logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!
> Slipping Journalism standards (Pet Peeves)
Syfir
post Sep 15 2017, 03:16 AM
Post #1


****
Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 90
Member No.: 5,246
Joined: July-9-05

From: Idaho
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: None



Liberal, Conservative, or neither, most people can agree that journalism standards aren’t what they used to be. I am not talking about the argument about what is and isn’t “fake news”, I am simply stating that the standards that journalists were once taught were basic skills no longer seem to apply.

In scrolling through various news aggregator sites I see that the rot seems to have spread to most parts of the world.

I know what jumps out at me as the most annoying lapses but I am curious to see what others, from both sides of the political spectrum and what the younger generation/older generation see as their pet peeves.

Here are my top complaints:
1. Clickbait headlines – I know that headlines are supposed to get you interested enough to click on the article but when they try to trick or manipulate you into clicking on an article it gets annoying.

2. Opinion masquerading as news – There is nothing wrong with having an opinion, even one that I disagree with, however opinion pieces belong on the Opinion page not in the news section. When an article spends less space on telling what happened than it does explaining why this is good (or bad) or how I should feel about it then the “journalist” has failed.

3. Aggregating Twitter posts – This is similar to the above but instead of it being an Opinion page piece it is more closely related to the old “Man on the street” piece. For example “Trump did ______ and here is what people are saying” The “article” is then nothing but copies of Twitter posts from random people. Who cares? If I wanted to know what random people think about something I would stand outside Walmart asking. This has got to be the laziest way to increase your article count there is.

4. News that isn’t – That is, the headline makes the article seem important but when you read the article it is just some random thing that happened to some random person somewhere in the world. Some of these stories may have local news appeal. For instance when a person is struck by a train in Los Angeles people in the area may find it newsworthy. Anyone outside of the area probably won’t. Even worse is when a story that would only appear on local news if it is a really slow day somehow makes it to national news. Another example is when a news story appeals to the writer’s pet cause but really isn’t that big of a deal to most people. For example most stories about local schools dress codes, especially when the issue is one teacher’s interpretation of it that embarrasses one student and the teacher is immediately overruled by the principal. That isn’t really even news at that school, let alone news anyone cares about in the next state. Why is that ending up on a national news site? If there is a trend, regional or national then report on that but otherwise, no.

Another complaint I have feels more like a “you kids get off my lawn” type of complaint but here it is:

5. Articles in video form – I don’t mind TV news sites having news videos instead of articles, even though I prefer to read my news rather than watch it, but I hate when the news video in question isn’t even a video but is a glorified PowerPoint presentation in video form. Especially when it is predominantly text. The reason to use video is to present a visual side to the news not to simply make us all read the article at the same speed.

So having ranted enough here are my questions –
1. Where do you feel journalist standards are failing?
2. Are there any changes that you feel are improvements and if so what are they?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 15)
AuthorMusician
post Sep 15 2017, 02:35 PM
Post #2


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,328
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



1. Where do you feel journalist standards are failing?

Journalism has always had its yellow part and its ridiculous part, so what seems to be failure is nothing new. However, the Internet has made it a lot easier and cheaper to spread bull crap, along with it being easier and cheaper to consume said bull pucky, and here we are.

2. Are there any changes that you feel are improvements and if so what are they?

As always throughout history, don't believe anything you hear and half of what you read (Mark Twain, aka Samuel Clemens). Referred to more so than it should be, this is critical thinking. It's also healthy skepticism, since the human condition carries with it biases, prejudices, agendas, propaganda, and many other forms of lying via made-up facts, stretched truths, faulty logic, and our dear old friend, storytelling. We love juicy scandals and dramatic stories because we are human beings. It's entertaining.

The big downside is that believing bull butter of the brown variety can lead to people gaining power who should never be allowed near power of any sort, including electrical outlets.

Here are my recommendations:

* Know the motivations of the journalists (includes editors) -- why is a story framed the way it is?

* Know the motivations of the information outlet's owner(s) -- what might be the directives given to journalists employed at the information outlet?

