CDZ Serious question for independents/moderates/centrists, etc.

It is a bad time to stop trusting the free press

We have the most dishonest President in history. Almost nothing he says is true. Without a media to check his story, Trump can do what he wants
 
When a media person (either the traditional "press" or a partisan advocate or someone on the internet) says or reports or claims something, do you take it at face value any more, to any degree?
  • Traditional reporter --> Yes, I take it at face value.
  • Traditional editorialist --> No, but then I never did. I can tell when I'm hearing/reading commentary (an argument) versus when I'm reading a communique of facts and objective information.
  • Internet-only reporter --> In most cases, no, I don't take it at face value.
  • Internet-only editorialist --> Same as for traditional editorialist.
As you can tell from the above, I recognize that individuals who in one story may be merely reporting events that occurred, in another instance may be editorializing about the events that happened.
Who would you consider to be "traditional reporters", people who are "merely reporting events that occurred"?
.
people who are "merely reporting events that occurred"
That is certainly an aspect of an apt description for them, and I suppose it'd be useful to include in a general description of what "traditional reporters" means. Right now, I think the only way I could accurately define that term would be to use the approach dictionaries must use to define the the word "the" -- list every applicable instance -- and I really have neither the time nor will to do that. If you care to ask me about specific reporters or press outlets, I will answer "yes," "sometimes" or "no."
 
When a media person (either the traditional "press" or a partisan advocate or someone on the internet) says or reports or claims something, do you take it at face value any more, to any degree?
  • Traditional reporter --> Yes, I take it at face value.
  • Traditional editorialist --> No, but then I never did. I can tell when I'm hearing/reading commentary (an argument) versus when I'm reading a communique of facts and objective information.
  • Internet-only reporter --> In most cases, no, I don't take it at face value.
  • Internet-only editorialist --> Same as for traditional editorialist.
As you can tell from the above, I recognize that individuals who in one story may be merely reporting events that occurred, in another instance may be editorializing about the events that happened.
Who would you consider to be "traditional reporters", people who are "merely reporting events that occurred"?
.
people who are "merely reporting events that occurred"
That is certainly an aspect of an apt description for them, and I suppose it'd be useful to include in a general description of what "traditional reporters" means. Right now, I think the only way I could accurately define that term would be to use the approach dictionaries must use to define the the word "the" -- list every applicable instance -- and I really have neither the time nor will to do that. If you care to ask me about specific reporters or press outlets, I will answer "yes," "sometimes" or "no."
The major problem with today's media is that the news cycle is instantaneous. Rather than waiting to update by tomorrow's paper, it needs to be updated immediately or you missed the story
The result is news being released before it is fully vetted and sources are checked
 
When a media person (either the traditional "press" or a partisan advocate or someone on the internet) says or reports or claims something, do you take it at face value any more, to any degree?
  • Traditional reporter --> Yes, I take it at face value.
  • Traditional editorialist --> No, but then I never did. I can tell when I'm hearing/reading commentary (an argument) versus when I'm reading a communique of facts and objective information.
  • Internet-only reporter --> In most cases, no, I don't take it at face value.
  • Internet-only editorialist --> Same as for traditional editorialist.
As you can tell from the above, I recognize that individuals who in one story may be merely reporting events that occurred, in another instance may be editorializing about the events that happened.
Who would you consider to be "traditional reporters", people who are "merely reporting events that occurred"?
.
people who are "merely reporting events that occurred"
That is certainly an aspect of an apt description for them, and I suppose it'd be useful to include in a general description of what "traditional reporters" means. Right now, I think the only way I could accurately define that term would be to use the approach dictionaries must use to define the the word "the" -- list every applicable instance -- and I really have neither the time nor will to do that. If you care to ask me about specific reporters or press outlets, I will answer "yes," "sometimes" or "no."
The major problem with today's media is that the news cycle is instantaneous. Rather than waiting to update by tomorrow's paper, it needs to be updated immediately or you missed the story
The result is news being released before it is fully vetted and sources are checked
 
