CDZ Fake News/Media Syndrome

[petro]

Too many have lost any ability to think for themselves or apply critical thought to all they hear or read. A short attention span public more obsessed with the happenings and opinions of irrelevant celebrities and talking heads spewing the same old tired partisan soundbites from both extreme sides of the aisle.
Fact is real news doesn't sell...gossip does, and ALL media has been reduced to TMZ style reporting.

 

[william the wie]

Too many have lost any ability to think for themselves or apply critical thought to all they hear or read. A short attention span public more obsessed with the happenings and opinions of irrelevant celebrities and talking heads spewing the same old tired partisan soundbites from both extreme sides of the aisle.
Fact is real news doesn't sell...gossip does, and ALL media has been reduced to TMZ style reporting.

With the exception of the $10K/$25K stock terminals they can't afford the cost of anything but tear and print

 

[Foxfyre]

You are mistaking an economic problem for a political problem. The terminal companies: Bloomberg and Reuters; are the only non-government media that can afford adequate staffing. The MSM is dealing with a shrinking budget and that includes CNBC, which is trying to become one of the big boys. The competent move up to the terminal companies and the rest deal with shrinking resources.

"Inadequate staffing' is no excuse for putting a blatantly misleading headline on a story or obvious misrepresentation of what was actually said or organizing a story to create a different impression from what actually happened.

 

[Foxfyre]

Too many have lost any ability to think for themselves or apply critical thought to all they hear or read. A short attention span public more obsessed with the happenings and opinions of irrelevant celebrities and talking heads spewing the same old tired partisan soundbites from both extreme sides of the aisle.
Fact is real news doesn't sell...gossip does, and ALL media has been reduced to TMZ style reporting.

I agree that the sound bite, repeating talking point, and false meme has become the new norm in media reporting. You know the meme is happening when you see the same unusual word like 'gravitas' repeated everywhere in the media during the same 24-48 hour time period.

But it is tragic for those who long for the Fourth Estate we once had that concentrated on at least a degree of fairness, accuracy, and attention to important details. We no longer have a media that we can trust to inform us. Instead we have a media that is almost wholly engaged in pure partisan propaganda.

 

[Mac1958]

Let's remember where the term "fake news" originally started: With right wing websites such as World Net Daily, Breitbart and InfoWars. These sites regularly belched out completely inaccurate, bogus, unsubstantiated and transparent rumors as fact. We would then regularly see them referenced as fact on, for example, good ol' USMB. That's where the term actually comes from.

Then, because the wings try to commandeer terms that sting them, the conservatives were able to usurp the term, primarily via Trump's Twitter bully pulpit. As we know, the Left has tried to do the same with "snowflake", they just don't have the attention Trump has.

So, if "fake news" actually means "the belching out of completely inaccurate, bogus, unsubstantiated and transparent rumors as fact", the MSM certainly does its share. But the aforementioned original "fake news" sites are still right there with 'em.

And yeah, it's dangerous and destructive, since flocks on both sides obediently take their "fake news" as gospel and proceed accordingly.
.

 

[Foxfyre]

Semantic slanting of the news has been going since Journalism was invented...In fact, the idea that news reporting should be factual and unbiased has only been in vogue for a short time...call it a hundred years. Even at it's height...publishers have always leaned their papers one way or the other. The good ones kept it to the op/ed page..the bad ones...slanted everything. We all remember Hearst, right? The man who literally started the Spanish/American war to sell newspapers? The man for whom the term, "Yellow Journalism" was invented? Then came TV. Appearance became paramount..content took 2nd place. "If it bleeds, it leads" became the watchword. Print has been struggling to catch up, ever since. Now enter the internet...everyone sees themselves as a citizen journalist..although most are partisan hacks..that slant EVERYTHING--when they don't make it up out of whole cloth. The news market is hyper-saturated with input--and it is up to the consumer to make up his/her minds. Most do not bother..they take a stand..and choose the news that bolsters that stand. Since it is hard to verify facts..facts become devalued. The fact the one agrees with..becomes the fact that is true.

