Gaining social media trust is the job of media platforms.
And what people can do is educating themselves about news literacy, to better get the git out of the opinionated-purposeful-news (and sometime misleading).
Media trust hits new low
71–80 of 205 posts
Re: Media trust hits new low
#72I stopped following corporate news 2 years ago and started paying for independent creators and journalists instead on Substack and Locals. I follow substack, locals and other communities of of Glenn Greenwald, Viva Frei and Robert Barnes, Kim Iverson, Steven Crowder mug club, Jimmy Dore, Matt Taibbi, Aaron Mate, Michael Tracey, Alison Morrow, Sharyl Attkinson.
Seems like you have a preference for a particular type of news source. I don't know whether it is better to lean into our political biases or to just not play the game at all.
Huh? There's clearly content on both the left and the right here.
Glenn Greenwald, Aaron Maté, Jimmy Dore, Michael Tracey and Matt Taibbi might not be _your_ left but they are certainly and firmly on the left.
Re: Media trust hits new low
#73Misinformation aside, I suspect the media lies and spins things just as much as in the past, its largely through social media that real facts come out to show how the main media is often wrong or misleading. Of course there is way to much rumor and plain wrong stuff on SM too.
Re: Media trust hits new low
#74Um, 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.
> You gain people's trust by being consistently worthy of trust. People trust repeated liers all the time. And truth telling institutions are rarely most trusted popular ones.
Indeed. It seems like the path to getting a lot of people to trust you is to tell lies so big that many can't believe someone would come up with a lie like that.
Re: Media trust hits new low
#75> 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 bills paid. The incentives are all out of alignment with no obvious way to fix them.
I think the worst part of this is the authoritarian tendencies that are creeping in as people try to maintain a guise of being trustworthy as others begin to look for "trust" elsewhere.
Re: Media trust hits new low
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Corporate news aren't partisan. 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 ave…
>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.
Re: Media trust hits new low
#77I stopped following corporate news 2 years ago and started paying for independent creators and journalists instead on Substack and Locals. I follow substack, locals and other communities of of Glenn Greenwald, Viva Frei and Robert Barnes, Kim Iverson, Steven Crowder mug club, Jimmy Dore, Matt Taibbi, Aaron Mate, Michael Tracey, Alison Morrow, Sharyl Attkinson.
I'll add Stossel to a list of good-to-follows for independent takes. Here's a video of him directly asking politicians at a city council meeting about corruption with a local developer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99IeGqIIHj4 They have since approved a project that was competing with the corrupt developer and the corrupt developer is facing federal charges: https://apnews.com/article/f7a7fdb3057548009072601729a2d…
Thanks for posting this, I had forgotten this video, it's great (he has others that are really worth watching, go watch if you want "my racist bake sale" [1])
Yeah, agree, Stossel is great, and even if heavily biased, he's what journalism should be about: exposing malfeasance.
He used to be part of the media establishment, but I guess got cast out when he decided to be an actual journalist.
Re: Media trust hits new low
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems like you have a preference for a particular type of news source. I don't know whether it is better to lean into our political biases or to just not play the game at all.
Huh? There's clearly content on both the left and the right here. Glenn Greenwald, Aaron Maté, Jimmy Dore, Michael Tracey and Matt Taibbi might not be _your_ left but they are certainly and firmly on the left.
Yeah, and as a matter of fact, I believe it's the only way to form a proper opinion.
Re: Media trust hits new low
#79Why 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.
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.
Re: Media trust hits new low
#80"The natural bodies of administration which are traditionally either elected by people at large or appointed by elected leaders of society are being actively substituted by artificial bodies. Groups of people that nobody elected. As a matter of fact most of the people do not like them at all, yet they exist.
One such group is media - who elected them? How come they have so much monopolistic power over your mind? How come they have the nerve to decide what is good or bad for the elected president and his administration? Who are they?...
... Power structure slowly is eroded by groups of people who do not have neither qualifications nor will of people to keep them in power. Yet they do have power."
-Yuri Bezmenov, describing how to slowly infiltrate the culture of a targeted society [0]