POLL: What do you expect from the major media?

[Mac1958]

`
Objectivity amongst the corporately owned media, really no longer exists. More people are getting their news online.
`

I'm 51 y/o, I can assure you that I have never heard objective news.

Certainly part of the problem is the absolute proliferation of "news" "sources", beginning with cable TV many years ago and then the internet.

I guess this was inevitable. But I don't know how a democracy is supposed to function when its population exists in separate realities.
.

well fortunately we are a republic, and the most important aspects of our country can't be voted on.

I guess it depends on how much a populace is influenced by its "media".

Anecdotally, it seems to me that the influence is pretty strong.
.

 

[JoeB131]

So, you’re saying he was wrong? We won Vietnam?

I'm saying the Tet Offensive was in fact a massive defeat for the Viet Cong. But Cronkite spun it as a victory for them and said the war was unwinnable.

 

[Mac1958]

Well, if I had my druthers then it would be facts and I can do my own analysis.

Media conglomerates. Same problem that we have had for well over 20 years. These are not independent or even examples of well thought out journalism. We keep expecting these people to deliver and they will never do so because...........medial conglomerates. They don't have to.

I certainly understand that angle, but I'm curious about what people are actually looking for. A conglomerate is usually going to serve up what it thinks the people want to serve its bottom line. It appears to me that "the people" prefer to be told what to think.
.

No. They do not. You need to take a look at who sits on the board because the vast majority of them also sit on the boards of other businesses/organizations. They determine what is seen and what view point will be promoted.

I'm not aware of that, but it's been about 20 years since I was in the business.
.

 

[Mac1958]

As I type this, no one has voted for the second option, yet we all know many feel this way.

Any theories as to why that is?

It'll be interesting to see how many votes it gets.
.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

Let's first define "major media" fairly specifically: ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, CNN, MSNBC, New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times.

From what I've seen here on several threads, it appears we don't expect our major media to provide a comprehensive, objective look at the news any more. Lefties defend CNN and MSBNC's bias by attacking FOX. Righties do the opposite. Neither side appears to claim at this point that their favored sources are unbiased.

Me, I'd like to see a comprehensive look at the news, and I'll draw my own conclusions and seek out my own details.
.

I prefer the unbias form of news but let be factual news reporting has turn into tabloid news and most people prefer tabloid news and bias opinions than actual unbias news reporting...

I do think that's the case.

Obviously, for some, they like it because they don't care about hearing the whole story. But for others, maybe it's just more interesting than objectivity and their attention span requires it. Seriously.
.

Today News viewer get their news from online sources and prefer the quick bits than reading the full article and researching the subject matter from different sources.

Notice how TMZ is now a source when we were young they would have been a Tabloid source for the low informed.

So for me today society prefer the tabloid version rather than unbias journalism...

Sorry, but that is how I feel...

I mean when you have people thinking Hannity or Cooper are giving them unbias reporting, well there is something wrong.

Also those that run things know most humans lack the attention span to stay focus more than thirty seconds and many will not even research the article they are reading.

A good one was when Trump was running for President and you had posters on here posting about three million Amish pledging to vote for Trump and twenty million Amish would vote for Trump and yet there is less than a million Amish and when the posters found out it was a onion type story those that posted the article looked like fools.

So my point is you are correct about the attention span but also the laziness that many have when not researching articles to make sure what they are reading is factual and not some spin piece or joke...

 

[Windparadox]

These days? Nothing. Walter Cronkite is dead and news died with him.

`
Walter Cronkite wasn't objective. After Edward R Murrow and radio, he was one of the pioneer news "personalities" in TV. He was trusted by an entire nation. That's his claim to fame.
`
`

 

[Mac1958]

Let's first define "major media" fairly specifically: ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, CNN, MSNBC, New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times.

From what I've seen here on several threads, it appears we don't expect our major media to provide a comprehensive, objective look at the news any more. Lefties defend CNN and MSBNC's bias by attacking FOX. Righties do the opposite. Neither side appears to claim at this point that their favored sources are unbiased.

Me, I'd like to see a comprehensive look at the news, and I'll draw my own conclusions and seek out my own details.
.

I prefer the unbias form of news but let be factual news reporting has turn into tabloid news and most people prefer tabloid news and bias opinions than actual unbias news reporting...

I do think that's the case.

Obviously, for some, they like it because they don't care about hearing the whole story. But for others, maybe it's just more interesting than objectivity and their attention span requires it. Seriously.
.