When a media person (either the traditional "press" or a partisan advocate or someone on the internet) says or reports or claims something, do you take it at face value any more, to any degree?
  • Traditional reporter --> Yes, I take it at face value.
  • Traditional editorialist --> No, but then I never did. I can tell when I'm hearing/reading commentary (an argument) versus when I'm reading a communique of facts and objective information.
  • Internet-only reporter --> In most cases, no, I don't take it at face value.
  • Internet-only editorialist --> Same as for traditional editorialist.
As you can tell from the above, I recognize that individuals who in one story may be merely reporting events that occurred, in another instance may be editorializing about the events that happened.
Who would you consider to be "traditional reporters", people who are "merely reporting events that occurred"?
.
people who are "merely reporting events that occurred"
That is certainly an aspect of an apt description for them, and I suppose it'd be useful to include in a general description of what "traditional reporters" means. Right now, I think the only way I could accurately define that term would be to use the approach dictionaries must use to define the the word "the" -- list every applicable instance -- and I really have neither the time nor will to do that. If you care to ask me about specific reporters or press outlets, I will answer "yes," "sometimes" or "no."
The major problem with today's media is that the news cycle is instantaneous. Rather than waiting to update by tomorrow's paper, it needs to be updated immediately or you missed the story
The result is news being released before it is fully vetted and sources are checked
Well, I agree that the idea of near instantaneous dissemination of news and information is part of the problem. I think another part of the problem is "news maker's" feeling compelled to respond to inquiries quickly rather than after having given careful deliberation to what they should and want to say. Often a simple qualification such as "what we know right now is..." or "our current thinking is....but we are still evaluating 'such and such'" would suffice to communicate that there is an element of uncertainty over their current position/thinking.

Quite simply, there will always be instances and situations of which one does not know "everything" one would want to know, yet one feels obliged to reply to an inquiry. In such situations, some sort of qualification that conveys the "I/we don't know yet" aspect of one's remarks is what's called for. Too few people these days are okay with not knowing something about which they are asked.

As a young person (sometime in my teens), I learned to the value to admitting that one does not know "whatever" when one simply does not. It's a lesson we stress as part of our onboarding process for new hires. One'd think that it'd be unnecessary to tell people to just be truthful in their answers to concerned stakeholders, but strangely that is something that one must not only instruct people to do, but also reinforce that dictum by indirectly threatening harsh consequences for not doing so. I cannot explain what that's so, but I can say that it has been so in my observation of more than a handful (but not most) new consulting professionals' behavior.
 
Unless there is some major news event going on that I feel I need to immediately know something about, like a terrorist attack or something I don't watch any of it and believe none of it.

Agenda driven propaganda feeds is all they look like to me at this point, driven by economics to appeal to a particular audience to drive revenues.

It's a bad model for actual unbiased reporting....and it shows.
 
The major problem with today's media is that the news cycle is instantaneous. Rather than waiting to update by tomorrow's paper, it needs to be updated immediately or you missed the story
The result is news being released before it is fully vetted and sources are checked
Agreed it's one major problem.

Another major problem is confirmation bias. People have so many media choices today and not just the 3 major networks. Media corporations are in intense competition for viewers and modify their content to attract viewers. This is why "The History Channel" became the Nazi and Ancient Aliens channel while "The Discovery Channel" became a pseudoscience goofball channel. Because of the multiplex of viewing choices people have, they tend to watch only those news/infotainment channels which reinforce their own views. RWers don't watch MSNBC to openly learn opposing views and LWers don't watch Fox News for the same reason.

Another major problem is, as Toffler popularized, "Information Overload". There's so much information being spewed out that even people with higher education or average or better IQs have a difficult time processing it all much less the half of society that has less education and/or IQs.
 
Last edited:
I just wait and let Sean Spicer explain it for me
 
Here's a serious question for posters here who don't identify with either side of the political spectrum (a limited audience here, but worth a shot):

It really seems like we've moved beyond "fake news" and have have literally reached a point where there are two separate realities. Listen to a lefty, and they're 100% convinced that the other "side" is in abject meltdown and about to collapse at any moment. Listen to a righty and you get the same. So:

How are you consuming the news right now? When a media person (either the traditional "press" or a partisan advocate or someone on the internet) says or reports or claims something, do you take it at face value any more, to any degree?

I've literally reached a point it's impossible for me to trust pretty much any input. And honestly, because I am curious about what's happening around me, that's troubling.

How about you?
.

I reached that point in mid-1980's; it's just more blatant now. real journalism died off by the early 1990's, as far as our universities are concerned. they were no longer even pretending to teach Journalism or Media Studies majors the concept of 'the fourth estate' and and the responsibility of objective reporting required of free press. Most of the 'students didn't care about it either, they just wanted to be 'pundits' and 'stars', not actual journalists.
 
And to complicate and already complicated situation most of us have a bias and some are biddable and only believe what confirms their biases.
Of all that is happening, I think this could be the key point. This is clearly being enabled and exacerbated by the proliferation of "news" sources out there, and by people in the "media" who have vested professional interest in carving out their niche (as opposed to, say, being intellectually honest).

So now, the various tribes can seek out and adhere themselves to the "news" sources that (as you say) confirm, support and increase their biases. It's like going to a specialist instead of a general practitioner.

And for those of us who don't really belong to a tribe - and I maintain that's a majority of us - we are essentially being left out of that process.
.