Many feel that the issue with fake news is an issue that is all about the MSM. I disagree. The issue is that without context facts are without meaning..and everyone is spinning the context now. Everyone. Divining the context..and making informed decisions is not hard..really. But it is time consuming..and sometimes..quite inconvenient to one's world view.

So more and more, people are not bothering.

As for the MSM..it has become a climate..that..if you get it right 99.9% of the time..and get it wrong once....everything is instantly devalued by those who spin....so they can ignore certain facts that are inconvenient.

In the end, it is up to the news consumer...to sort the wheat from the chaff

I have to disagree. In journalism school and later when I was an active member of the media, way back when, any story that could possibly be interpreted as biased or focused in any direction would get a byline. Most news stories did not have a byline and those of us who wrote them were honor bound to check, recheck, verify, and reverify to get it right, most especially when the reputation of a person was involved. If we couldn't verify the story it didn't make it into the paper or on the air. Any suggestion of personal bias in the straight news copy I submitted would get me a fast and severe reprimand by the editor(s). If it had been blatant it would probably have gotten me fired.

Journalism ethics was real and exercised.

The SPJ Code of Ethics was the norm among responsible media 50 years ago. It is pretty much ignored by most these days:
SPJ Code of Ethics - Society of Professional Journalists

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Fake news is merely the latest manifestation
of the right’s unwarranted hostility toward ‘the media.’

For decades conservatives have attacked ‘the media’ with ridiculous lies about ‘the media’ having a ‘liberal bias,’ when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

That ‘the media’ report facts and the truth conservatives don’t like, facts and the truth that conflict with wrongheaded conservative political and economic dogma is not justification to attack ‘the media’ by referring to the facts and truth being reported as ‘fake.’

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Semantic slanting of the news has been going since Journalism was invented...In fact, the idea that news reporting should be factual and unbiased has only been in vogue for a short time...call it a hundred years. Even at it's height...publishers have always leaned their papers one way or the other. The good ones kept it to the op/ed page..the bad ones...slanted everything. We all remember Hearst, right? The man who literally started the Spanish/American war to sell newspapers? The man for whom the term, "Yellow Journalism" was invented? Then came TV. Appearance became paramount..content took 2nd place. "If it bleeds, it leads" became the watchword. Print has been struggling to catch up, ever since. Now enter the internet...everyone sees themselves as a citizen journalist..although most are partisan hacks..that slant EVERYTHING--when they don't make it up out of whole cloth. The news market is hyper-saturated with input--and it is up to the consumer to make up his/her minds. Most do not bother..they take a stand..and choose the news that bolsters that stand. Since it is hard to verify facts..facts become devalued. The fact the one agrees with..becomes the fact that is true.

Many feel that the issue with fake news is an issue that is all about the MSM. I disagree. The issue is that without context facts are without meaning..and everyone is spinning the context now. Everyone. Divining the context..and making informed decisions is not hard..really. But it is time consuming..and sometimes..quite inconvenient to one's world view.

So more and more, people are not bothering.

As for the MSM..it has become a climate..that..if you get it right 99.9% of the time..and get it wrong once....everything is instantly devalued by those who spin....so they can ignore certain facts that are inconvenient.

In the end, it is up to the news consumer...to sort the wheat from the chaff

I have to disagree. In journalism school and later when I was an active member of the media, way back when, any story that could possibly be interpreted as biased or focused in any direction would get a byline. Most news stories did not have a byline and those of us who wrote them were honor bound to check, recheck, verify, and reverify to get it right, most especially when the reputation of a person was involved. If we couldn't verify the story it didn't make it into the paper or on the air. Any suggestion of personal bias in the straight news copy I submitted would get me a fast and severe reprimand by the editor(s). If it had been blatant it would probably have gotten me fired.

Journalism ethics was real and exercised.

The SPJ Code of Ethics was the norm among responsible media 50 years ago. It is pretty much ignored by most these days:
SPJ Code of Ethics - Society of Professional Journalists

I tend to agree..I also was a member of the working press--back in the stone age. Accuracy was important..and personal bias forbidden. The slant, in those days..was in what the Publisher liked..it manifested itself in what stories ran..and what did not. The senior editors knew what was expected. Above the fold, below the fold or buried in the back---placement in the paper was important. Straight news was expected to be accurate. But what was run in a McClatchy paper..was far different than what ran in a Hearst paper. Slant was subtle..except in the op/ed section, but it did exist.