Today News viewer get their news from online sources and prefer the quick bits than reading the full article and researching the subject matter from different sources.

Notice how TMZ is now a source when we were young they would have been a Tabloid source for the low informed.

So for me today society prefer the tabloid version rather than unbias journalism...

Sorry, but that is how I feel...

I mean when you have people thinking Hannity or Cooper are giving them unbias reporting, well there is something wrong.

Also those that run things know most humans lack the attention span to stay focus more than thirty seconds and many will not even research the article they are reading.

A good one was when Trump was running for President and you had posters on here posting about three million Amish pledging to vote for Trump and twenty million Amish would vote for Trump and yet there is less than a million Amish and when the posters found out it was a onion type story those that posted the article looked like fools.

So my point is you are correct about the attention span but also the laziness that many have when not researching articles to make sure what they are reading is factual and not some spin piece or joke...

I think that's a big part of it.

But the other part consists of the people who only want to expose themselves to interpretations of the "news" with which they agree.

That's option #2, and no one yet has voted for it. I find that pretty damn telling.
.

 

[JoeB131]

Certainly part of the problem is the absolute proliferation of "news" "sources", beginning with cable TV many years ago and then the internet.

I guess this was inevitable. But I don't know how a democracy is supposed to function when its population exists in separate realities.

again, you are whining about the packaging and not the content.

Both networks report the same news. Whatever stupid thing Trump says is what he says, no matter how much Fox News praises it or MSNBC tries to condemn it.

If people aren't smart enough to realize that Trump is a moron, that's on them, not the people reporting it.

I think the people realize Trump is a moron, they just don't care.

 

[Mac1958]

Your question is a bit misleading. By "expect" do you mean prefer or what I think they will do?

What I was thinking when I wrote it was, "what do you think the media should be doing when it presents 'the news', and labels it as 'news""?
.
.

 

[dblack]

As posed, I can only answer the question with "nothing good". I gave up on major news sources years (decades, really) ago. And I say that fully aware of how much distrust of the media is hobbling our politics. All of them are dripping with bias - have been since I was young. All of them, NPR included, have an axe to grind.

I see parallels between our trust in the media and the anti-drug campaigns targeting kids. When I was raising my boys, I felt like the extreme anti-drug messages were counter-productive. Kids are (or at least were) bombarded by stories of how drugs will instantly ruin their lives. They're shown pictures of crack addicts at rock bottom, presented with testimonials from prison inmates, and generally 'scared silly'. But as they grow older, what they see isn't like what they were told. Many of their friends use drugs and aren't - visibly - destroying their lives. So they decide that the anti-drug message is bullshit. They might even further conclude that most of what their teachers and parents are saying is bullshit. It's not, of course, and their distrust of their teachers and their parents ends up being far more dangerous, to them, than any joint they might smoke.

I've seen a similar transition regarding trust in the media. The media have abused our trust and used it to manipulate people, and now many people don't trust anything they say. Even to the point of choosing to believe utterly unreliable "alternative" news sources instead.

I haven't got a clue what the solution is. People need to wise up, but I have no idea how to make that happen. We seem to be cranking out generation after generation of people conditioned to follow, trained from birth to be obedient "employees".

 

[Disir]

Well, if I had my druthers then it would be facts and I can do my own analysis.

Media conglomerates. Same problem that we have had for well over 20 years. These are not independent or even examples of well thought out journalism. We keep expecting these people to deliver and they will never do so because...........medial conglomerates. They don't have to.

I certainly understand that angle, but I'm curious about what people are actually looking for. A conglomerate is usually going to serve up what it thinks the people want to serve its bottom line. It appears to me that "the people" prefer to be told what to think.
.

No. They do not. You need to take a look at who sits on the board because the vast majority of them also sit on the boards of other businesses/organizations. They determine what is seen and what view point will be promoted.

I'm not aware of that, but it's been about 20 years since I was in the business.
.

Ben Bagdikian wrote about it extensively. Media Monopoly became a text book in journalism classes.

 

[Mac1958]

again, you are whining about the packaging and not the content...

^^^ It's always easy to tell when you've struck a nerve, when you've nailed it.

This is a person who obediently believes and defends whatever the media on his "side" says and does, while at the same time pointing the finger at the other "side". Of course, we see this behavior from both "sides", and none of them will be honest and vote for Option 2 in my little poll. At some level, they know what they are.

This obedient flock enables what we're seeing from the "media" and it exacerbates the resulting divisions we're seeing.
.