Best one can do is research all kinds of sources, in some cases they each tell some true aspect of a news story while deliberately ignoring other aspects that don't fit their narratives, and one can piece together a closer approximation of the facts than just reading one biased source. Alot of times that will involve reading the foreign presses; Australia has a fairly decent press corp, for instance.Mostly one is out of luck if they all happen to just be running an AP or Reuters story. I tend to avoid Reuters as they are definitely unreliable and have no problems running stories they don't vet, especially stories from the ME. AP isn't a lot better. Nearly all of them will deliberately not cover stories that go against their own news staff's biases, the NYT openly brags about its censorship.

You should find a copy of William McGowan's book Coloring The News, for stories you might not have even known about or were heavily slanted, and who slanted them.
 
I just wait and let Sean Spicer explain it for me
I like Melissa McCarthy. She's funnier. ;)

The fact remains "media" is a business and businesses cater to their clients to maximize revenue. To say there is "fake news" or "media bias" is to fail to understand the dynamics of 21st Century American media businesses. This doesn't even touch upon PACs funding "Blogs", Internet Trolls with websites, etc.

Still, the bottom line is to work smarter not harder; focus upon using critical thinking as a triage tool when dissecting the "Newz".

Examples for learning/reinforcing critical thinking skills:

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/transition/study-skills-resources/critical_and_analytical_thinking.pdf

http://lifehacker.com/how-to-train-your-mind-to-think-critically-and-form-you-1516998286

http://www.utc.edu/walker-center-teaching-learning/teaching-resources/ct-ps.php

https://www.lynda.com/Business-Skil...31527_cmid_805998174_adp_1t1_net_g&lpk35=9137

http://www.criticalthinking.org/pag...-students-how-to-study-and-learn-part-one/513
 
Here's a serious question for posters here who don't identify with either side of the political spectrum (a limited audience here, but worth a shot):

It really seems like we've moved beyond "fake news" and have have literally reached a point where there are two separate realities. Listen to a lefty, and they're 100% convinced that the other "side" is in abject meltdown and about to collapse at any moment. Listen to a righty and you get the same. So:

How are you consuming the news right now? When a media person (either the traditional "press" or a partisan advocate or someone on the internet) says or reports or claims something, do you take it at face value any more, to any degree?

I've literally reached a point it's impossible for me to trust pretty much any input. And honestly, because I am curious about what's happening around me, that's troubling.

How about you?
.

I reached that point in mid-1980's; it's just more blatant now. real journalism died off by the early 1990's, as far as our universities are concerned. they were no longer even pretending to teach Journalism or Media Studies majors the concept of 'the fourth estate' and and the responsibility of objective reporting required of free press. Most of the 'students didn't care about it either, they just wanted to be 'pundits' and 'stars', not actual journalists.
Interesting that you would say that. I majored in broadcast journalism, was in the business nearly 20 years.

The first assignment on my first day in my first journalism class was to read All The President's Men. I've often thought that, as important and powerful and inspiring as that book was, it may have ultimately done more harm than good. It made national celebrities out of reporters, not just anchors. Seems to me the last thing a reporter should be is a celebrity; it changes the person.

When you add that to the massive explosion of competing media sources brought on by the internet, you change the very nature of reporting. You get people who should be "reporting" what happened as completely as accurately as possible, looking to push the journalistic envelope by blending in opinion and conjecture.

But as bad as THAT is, we now have (and this is the point of the thread) two entirely separate and competing worldviews being represented, and they appear to be pulling in opposite directions, leaving fewer and fewer points of agreement on FACTS. I honestly don't know how a constitutional republic is supposed to function in that environment.
.
 
Here's a serious question for posters here who don't identify with either side of the political spectrum (a limited audience here, but worth a shot):

It really seems like we've moved beyond "fake news" and have have literally reached a point where there are two separate realities. Listen to a lefty, and they're 100% convinced that the other "side" is in abject meltdown and about to collapse at any moment. Listen to a righty and you get the same. So:

How are you consuming the news right now? When a media person (either the traditional "press" or a partisan advocate or someone on the internet) says or reports or claims something, do you take it at face value any more, to any degree?

I've literally reached a point it's impossible for me to trust pretty much any input. And honestly, because I am curious about what's happening around me, that's troubling.

How about you?
.

I reached that point in mid-1980's; it's just more blatant now. real journalism died off by the early 1990's, as far as our universities are concerned. they were no longer even pretending to teach Journalism or Media Studies majors the concept of 'the fourth estate' and and the responsibility of objective reporting required of free press. Most of the 'students didn't care about it either, they just wanted to be 'pundits' and 'stars', not actual journalists.
Interesting that you would say that. I majored in broadcast journalism, was in the business nearly 20 years.

