CDZ We MUST break up Corporate Media to Save Our Republic

[JimBowie1958]

We need to have an independent press that tries to bring obj3ective Truth to the public, not regurgitated propaganda for corporate crony benefit.

https://nypost.com/2019/11/20/when-...9He2whszanlenJq-_3uW19hMzrkwYkizlDvR6Ph4_2WNI

So the United States has “the world’s highest rate of children in detention.” Is this worth reporting? Maybe, maybe not. Nevertheless, Agence France-Presse, or AFP, and Reuters did report it, attributing the information to a “United Nations study” on migrant children detained at the US-Mexico border.

Then the two agencies retracted the story. Deleted, withdrew, demolished. If they could have used one of those Men in Black memory-zappers on us, they would have. Sheepishly, the two news organizations explained that, you see, the UN data was from 2015 — part of a border crackdown that had begun years earlier.
We all know who the president was in 2015. It wasn’t evil, child-caging monster President Trump. It was that nice, compassionate, child-caging monster President Barack Obama.

Zap. The story made Obama look bad. Hence the story was removed. Not updated or corrected, removed.
I know it’s a heavy news environment. Who can keep up? But try to remember this one, because it’s instructive. People think news organizations flat-out fabricate stories. That isn’t often the case. Fake news is a problem that pops up here and there, but the much more systematic and deeply entrenched attack on truth is the casual, everyday bias of reporters.

AFP and Reuters deleted a story that was, in a narrow sense, true — that a UN study claimed the United States had some 100,000 children in migrant-related detention. The United Nations is horribly biased against America and the West. Still, on the level of lazy, news-release-driven journalism, the locked-up-kids story was minimally valid.​

 

[jwoodie]

We need to have an independent press that tries to bring obj3ective Truth to the public, not regurgitated propaganda for corporate crony benefit.

I agree. News organizations should be financially independent from corporate interests. If they are not, they should be required to disclose this fact and should not receive any "press" benefits or protections.

 

[Syriusly]

We need to have an independent press that tries to bring obj3ective Truth to the public, not regurgitated propaganda for corporate crony benefit.

https://nypost.com/2019/11/20/when-...9He2whszanlenJq-_3uW19hMzrkwYkizlDvR6Ph4_2WNI

So the United States has “the world’s highest rate of children in detention.” Is this worth reporting? Maybe, maybe not. Nevertheless, Agence France-Presse, or AFP, and Reuters did report it, attributing the information to a “United Nations study” on migrant children detained at the US-Mexico border.

Then the two agencies retracted the story. Deleted, withdrew, demolished. If they could have used one of those Men in Black memory-zappers on us, they would have. Sheepishly, the two news organizations explained that, you see, the UN data was from 2015 — part of a border crackdown that had begun years earlier.
We all know who the president was in 2015. It wasn’t evil, child-caging monster President Trump. It was that nice, compassionate, child-caging monster President Barack Obama.

Zap. The story made Obama look bad. Hence the story was removed. Not updated or corrected, removed.
I know it’s a heavy news environment. Who can keep up? But try to remember this one, because it’s instructive. People think news organizations flat-out fabricate stories. That isn’t often the case. Fake news is a problem that pops up here and there, but the much more systematic and deeply entrenched attack on truth is the casual, everyday bias of reporters.

AFP and Reuters deleted a story that was, in a narrow sense, true — that a UN study claimed the United States had some 100,000 children in migrant-related detention. The United Nations is horribly biased against America and the West. Still, on the level of lazy, news-release-driven journalism, the locked-up-kids story was minimally valid.​

Then we have the National Enquirer- which bought up the rights of one of Trump's adultery partners- just to quash the story so that voters wouldn't hear it.

And of course Fox which essentially regurgitates propaganda for Trump's benefit.

I am all for a plan to have 'an independent press'- I just am curious what you think that would look like and how it would be financially successful?

 

[Syriusly]

We need to have an independent press that tries to bring obj3ective Truth to the public, not regurgitated propaganda for corporate crony benefit.

https://nypost.com/2019/11/20/when-...9He2whszanlenJq-_3uW19hMzrkwYkizlDvR6Ph4_2WNI

So the United States has “the world’s highest rate of children in detention.” Is this worth reporting? Maybe, maybe not. Nevertheless, Agence France-Presse, or AFP, and Reuters did report it, attributing the information to a “United Nations study” on migrant children detained at the US-Mexico border.

Then the two agencies retracted the story. Deleted, withdrew, demolished. If they could have used one of those Men in Black memory-zappers on us, they would have. Sheepishly, the two news organizations explained that, you see, the UN data was from 2015 — part of a border crackdown that had begun years earlier.
We all know who the president was in 2015. It wasn’t evil, child-caging monster President Trump. It was that nice, compassionate, child-caging monster President Barack Obama.