Now it is blatant---and whatever you ascribe as to the reasons--the fact cannot be denied.

 

[Foxfyre]

Fake news isn't a problem at all. That Trump and Trumpkins haven't any idea of what fake news is and is not, yet they persist in using that term and declaring thus any news they don't like, is the problem, and, yes, it's a big problem.

Can you give me an example of something the President has characterized as fake news that was in fact inaccurate?

 

[Foxfyre]

Semantic slanting of the news has been going since Journalism was invented...In fact, the idea that news reporting should be factual and unbiased has only been in vogue for a short time...call it a hundred years. Even at it's height...publishers have always leaned their papers one way or the other. The good ones kept it to the op/ed page..the bad ones...slanted everything. We all remember Hearst, right? The man who literally started the Spanish/American war to sell newspapers? The man for whom the term, "Yellow Journalism" was invented? Then came TV. Appearance became paramount..content took 2nd place. "If it bleeds, it leads" became the watchword. Print has been struggling to catch up, ever since. Now enter the internet...everyone sees themselves as a citizen journalist..although most are partisan hacks..that slant EVERYTHING--when they don't make it up out of whole cloth. The news market is hyper-saturated with input--and it is up to the consumer to make up his/her minds. Most do not bother..they take a stand..and choose the news that bolsters that stand. Since it is hard to verify facts..facts become devalued. The fact the one agrees with..becomes the fact that is true.

Many feel that the issue with fake news is an issue that is all about the MSM. I disagree. The issue is that without context facts are without meaning..and everyone is spinning the context now. Everyone. Divining the context..and making informed decisions is not hard..really. But it is time consuming..and sometimes..quite inconvenient to one's world view.

So more and more, people are not bothering.

As for the MSM..it has become a climate..that..if you get it right 99.9% of the time..and get it wrong once....everything is instantly devalued by those who spin....so they can ignore certain facts that are inconvenient.

In the end, it is up to the news consumer...to sort the wheat from the chaff

I have to disagree. In journalism school and later when I was an active member of the media, way back when, any story that could possibly be interpreted as biased or focused in any direction would get a byline. Most news stories did not have a byline and those of us who wrote them were honor bound to check, recheck, verify, and reverify to get it right, most especially when the reputation of a person was involved. If we couldn't verify the story it didn't make it into the paper or on the air. Any suggestion of personal bias in the straight news copy I submitted would get me a fast and severe reprimand by the editor(s). If it had been blatant it would probably have gotten me fired.

Journalism ethics was real and exercised.

The SPJ Code of Ethics was the norm among responsible media 50 years ago. It is pretty much ignored by most these days:
SPJ Code of Ethics - Society of Professional Journalists

I tend to agree..I also was a member of the working press--back in the stone age. Accuracy was important..and personal bias forbidden. The slant, in those days..was in what the Publisher liked..it manifested itself in what stories ran..and what did not. The senior editors knew what was expected. Above the fold, below the fold or buried in the back---placement in the paper was important. Straight news was expected to be accurate. But what was run in a McClatchy paper..was far different than what ran in a Hearst paper. Slant was subtle..except in the op/ed section, but it did exist.

Now it is blatant---and whatever you ascribe as to the reasons--the fact cannot be denied.

I agree that the placement of the story could and did reflect what the powers that be in a particular media outlet considered to be important though in no media outlet I ever worked for do I remember the owners ever getting involved in the actual content. So placement would reflect any editor bias rather than the owners for the most part. I don't know that journalistic ethics deals with that or even could.

The content of the story, however, was where ethics came into it, and also a misleading headline would not have been allowed. Maybe a bit more subtle is the contact and intended emotional reaction of the photo selected to accompany the story, but a good editor would even be watching for obvious bias in that.