* Study how journalism is supposed to work and how it actually does work -- does a profit motive color stories, such as done in pieces written to sell advertisers' stuff? Or is there a fad going on that attracts certain kinds of writing (bash liberals, bash conservatives, monger fear of whatever and whomever, bolster paper tigers with feet of clay as they rail against windmills).

* Be aware of the psychological impacts of repeated lies.

* Be aware of the psychological impacts of group thinking/mob mentality.

* Look into the branch of philosophy known as epistemology -- how do we know what we think we know?

* Read some history on how journalism developed and changed over the centuries -- for example, how journalism moved from an unprofitable part of television to a profitable part.

In the end, it's the consumer of information who has the most responsibility. Since most people are generally lazy, yellow journalism and propaganda work. To combat this, pay attention and seek out multiple sources of information while dropping those that are obviously trying to pull a fast con job. Or even a lengthy one, such as the reoccurring theme that this group of people is inferior to that group. No, we are all in the same human condition. Can't escape it while on this Earth.

About the best that can be done is to try to figure out the truth from whatever's available. If it's all bull, then you might be in North Korea -- or is that propaganda too?

Heh, could be. Sprinkle some salt on that cow pie.

On the plus side, healthy skepticism involves skills that 1) can be learned/taught and 2) get better the more they're used. In this way, it's a lot like playing a musical instrument -- study and practice, and you get better. While it's possible that enough skepticism will put yellow journalists and propagandists out of business, it's also highly unlikely because people are generally lazy.

Another plus is that, like with musical taste, information taste develops along the way. So think of it not as a problem to be solved but an adventurous journey to be taken. Sure, one might get trapped into a pop music/pop information phase, but with more study and practice, that phase can be broken out of.

All bets are off if while in that phase, big money comes rolling in. It usually doesn't turn out well, not for musicians, journalists, information consumers -- not anybody. But man, is it ever tempting! Not many get through that temptation without abandoning the study/practice entirely, both musicians and journalists. It is very much like selling your soul to Old Scratch. It is exactly the abandonment of skepticism and exploration in favor of laziness. Then you die (bad joke).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hobbes
post Sep 18 2017, 08:54 PM
Post #3


Group Icon

**********
No More Mr. Nice Guy!

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 5,310
Member No.: 1,155
Joined: September-8-03

From: Dallas, TX
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE
* Know the motivations of the journalists (includes editors) -- why is a story framed the way it is?

* Know the motivations of the information outlet's owner(s) -- what might be the directives given to journalists employed at the information outlet?


Yep. Almost everything these days is biased by one, and often both, of these things. At best, it is usually intended to sensationalize an issue, driving further clicks/viewership. But usually it goes beyond that, and is slanted towards a particular viewpoint or intended audience.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Sep 19 2017, 05:12 PM
Post #4


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,328
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Hobbes @ Sep 18 2017, 04:54 PM) *
QUOTE
* Know the motivations of the journalists (includes editors) -- why is a story framed the way it is?

* Know the motivations of the information outlet's owner(s) -- what might be the directives given to journalists employed at the information outlet?


Yep. Almost everything these days is biased by one, and often both, of these things. At best, it is usually intended to sensationalize an issue, driving further clicks/viewership. But usually it goes beyond that, and is slanted towards a particular viewpoint or intended audience.

That's entertainment.

And that's how an entertainer became POTUS. Wait -- forgot Reagan -- entertainers.

The question I have now is whether people will get sick of entertainers trying to do politics, and from what I'm seeing in the news reports, yes we are. However, this may not result in rectification, so there are elements of mystery that keep the news entertaining.

A big circle or a spiral in history? If a spiral, which way is it going -- down the drain or up, up and away in a beautiful balloon?

Probably neither and both if history is used as a gauge. Meanwhile, we get to watch via news reports that are very often slanted this or that way, so we also get to decide what and what not to believe.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Julian
post Sep 19 2017, 06:51 PM
Post #5


Group Icon

*********
Every day, when I wake up, I thank the Lord I'm Welsh

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 2,932
Member No.: 496
Joined: February-14-03

From: Swindon, UK
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Other



Before I answer it's worth exploring whystandards have fallen. Not many people would argue that they haven't fallen, you understand, but this is not an inevitability it is the end result of a number of choices which we all make. Us, as consumers of news; news outlets and advertisers, as commercial businesses; governments as regulators (and the commercial lobbyists that try to influence them); everyone, really.