 

[Mac1958]

I haven't got a clue what the solution is. People need to wise up, but I have no idea how to make that happen. We seem to be cranking out generation after generation of people conditioned to follow, trained from birth to be obedient "employees".

That's my conclusion too. The nihilist in me finds this pretty damn fascinating, but I know it's destructive. It's pretty obvious.
.

 

[gipper]

Let's first define "major media" fairly specifically: ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, CNN, MSNBC, New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times.

From what I've seen here on several threads, it appears we don't expect our major media to provide a comprehensive, objective look at the news any more. Lefties defend CNN and MSBNC's bias by attacking FOX. Righties do the opposite. Neither side appears to claim at this point that their favored sources are unbiased.

Me, I'd like to see a comprehensive look at the news, and I'll draw my own conclusions and seek out my own details.
.

I expect nothing from them and don't watch them. They all have exposed themselves as supporters of a tyrannical central government.

When this tyrannical government can spy on us all and do it with impunity IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION, yet the MSM says nothing, we KNOW who they support.

 

[Mac1958]

Well, if I had my druthers then it would be facts and I can do my own analysis.

Media conglomerates. Same problem that we have had for well over 20 years. These are not independent or even examples of well thought out journalism. We keep expecting these people to deliver and they will never do so because...........medial conglomerates. They don't have to.

I certainly understand that angle, but I'm curious about what people are actually looking for. A conglomerate is usually going to serve up what it thinks the people want to serve its bottom line. It appears to me that "the people" prefer to be told what to think.
.

No. They do not. You need to take a look at who sits on the board because the vast majority of them also sit on the boards of other businesses/organizations. They determine what is seen and what view point will be promoted.

I'm not aware of that, but it's been about 20 years since I was in the business.
.

Ben Bagdikian wrote about it extensively. Media Monopoly became a text book in journalism classes.

Speaking of that, the first assignment on my first day of college in my first class (It was Journalism 101, no shit) was to read "All the President's Men". I've always wondered, as I've watched the media decay into advocacy journalism, what negative effects that book & movie may have had on journalism. Reporter as celebrity.
.

 

[Windparadox]

Do you think that's healthy or unhealthy for a democracy?.

`
That's a rhetorical question, don't you think? Most people don't know what objectivity even is, so they certainly can't recognize subjective news when they see it. Objectivity in news is not a destination, no one can be 100% objective in reporting news. However, some news agencies try a lot harder to be objective than others. Yellow Journalism has been around a long time. Now its called "fake news."

If news is so heavily slanted by politics, ideology and religion, as it is now; No, it is not healthy for a democracy or any form of government.
`

 

[Mac1958]

Do you think that's healthy or unhealthy for a democracy?.

That's a rhetorical question, don't you think? `

Well, that depends.

If you ask the flocks who defend advocacy journalism, my guess is they would say something like "but we need THE TRUTH out there, that's good for the country!"

No?
.

 

[mudwhistle]

Let's first define "major media" fairly specifically: ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, CNN, MSNBC, New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times.

From what I've seen here on several threads, it appears we don't expect our major media to provide a comprehensive, objective look at the news any more. Lefties defend CNN and MSBNC's bias by attacking FOX. Righties do the opposite. Neither side appears to claim at this point that their favored sources are unbiased.

Me, I'd like to see a comprehensive look at the news, and I'll draw my own conclusions and seek out my own details.
.

I guess you're gonna have to work at it then.

Even Fox censors important news. CNN and MSNBC only focuses on what they want to cover, totally ignoring what they feel doesn't fit their agenda.
They feel their job is to change minds and destroy anything they don't believe in. This leaves the viewer angry, vindictive, and misinformed.
Fox gives you both sides of what they think is worth reporting but even they refuse to show everything that matters.
Unfortunately Fox has to go to commercial right when they start getting to the meat of the issue. They also allow people to come on their shows that confuse and disrupt the debate, thus not solving anything. This leaves the viewer angry, confused, and misinformed.

 

[Kosh]

I do expect anything from them anymore, true journalism (if it really ever existed) died long ago.

It is all about ratings and circulation so they can charge more for ads. It is nothing more than that.

However in the case of MSNBC, they are lumped in with other channels as part of a package. If channels like MSNBC and CNN were single stand alone channels they would have dies out long ago..

 

[Cellblock2429]

`
Objectivity amongst the corporately owned media, really no longer exists. More people are getting their news online.
`

I'm 51 y/o, I can assure you that I have never heard objective news.

/----/ I have. I was a young teen at the time.
Edward R. Murrow | This Reporter | American Masters | PBS