For sure the important bare basic content was always in the first or maybe first two paragraphs, i.e. who, what, where, when, why, and how. You didn't have to go digging deep into the story that most people don't read to find any important extenuating information.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Not only are conservatives attacking accurate, legitimate reporting as being ‘fake,’ rightwing media have become the purveyors of fake news, contriving lies and misinformation on sites such as Breitbart, DailyCaller and Conservapedia in an effort to attack political opponents and energize the conservative base.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Fake news isn't a problem at all. That Trump and Trumpkins haven't any idea of what fake news is and is not, yet they persist in using that term and declaring thus any news they don't like, is the problem, and, yes, it's a big problem.

Can you give me an example of something the President has characterized as fake news that was in fact accurate?

Birtherism is the first thing that comes to mind--but I guess you are not talking about when Trump spread Fake news...

10 Times Trump Spread Fake News

Autism is caused by vaccinations is fake news..and Trump has spread it numerous times--but that isn't really what you called for either..Hmmmm..

All False statements involving Donald Trump | PolitiFact

The times he has claimed that he will not benefit from the new Tax Bill...that's the ticket..he very clearly will benefit--and he has claimed that reports that he will benefit.."fake news"

Tough call..you are not asking for the many, many times he lied..but the times he claimed someone else lied..and in fact, they were telling the truth.

 

[Darkwind]

Is it really the fault of the media outlets, or the citizens flocking toward confirmation bias support?

The media will give the consumers what they want. A significant portion of the citizenship has always been government lemmings, and so the vast majority of the media slants toward giving biased information to the left wing.

When the conservatives finally managed to get their voice heard above the din and break into the monopoly that the left had on information dissemination, the media began to offer up some confirmation bias toward that group.

I see a lot of progressives screaming that the right wing simply looks for sources of information that give them their worldview.

Yet, they fail to notice that almost 4 to 1 media outlets are left leaning. So, in reality, who is seeking out information that confirms their biases? The answer is clearly the left flock to news outlets that confirm their worldview far more than the right.

Is it a problem? Of course. Yet, I don't think the problem is with the media per se, so much as it is with us.

 

[Darkwind]

Fake news is merely the latest manifestation
of the right’s unwarranted hostility toward ‘the media.’

For decades conservatives have attacked ‘the media’ with ridiculous lies about ‘the media’ having a ‘liberal bias,’ when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

That ‘the media’ report facts and the truth conservatives don’t like, facts and the truth that conflict with wrongheaded conservative political and economic dogma is not justification to attack ‘the media’ by referring to the facts and truth being reported as ‘fake.’

Exhibit number 1 for My argument that it is the partisans that are the problem.

 

[Foxfyre]

Not only are conservatives attacking accurate, legitimate reporting as being ‘fake,’ rightwing media have become the purveyors of fake news, contriving lies and misinformation on sites such as Breitbart, DailyCaller and Conservapedia in an effort to attack political opponents and energize the conservative base.

That is a legitimate argument for this thread IF you can back it up with an example or two in context please.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I don,'t usually use the term "fake news" but I do think that far too much of what passes for news these days is simply agenda.

Having grown up in the days when the news was actually the news and followed some journalistic standards, I am appalled by the likes of Rachel Maddow who wouldn't know journalistic integrity if it smacked her along side her smug little head.

The right may own a.m. Radio, but at least they are honest in admitting they are pundits instead of news people. The left owns most mainstream media and tries to peddle what they do as news when they are really in the business of manufacturing opinion.

 

[Foxfyre]

Is it really the fault of the media outlets, or the citizens flocking toward confirmation bias support?

The media will give the consumers what they want. A significant portion of the citizenship has always been government lemmings, and so the vast majority of the media slants toward giving biased information to the left wing.

When the conservatives finally managed to get their voice heard above the din and break into the monopoly that the left had on information dissemination, the media began to offer up some confirmation bias toward that group.

I see a lot of progressives screaming that the right wing simply looks for sources of information that give them their worldview.

Yet, they fail to notice that almost 4 to 1 media outlets are left leaning. So, in reality, who is seeking out information that confirms their biases? The answer is clearly the left flock to news outlets that confirm their worldview far more than the right.

Is it a problem? Of course. Yet, I don't think the problem is with the media per se, so much as it is with us.

For sure a dishonest media catering to people who want their prejudices/biases/beliefs confirmed and don't much care whether they are actually legitimate does put all pretty much in the same barrel. But if the media did its job with fairness, ethical principles, and intellectual honesty, maybe there wouldn't be so many people with illegitimate prejudices/biases/beliefs?