Print newspapers set the standard but, up until the 1970s/1980s, most of them were owned by single families who had 'newsprint in their blood', and who wouldn't consider decisions that would make commercial sense but damage journalistic standards (for the most part), even if those standards were (let's be kind) uneven across the whole of the press.

And print media had little crossover into TV & radio, which had always been more tightly regulated in terms of what could or could not be broadcast, requirements for balance, etc.

Right into the mid and late 1990s, that model held true. Newspaper circulations were in a long, slow, decline; it's true, but they were still high enough that advertising revenue (which in UK newspapers at least was always about the same, or even slightly higher, than circulation revenue) could support traditional old-style newspapering, journalism powered by shoe-leather and phone calls, etc. Taken as a whole (again, in the UK) print media readership was at all time highs in the 1990s, as even if many people had stopped reading newspapers, more had taken to reading magazines. Of course, that was true mainly because of lifestyle magazines (the infamous 'lads mags' of the 1990s) but even those at least attempted to include some long-form journalism, and politicians fell over themselves to get interviewed by them.

Television and radio news had long been predicted to be the death of newspapers, but never really made much of a dent on their own. Newspapers shifted from being the people who first told anyone about a story, to the people who analysed, explained and commented on the story that the TV & radio news had reported the day before. And, often, the newspapers still had the resources and will to do the investigative journalism that really broke the news stories - think Watergate, which happened long after American news consumers had shifted to get most of their immediate news from TV and radio.

All the while, though, ownership of newspapers shifted away from old school 'newspapermen' and to media conglomerates. The boardroom conversations would shift, quite naturally, from a sole newspaper focus to "why isn't the Post making as much profit as Channel Z?", so the pressure grew to drive profits from the papers. By the 1990s, most of the costs of printing and distribution had been driven out (union busting, and a shift from rail to road saw to that) so that just left the cost of the journalists as a drain on profits. Advertising and circulation revenues continued their slow decline, so something had to give and the new owners (including people who had grown up in the old school, but had rejected it - i.e. Rupert Murdoch) had flipped the old convention and now wouldn't consider that journalism was worth a drop in profits - not least because almost all of them now made most of their money in their TV/Radio/film studio interests.

Swathes of smaller, more local newspapers we bought up by vast conglomerates (e.g. Gannett) whose first action was to sack most of the local hacks and centralise them in regional or national centres to cut costs. My own town's local paper did that in the early 2000s and the first thing that meant was that if the town was destroyed by an earthquake, the local paper would take two days before they could report on it because that was their new print deadline.

Fewer journalists happened at the same time as a new thing - the internet - which further undermined the trading model of quality journalism. Few of the news websites that sprung up 10-15 years ago have survived - ad.gif itself has changed significantly, and is far more of a niche interest than it used to be, though it has never really been mass market - not least because most of the big newspapers set up their own online versions. And - here's the kicker - almost all of them (whether a new startup, the online arms of a TV news show or station, or the online version of a newspaper) were free of charge.

Everybody who uses the internet today got used to the idea that quality news was available for free. "Why buy a newspaper when the same journalist writes the same story for free online?" we'd think. Now, with news apps on our phones, we probably consume more 'news' from various sources than we ever have. Be it a formal news app, or a gossip site with some news like Mail Online, or a swivel-eyed extremist site like Breitbart or The Canary. But we're probably paying less for it, at least in cash terms, than we ever have. Instead, advertising pays for it.

That's why journalists are now themselves spending so much time digging on Twitter. They have whole websites to fill and there are only five or six of them full time to do what twenty people used to do, so instead of taking time to build a story, most of them have 20 minutes to cobble something together for the next online deadline. They all read the same because they all have to pander to the same Google/Facebook/Twitter algorithms to fit their corporate SEO guidelines. They are all subbed to within an inch of their lives to shoehorn in the most tenuous link to 'relevant' advertising that the likes of Google ads reckons fits the profile of whoever is clicking. The Canary - which I mentioned above, is interesting only in as much as it is a fledgeling UK news site, that leans very far to the left, politically, and pays all its contributors based solely on the number of clicks they can generate.