The first assignment on my first day in my first journalism class was to read All The President's Men. I've often thought that, as important and powerful and inspiring as that book was, it may have ultimately done more harm than good. It made national celebrities out of reporters, not just anchors. Seems to me the last thing a reporter should be is a celebrity; it changes the person.

When you add that to the massive explosion of competing media sources brought on by the internet, you change the very nature of reporting. You get people who should be "reporting" what happened as completely as accurately as possible, looking to push the journalistic envelope by blending in opinion and conjecture.

But as bad as THAT is, we now have (and this is the point of the thread) two entirely separate and competing worldviews being represented, and they appear to be pulling in opposite directions, leaving fewer and fewer points of agreement on FACTS. I honestly don't know how a constitutional republic is supposed to function in that environment.
.

It's as bad or worse in the History and Economics fields; even the empirical sciences are now less and less credible, being warped by ideological narratives.
 
Here's a serious question for posters here who don't identify with either side of the political spectrum (a limited audience here, but worth a shot):

It really seems like we've moved beyond "fake news" and have have literally reached a point where there are two separate realities. Listen to a lefty, and they're 100% convinced that the other "side" is in abject meltdown and about to collapse at any moment. Listen to a righty and you get the same. So:

How are you consuming the news right now? When a media person (either the traditional "press" or a partisan advocate or someone on the internet) says or reports or claims something, do you take it at face value any more, to any degree?

I've literally reached a point it's impossible for me to trust pretty much any input. And honestly, because I am curious about what's happening around me, that's troubling.

How about you?
.

I reached that point in mid-1980's; it's just more blatant now. real journalism died off by the early 1990's, as far as our universities are concerned. they were no longer even pretending to teach Journalism or Media Studies majors the concept of 'the fourth estate' and and the responsibility of objective reporting required of free press. Most of the 'students didn't care about it either, they just wanted to be 'pundits' and 'stars', not actual journalists.
Interesting that you would say that. I majored in broadcast journalism, was in the business nearly 20 years.

The first assignment on my first day in my first journalism class was to read All The President's Men. I've often thought that, as important and powerful and inspiring as that book was, it may have ultimately done more harm than good. It made national celebrities out of reporters, not just anchors. Seems to me the last thing a reporter should be is a celebrity; it changes the person.

When you add that to the massive explosion of competing media sources brought on by the internet, you change the very nature of reporting. You get people who should be "reporting" what happened as completely as accurately as possible, looking to push the journalistic envelope by blending in opinion and conjecture.

But as bad as THAT is, we now have (and this is the point of the thread) two entirely separate and competing worldviews being represented, and they appear to be pulling in opposite directions, leaving fewer and fewer points of agreement on FACTS. I honestly don't know how a constitutional republic is supposed to function in that environment.
.

It's as bad or worse in the History and Economics fields; even the empirical sciences are now less and less credible, being warped by ideological narratives.
Yikes, hadn't thought of that, but I could see it.
.
 
headlines, for me.

headlines are a summary of the story in a big bold statement to let you know what is in the story. i've got zero use for emotional tirades on either side where opinion is quickly replacing news and we no longer link to news to support our views, but someone else who agrees with us.

so when a headline tells me how to feel about a story, i blow off the story. when the first few paragraphs in a story include insults to the other side or name calling to the people they don't like, it's emotional, an opinion hit piece, and i ignore it.
 
Just to clarify...

My point is not that we're seeing a mixing of traditional reporting with opinion, and that we have to discern the difference. Of course. That's a given, it's been going on for a quite a while, and it's another serious problem.

It's more that the two ends of the spectrum, as represented by the various forms of media, are essentially now existing in two entirely separate worlds. Each is cherry-picking facts to match their ideology and presenting two entirely separate pictures of the world, and much more so when connected to politics in any way.

Facts being bent to match an agenda, yeah, that's old news. I'm talking about two entirely different sets of facts that create different worlds.
.

and intrinsic to these two completely different worlds is a focus on the other one with no examination of one's own.
 
My tribe, if I adhere to your assessment, hasn't a label

Of course it does. You are a leftist.

The question was posed for those who AREN'T like you in terms of complete conformity.

You echo other fools who have yet to define the word "leftist", which you & other fools use as a pejorative. I'd bet you have no clues as to the etymology of the "Left" and the "Right" and your set (fools) echo many things of which you have no clue.
 
My tribe, if I adhere to your assessment, hasn't a label

Of course it does. You are a leftist.

The question was posed for those who AREN'T like you in terms of complete conformity.

You echo other fools who have yet to define the word "leftist", which you & other fools use as a pejorative. I'd bet you have no clues as to the etymology of the "Left" and the "Right" and your set (fools) echo many things of which you have no clue.

Actually, I studied political science when I was at Stanford.

How about you?
 

Forum List

Back
Top