I mean the media is in the business of gathering facts and information and has the resources to do so that the average citizen does not.

It is because the media is feeding the gross dishonesty, even egging it on, that I rate media dishonesty/bias as an extreme problem. What society can exist for long if it is only exposed to lies/misleading information presented by those who profit from those lies and that misinformation?

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Fake news is merely the latest manifestation
of the right’s unwarranted hostility toward ‘the media.’

For decades conservatives have attacked ‘the media’ with ridiculous lies about ‘the media’ having a ‘liberal bias,’ when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

That ‘the media’ report facts and the truth conservatives don’t like, facts and the truth that conflict with wrongheaded conservative political and economic dogma is not justification to attack ‘the media’ by referring to the facts and truth being reported as ‘fake.’

Exhibit number 1 for My argument that it is the partisans that are the problem.

once you have read your first thousand of his canned responses, you have rad them all.

 

[Darkwind]

Is it really the fault of the media outlets, or the citizens flocking toward confirmation bias support?

The media will give the consumers what they want. A significant portion of the citizenship has always been government lemmings, and so the vast majority of the media slants toward giving biased information to the left wing.

When the conservatives finally managed to get their voice heard above the din and break into the monopoly that the left had on information dissemination, the media began to offer up some confirmation bias toward that group.

I see a lot of progressives screaming that the right wing simply looks for sources of information that give them their worldview.

Yet, they fail to notice that almost 4 to 1 media outlets are left leaning. So, in reality, who is seeking out information that confirms their biases? The answer is clearly the left flock to news outlets that confirm their worldview far more than the right.

Is it a problem? Of course. Yet, I don't think the problem is with the media per se, so much as it is with us.

For sure a dishonest media catering to people who want their prejudices/biases/beliefs confirmed and don't much care whether they are actually legitimate does put all pretty much in the same barrel. But if the media did its job with fairness, ethical principles, and intellectual honesty, maybe there wouldn't be so many people with illegitimate prejudices/biases/beliefs?

I mean the media is in the business of gathering facts and information and has the resources to do so that the average citizen does not.

It is because the media is feeding the gross dishonesty, even egging it on, that I rate media dishonesty/bias as an extreme problem. What society can exist for long if it is only exposed to lies/misleading information presented by those who profit from those lies and that misinformation?

The problem is that we give the media slack on two fronts. We give them all deference to the First Amendment (a legitimate right), but also give them the right to be a business. Since profits are more important to them than integrity, they'll go with the bais and actively work to keep the citizens divided for the purpose of profit.

Legitimate and ethical journalism died a long time ago.

So, it then lands upon us, the citizens, to control their honesty through our spending habits. However, as we see, politics now pervade every aspect of life and if there is division, there is money to be made from it. So, the citizenry is as controlled in how they consume political information as they are in any other marketing of a product.

The power brokers know exactly which buttons to push when to push them, and how to control the flow of information to keep everyone at each other's throats.

We are a nation of sheep, and the media plays to that. In My opinion, we are the problem, not the media.

 

[Foxfyre]

Fake news isn't a problem at all. That Trump and Trumpkins haven't any idea of what fake news is and is not, yet they persist in using that term and declaring thus any news they don't like, is the problem, and, yes, it's a big problem.

Can you give me an example of something the President has characterized as fake news that was in fact accurate?

Birtherism is the first thing that comes to mind--but I guess you are not talking about when Trump spread Fake news...

10 Times Trump Spread Fake News

Autism is caused by vaccinations is fake news..and Trump has spread it numerous times--but that isn't really what you called for either..Hmmmm..

All False statements involving Donald Trump | PolitiFact

The times he has claimed that he will not benefit from the new Tax Bill...that's the ticket..he very clearly will benefit--and he has claimed that reports that he will benefit.."fake news"

Tough call..you are not asking for the many, many times he lied..but the times he claimed someone else lied..and in fact, they were telling the truth.

There are plenty of threads referencing perception of lies told by the President. This thread is not about the President. This thread is about the media and whether or not biased/dishonest/erroneous reporting is a serious problem. Let's focus on that please.