And the rest of the site/paper is padded out with agency stories from Reuters or whoever, so the 'traditional' news pages are all vanilla similar across the entire web (because they all come from the same agency source), which in turn switches off readers, which in turn makes the editors/proprietors even less likely to think them worthy of support because they don't generate the traffic, and therefore ad revenue, that the more sensationalist stories get.

Stir into that mix the hard lobbying by media owners to relax regulation (particularly requirements for quality, lack of bias, public service obligations, etc.) which have been successful in TV in the USA , and such regulations never existed in the first place on the internet, and you end up where we are.

One last thing before I turn to the actual debate questions - over the past few years I've heard a lot of stuff about how left-leaning sites like Twitter, Facebook, etc. seem to be. This is very simple to explain - paywalls. Most of the right-leaning, quality end of the newspaper market has put it's online content behind paywalls, so only people who pay can read the articles therein. The left-leaning end of the quality market has moral qualms about doing that, so keeps its sites free. So, all the 'reasonable' right wing opinion is talking to itself online, and all that's left is 'reasonable' leftwing opinion, and unreasonable opinions of all flavours. Overall, that means that the kind of sites that people on social media can link to have a left-leaning bias. If 'reasonable' leftwing opinion were to hide itself behind paywalls, the bias would be towards straightforward lunacy. The ideal would be for 'reasonable' right wing opinion to drop their paywalls, but that makes no commercial sense for the publishers, who would lose money and have the same commercial problems requiring clickbait, women of Armenian heritage 'pouring their curves' into clothes with which they risk 'wardrobe malfunctions', etc.

Honestly, you could caption every photo on Mail Online with "Phwooar! Look at those! You can almost see her *****!" and they'd save a few more shekels to line the pockets of the (tax resident abroad, obviously) owners.

QUOTE(Syfir @ Sep 15 2017, 04:16 AM) *
Liberal, Conservative, or neither, most people can agree that journalism standards aren’t what they used to be. I am not talking about the argument about what is and isn’t “fake news”, I am simply stating that the standards that journalists were once taught were basic skills no longer seem to apply.
See above,.

QUOTE
In scrolling through various news aggregator sites I see that the rot seems to have spread to most parts of the world.


News aggregators usually only show the free sites, so you have the paywall problem again.

QUOTE
1. Clickbait headlines – I know that headlines are supposed to get you interested enough to click on the article but when they try to trick or manipulate you into clicking on an article it gets annoying.
See above. If they didn't do this, you'd have to pay to read it, because it wouldn't make any money otherwise.

QUOTE
2. Opinion masquerading as news – There is nothing wrong with having an opinion, even one that I disagree with, however opinion pieces belong on the Opinion page not in the news section. When an article spends less space on telling what happened than it does explaining why this is good (or bad) or how I should feel about it then the “journalist” has failed.
This is also linked. A Comment/Opinion piece is comparatively cheap - all the writer has to do is confect a suitably contentious opinion, write it down, have it chopped about by a subeditor/SEO-bot, stick it online, and watch the clicks, shares, and BTL comments roll in. No actual journalism is required, which is just as well as that's expensive and it would mean Paul Dacre wouldn't be able to buy a news Harris Tweed hunting jacket for his Scottish grouse shooting estate.

QUOTE
3. Aggregating Twitter posts – This is similar to the above but instead of it being an Opinion page piece it is more closely related to the old “Man on the street” piece. For example “Trump did ______ and here is what people are saying” The “article” is then nothing but copies of Twitter posts from random people. Who cares? If I wanted to know what random people think about something I would stand outside Walmart asking. This has got to be the laziest way to increase your article count there is.

Agreed, but it's also cheap, cheap, cheap! You just need someone in a dank office somewhere to spend an hour on Twitter and - hey presto! - you have a new article. Don't even have to pay them a salary to get them to do that - a contractor or, even better, an unpaid intern can do it. Money for old rope!