Zap. The story made Obama look bad. Hence the story was removed. Not updated or corrected, removed.
I know it’s a heavy news environment. Who can keep up? But try to remember this one, because it’s instructive. People think news organizations flat-out fabricate stories. That isn’t often the case. Fake news is a problem that pops up here and there, but the much more systematic and deeply entrenched attack on truth is the casual, everyday bias of reporters.

AFP and Reuters deleted a story that was, in a narrow sense, true — that a UN study claimed the United States had some 100,000 children in migrant-related detention. The United Nations is horribly biased against America and the West. Still, on the level of lazy, news-release-driven journalism, the locked-up-kids story was minimally valid.​

Fascinating- when I look up this story- one of the first 'news agencies' to report it? RT reported this 6 days ago, NY Post clearly picked up on it when it reported it 5 days ago.
Wrong narrative? AFP & Reuters scrub story about 100,000 detained migrant children after UN says it happened on Obama’s watch
Talk about not being independent- RT is essentially a propaganda publication for Putin.

Doing a little more digging- turns out plenty of American news agencies are reporting the original report:
U.N. expert corrects claim on children in U.S. migration detention

Others reporting it- washington post, al jazeera,

Oh and still on AFP's website.

Only one who seems to have eliminated the story is Reuters.

Based in France.

Tell us how your plan is going to work again?

 

[Confounding]

Money fuels corruption. Anywhere it becomes too concentrated and monopolized trouble always follows. We need to do a lot more than break up big media. We need to go after the banks and a few other titans too. I often see Republicans bitching about trying to limit the free market when these conversations happen, but what kind of free market do we really have when a handful of super-corporations own everything?

 

[Confounding]

I am all for a plan to have 'an independent press'- I just am curious what you think that would look like and how it would be financially successful?

Maybe you could put some ideas out there in a non-divisive way. What do you think would be ideal? Are left-friendly media sources doing an excellent job, or do they also leave a lot to be desired?

 

[Syriusly]

I am all for a plan to have 'an independent press'- I just am curious what you think that would look like and how it would be financially successful?

Maybe you could put some ideas out there in a non-divisive way. What do you think would be ideal? Are left-friendly media sources doing an excellent job, or do they also leave a lot to be desired?

Well I challenged the OP since it was his idea- but sure- I agree if I am going to jump in I should be willing to provide some ideas.

First of all- we have a range of media right now- from the far right to the far left. There has been a general blurring of the distinction between opinions and reporting the news- and I think this is especially true in the media to the farthest extremes. I think that the range of media is a good thing. I may not agree how Fox News serves as a propaganda arm for Trump, but I also think Fox does this in what they consider to be their own self interest. And I think MSNBC is just as bad.

I think that first of all I think we should push back on the term 'Fake News'- because this term is now being used to label everything from propaganda direct from Russia, to a mistake being made, to accurately reporting what actually happened- if it happens to be critical of Trump. I think the term should be reserved for when a news organization actually makes up facts. Makes up news.

Secondly- I think that we should have the fairness doctrine brought back. It certainly wasn't perfect, but the rise of extreme partisanship in media certainly coincided with the death of the fairness doctrine.

I am all for any ideas that anyone else has. I just think that 'breaking' up corporate media in America because one French based news agency retracted a story(and everyone else continued to report it) is not the answer to anything.

 

[Syriusly]

Money fuels corruption. Anywhere it becomes too concentrated and monopolized trouble always follows. We need to do a lot more than break up big media. We need to go after the banks and a few other titans too. I often see Republicans bitching about trying to limit the free market when these conversations happen, but what kind of free market do we really have when a handful of super-corporations own everything?

Media is struggling to survive as it is. Breaking up media won't make it more profitable, probably less- and would just result in fewer media organizations.

 

[Leo123]

So called 'objective news' shows should be made to run a chyron under the image of each talking head stating their political bias. That way we know where their biases are even though they purport to be 'objective.' News sources like MSNBC and CNN will lose viewership when folks figure out just how much they have been lied to.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

All agreed. The media has become a dangerous tool for propaganda for special interest.
Smart people know this.

Those who don't know shit continue to regurgitate the BS from CNN, MSLSD, MSDNC, NBC etc etc etc

 

[Augustine_]

We need to have an independent press that tries to bring obj3ective Truth to the public, not regurgitated propaganda for corporate crony benefit.

https://nypost.com/2019/11/20/when-...9He2whszanlenJq-_3uW19hMzrkwYkizlDvR6Ph4_2WNI

So the United States has “the world’s highest rate of children in detention.” Is this worth reporting? Maybe, maybe not. Nevertheless, Agence France-Presse, or AFP, and Reuters did report it, attributing the information to a “United Nations study” on migrant children detained at the US-Mexico border.

