but inconvertible substance (the media has lost theirs, so someone else needs to give them some), rather than something that derives from an objective reality.
This attitude here, is a source of the problem by itself. If traditional media outlets would just put truthful information out without trying to get it "accepted," that would go a long way in rebuilding trust.
When you are aware of the ground situation and see articles in the Washington Post that are clearly completely false, misleading, and spinning facts with a clear purpose of advancing a narrative, (and trying to be "accepted"? by whom?) that completely destroys any remaining trust that you might have built up over the years.
So their solution to the declining trust in government and media is to leverage the trust that employees still have in their CEOs. If they can convince CEOs to push their false narratives, then trust will evaporate there as well. How about instead: be more trustworthy.
Trust in government is even lower - hovering at around 24%. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2021/05/17/public-trust...
Just seems poorly thought out.
> 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…
Especially when their revenue depends on it.
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…
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.
I think is up to personal choices: • Quit subscribing corporate media and subscribe to single reporters that are doing real reporting. • Have zero tolerance for news that mislead you. ”Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.” • Try to find reporters that are willing to give you the honest cotext even if it goes against what you expect and does not affirm your believes. If enough people do this, those…
But single reporters seem even more aggressively partisan than corporate. They're often at least fairly explicit about this though - billing themselves as a journalist of the left or of the right or whatever spectrum you want - but there's still no balance.
Unless you count chasing the bottom line as an ideology, that is.
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.
I don't have problem with a biased news source, as long as I have enough news sources to dig from and can average out the bias from multiple sources.