QUOTE
4. News that isn’t – That is, the headline makes the article seem important but when you read the article it is just some random thing that happened to some random person somewhere in the world. Some of these stories may have local news appeal. For instance when a person is struck by a train in Los Angeles people in the area may find it newsworthy. Anyone outside of the area probably won’t. Even worse is when a story that would only appear on local news if it is a really slow day somehow makes it to national news. Another example is when a news story appeals to the writer’s pet cause but really isn’t that big of a deal to most people. For example most stories about local schools dress codes, especially when the issue is one teacher’s interpretation of it that embarrasses one student and the teacher is immediately overruled by the principal. That isn’t really even news at that school, let alone news anyone cares about in the next state. Why is that ending up on a national news site? If there is a trend, regional or national then report on that but otherwise, no.


This is about the only thing that most news sites can claim as an exclusive any more. Almost all the headline news is drawn from either an external agency, or an external competitor that you just steal the story from (with enough spin to keep you out of court, obviously), as the one or two old-style investigators left on the pay roll can't be expected to turn in a genuine news exclusive more than once a month.

QUOTE
Another complaint I have feels more like a “you kids get off my lawn” type of complaint but here it is:

5. Articles in video form – I don’t mind TV news sites having news videos instead of articles, even though I prefer to read my news rather than watch it, but I hate when the news video in question isn’t even a video but is a glorified PowerPoint presentation in video form. Especially when it is predominantly text. The reason to use video is to present a visual side to the news not to simply make us all read the article at the same speed.


Particularly when it's a video clip of a new movie or TV show which - entirely by coincidence - has been produced or distributed by a broadcaster that just so happens to be owned by the same umbrella corporation as the news site you're reading about it on.

Isn't cross-media ownership just grand?

1. Where do you feel journalist standards are failing?

Across the board, though it's more that editorial has given up fighting against advertising sales, that proprietors have given up on the part a free press ought to play in a democracy (speaking the truth to power, etc., not least because, increasingly, it's the media that has the power while the politicians trail along in their wake). And that we, the public, have given up on these things and more in our quest to satisfy this or that opiate receptor hit, including the cancerous idea that everyone's opinion is of equal value. That's catastrophically wrong. Everyone is entitled to have and express an opinion. Only those who've earned it (through their own efforts, rather than through their position) are entitled to a respectful hearing. Another way of saying that is that not all opinions are worth listening to, and many deserve ridicule.

2. Are there any changes that you feel are improvements and if so what are they?

I do like the now established fact that readers more or less expect to be able to take part in debates in real time. On the one hand, that is really important for democracy (rule by the people) but on the other, the seemingly complete abandonment of any level of respect for superior knowledge and experience means that those debates can be of, erm, let's be generous again and say 'poor quality'.


That's how to rant... ;-)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Sep 23 2017, 12:09 AM
Post #6


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,328
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



Julian, great job of laying out how we got to here, but I'm not in agreement that where we came from was so good. For example, those families who ran newspapers were not so much more concerned with the truth as exercising influence over power. Muckrakers and yellow journalism have been around a very long time.

I remember how news reports about Vietnam were so outrageous that you'd have to be purposefully stupid not to catch it, such as thousands of NVA killed to a dozen of our guys. Also special reports that could only be described as hack pieces to support crap like the War on Drugs.

Far-left bull pucky was common around universities, as were a lot of sales personnel trying to push survival food for when the revolution would start. Not too surprising, disco became a thing, and phew! Did that ever reek, mostly. A few tunes were pretty good.

It all got so strange that I, along with lots of others, tuned out and went along with our lives despite the fear of the day: War! Revolution! Crime! Drugs! Saturday Night Specials (cheap handguns)! Yuppies! Computers! Zombies! And so forth.

I read now that the young generations aren't being very responsive to the attempts to sway them this way or that, and I see confirmation of this with the 20-somethings I encounter, mostly via the grandkid (22). The challenge is to survive and have as rich a life as possible, so it seems to me. If true and the attitude doesn't yuppify, could be the start of something good. Oh, and if thermonuclear war doesn't break out.

You know, if the news can be at all trusted.

I figure a good starting point is to give it 50% salt, i.e., doubt, and take the rest as maybe so.