Then the two agencies retracted the story. Deleted, withdrew, demolished. If they could have used one of those Men in Black memory-zappers on us, they would have. Sheepishly, the two news organizations explained that, you see, the UN data was from 2015 — part of a border crackdown that had begun years earlier.
We all know who the president was in 2015. It wasn’t evil, child-caging monster President Trump. It was that nice, compassionate, child-caging monster President Barack Obama.

Zap. The story made Obama look bad. Hence the story was removed. Not updated or corrected, removed.
I know it’s a heavy news environment. Who can keep up? But try to remember this one, because it’s instructive. People think news organizations flat-out fabricate stories. That isn’t often the case. Fake news is a problem that pops up here and there, but the much more systematic and deeply entrenched attack on truth is the casual, everyday bias of reporters.

AFP and Reuters deleted a story that was, in a narrow sense, true — that a UN study claimed the United States had some 100,000 children in migrant-related detention. The United Nations is horribly biased against America and the West. Still, on the level of lazy, news-release-driven journalism, the locked-up-kids story was minimally valid.​

I'm all for it. Take Faux and corporate radio away from conservatives and they'll have no choice but to rejoin reality.

 

[Oddball]

So called 'objective news' shows should be made to run a chyron under the image of each talking head stating their political bias. That way we know where their biases are even though they purport to be 'objective.' News sources like MSNBC and CNN will lose viewership when folks figure out just how much they have been lied to.

Even that wouldn't be much help.....We've had schmucks like George Will, David Brooks, and Bll Kristol (for starters) peddled to us as alleged "conservatives"over the decades, yet they lick the boots of The State as ravenously as any alleged "liberal".

 

[Mac1958]

This would be very difficult to do.

Unless and until more of the public demands better, we're going to keep seeing biased media from both ends, both spouting their version of "The Truth".

And the public won't demand better. We now have "news" sites that cater to our own biased worldviews. We have people here using winger blogs and websites as "sources" for "stories". We've lost the curiosity required to seek out the whole story.

I don't know what fixes this.
.

 

[Leo123]

So called 'objective news' shows should be made to run a chyron under the image of each talking head stating their political bias. That way we know where their biases are even though they purport to be 'objective.' News sources like MSNBC and CNN will lose viewership when folks figure out just how much they have been lied to.

Even that wouldn't be much help.....We've had schmucks like George Will, David Brooks, and Bll Kristol (for starters) peddled to us as alleged "conservatives"over the decades, yet they lick the boots of The State as ravenously as any alleged "liberal".

Yes, they would be exposed as liars.

 

[Syriusly]

So called 'objective news' shows should be made to run a chyron under the image of each talking head stating their political bias. That way we know where their biases are even though they purport to be 'objective.' News sources like MSNBC and CNN will lose viewership when folks figure out just how much they have been lied to.

Exactly how would that work? Who would decide what their biases are?

Because in today's Trump world, people become biased the moment that they are in any way critical of Trump.

And really- do you think Fox or Trump loses readership just because people know how much they have been lied to by them?

Trump and the GOP has worked very hard to convince people that the Media is not trustworthy- but Trump is.

To trust Trump- not the Wall Street Journal. To trust Trump, not the New York Times.

When Fox shows even the smallest amount of unfaithfulness by reporting something that makes Trump look less good, Trump immediately attacks Fox also.

 

[Syriusly]

So called 'objective news' shows should be made to run a chyron under the image of each talking head stating their political bias. That way we know where their biases are even though they purport to be 'objective.' News sources like MSNBC and CNN will lose viewership when folks figure out just how much they have been lied to.

Even that wouldn't be much help.....We've had schmucks like George Will, David Brooks, and Bll Kristol (for starters) peddled to us as alleged "conservatives"over the decades, yet they lick the boots of The State as ravenously as any alleged "liberal".

Yes, they would be exposed as liars.

Well this is fascinating.

Show us how George Will is a liar?

David Brooks?

Is it just because they are conservatives who don't support Donald Trump?

What lies have they told?

 

[Syriusly]

So called 'objective news' shows should be made to run a chyron under the image of each talking head stating their political bias. That way we know where their biases are even though they purport to be 'objective.' News sources like MSNBC and CNN will lose viewership when folks figure out just how much they have been lied to.

Even that wouldn't be much help.....We've had schmucks like George Will, David Brooks, and Bll Kristol (for starters) peddled to us as alleged "conservatives"over the decades, yet they lick the boots of The State as ravenously as any alleged "liberal".

So what is it that George Will has said that means he is not a real conservative?

 

[fncceo]

News organizations should be financially independent from corporate interests.

Any news organization must have financial backing to exist. If the backing isn't private (corporate) then it has to be governmental.

There is only one thing worse than private news organizations and that would be state-run media...

 

[sparky]

~S~

 

[Crepitus]

We MUST break up Corporate Media to Save Our Republic

I agree completely. Sinclair media and their "must run" pro tRump garbage must go.