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Curmudgeon
post Oct 18 2017, 07:05 PM
Post #7


********
I am an unpaid protester!

Sponsor
August 1, 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 1,186
Member No.: 729
Joined: May-14-03

From: Michigan
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Sep 22 2017, 08:09 PM) *
I read now that the young generations aren't being very responsive to the attempts to sway them this way or that, and I see confirmation of this with the 20-somethings I encounter, mostly via the grandkid (22). The challenge is to survive and have as rich a life as possible, so it seems to me. If true and the attitude doesn't yuppify, could be the start of something good. Oh, and if thermonuclear war doesn't break out.

And I had just turned to America's Debate because Paladin Elspeth and I were both feeling that we have heard more threats to use nuclear weapons this year than we have heard since the 1950's... If Dumb Old Trump keeps threatening "Rocket Man," I can see Vladimir Putin asking the United Nations to sanction both North Korea and The United States until both nations have destroyed their arsenal of nuclear weapons and their ability to manufacture more... Hmmm... Perhaps there was a rational reason for Russia to want to see Donald Trump elected President of The United States...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
net2007
post Oct 19 2017, 12:58 AM
Post #8


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,219
Member No.: 7,629
Joined: April-27-07

From: North Carolina
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(Syfir @ Sep 14 2017, 11:16 PM) *
Liberal, Conservative, or neither, most people can agree that journalism standards arent what they used to be. I am not talking about the argument about what is and isnt fake news, I am simply stating that the standards that journalists were once taught were basic skills no longer seem to apply.

In scrolling through various news aggregator sites I see that the rot seems to have spread to most parts of the world.

I know what jumps out at me as the most annoying lapses but I am curious to see what others, from both sides of the political spectrum and what the younger generation/older generation see as their pet peeves.

Here are my top complaints:
1. Clickbait headlines I know that headlines are supposed to get you interested enough to click on the article but when they try to trick or manipulate you into clicking on an article it gets annoying.

2. Opinion masquerading as news There is nothing wrong with having an opinion, even one that I disagree with, however opinion pieces belong on the Opinion page not in the news section. When an article spends less space on telling what happened than it does explaining why this is good (or bad) or how I should feel about it then the journalist has failed.

3. Aggregating Twitter posts This is similar to the above but instead of it being an Opinion page piece it is more closely related to the old Man on the street piece. For example Trump did ______ and here is what people are saying The article is then nothing but copies of Twitter posts from random people. Who cares? If I wanted to know what random people think about something I would stand outside Walmart asking. This has got to be the laziest way to increase your article count there is.

4. News that isnt That is, the headline makes the article seem important but when you read the article it is just some random thing that happened to some random person somewhere in the world. Some of these stories may have local news appeal. For instance when a person is struck by a train in Los Angeles people in the area may find it newsworthy. Anyone outside of the area probably won't. Even worse is when a story that would only appear on local news if it is a really slow day somehow makes it to national news. Another example is when a news story appeals to the writer's pet cause but really isn't that big of a deal to most people. For example most stories about local schools dress codes, especially when the issue is one teacher's interpretation of it that embarrasses one student and the teacher is immediately overruled by the principal. That isn't really even news at that school, let alone news anyone cares about in the next state. Why is that ending up on a national news site? If there is a trend, regional or national then report on that but otherwise, no.

Another complaint I have feels more like a you kids get off my lawn type of complaint but here it is:

5. Articles in video form I don't mind TV news sites having news videos instead of articles, even though I prefer to read my news rather than watch it, but I hate when the news video in question isn't even a video but is a glorified PowerPoint presentation in video form. Especially when it is predominantly text. The reason to use video is to present a visual side to the news not to simply make us all read the article at the same speed.

So having ranted enough here are my questions
1. Where do you feel journalist standards are failing?
2. Are there any changes that you feel are improvements and if so what are they?


I'm a little late on this topic due to work but for those who are still following this one, I have some input.

I could go on and on with this topic to the point of writing 50 paragraphs and having sore fingers but I'll keep it shorter by focusing primarily on one thing. My largest pet peeve in regards to slipping journalism standards is what I also believe is the best way to spread false or debatable information as well as opinions and pass it off as if it's the truth. That would be lying by omission which, in politics, is usually driven by a bias. This is particularly dangerous because it's effective and it's easier to get away with doing that than to flat out lie.

To go further and reiterate some of what I've stated in the media thread I did, while I believe both sides (the political left and right), are contributing to this problem, the left holds a vast majority in our news media, and based on that fact alone I believe they're most responsible for slipping journalism standards.

When talking about problems with journalism and the media, many who contribute to them absolutely do not understand why their approval rating is half of what Trump's is and for those who do, they generally don't care. This type of disconnect or disregard for others is another pet peeve of mine. They think they're doing a good job by giving one point of view because, in their mind, that hurts those who they believe are wrong or even dangerous and to many journalists, that's even seen as a civic responsibility. Why show something positive about those who are wrong or dangerous, is what this boils down to. The problem is that their view of what's wrong or damaging to America is often subjective and based on emotion or seeking one set of facts over another. The way they write or report the news makes sense to them but what your average non-partisan American sees are people who shouldn't be trusted because they've demonstrated that their reporting often amounts political propaganda. I believe that this is the primary contributor to the low ratings they have.

As an example of selective reporting, I just got done with watching David Muir's show, "World News Tonight", on ABC News. Here's a man who has a calm demeanor, he's not bombastic, and he's good at presenting the news. However, this makes this show particularly sneaky and effective at being misleading. That's not to say he's presenting garbage, I wouldn't put his show on the same level as what Rachel Maddow does, but he seems to present one set of facts over another (as do many others). Tonight I've heard about how Trumps call with the widow of a fallen soldier may have been insensitive, how Trump didn't make calls to the families of other fallen soldiers fast enough, and how the NFL commissioner isn't requiring players to stand (as of now) which goes against what Trump and the majority of football fans want. There were a few other things presented but nothing that I saw which put the focus on something that may be favorable to the President. In combination with this, the show didn't focus on anything that could be unfavorable to the left.

In this example, Muir isn't necessarily lying, he's simply selective with what information he's sharing. I believe this alone is an example of bad journalism but I've seen other news anchors and journalist take it up a step or two from this for sure. Conservatives often use these tactics as well, so for anyone (left or right) who behaves in this fashion, although they're sometimes successful in hurting their opposition, they often hurt themselves more than those they target by using the tactics that they do. It's self-destructive behavior and that's unfortunate because both sides have good ideas to share but they're communicating their message in a way that they're only getting through to those who, more or less, agree with them already. Neither liberals or conservatives want to sit around and listen to those who rarely have anything positive to say about those who think like they do.

This post has been edited by net2007: Oct 19 2017, 03:50 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
droop224
post Oct 19 2017, 02:35 AM
Post #9


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,808
Member No.: 3,073
Joined: May-12-04

Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: None



The problem isn't journalistic standards. The problem is a lack of journalism. That exists because the infiltration of business and corporate ideals and a consolidation of media outlets in media, not just in America but globally. Chalk that up as another wonderful idea of conservatism! I can only say so much before someone screams "socialism!!" The goal of media is not to inform, their goal is to cause us to react emotionally. It works to further the goals of corporate interests.

I know that puts me in the "conspiracy theorist" category. However, look up conspiracy. I think it is a conspiracy and I think all you have to do is look at the news to see its true. They are not informing us.

Now as for consumers, the more conservative groups don't seem to want to be informed, they want to have their point of view parroted. When this does not happen they start screaming liberal media bias. There is another debate where we have hashed this out, now point in rehashing here. When big business gets into our politics it corrupts it. When big business gets into our health care it corrupts it. When big business gets into our media it corrupts it.

There are TONS of documentaries on this. Its not like some journalist goes out gets a scoop and then says "here is the story, here are my references" put it on air or in print. Those stories not only have to get vetted for accuracy, but also have to get approval to exist. There is a reason why very intelligent people who want to expose truths of American wrong doing do not go to our media first.

Our media is purposefully designed this way so I don't blame journalism totally. However I can't argue with any of the points made by Julian either. I will say that it is my opinion the media is designed to give us the illusion of choice. But lets be real.... ready

Many of us here I guarantee are or were at some point news junkies. Now if you were just to take 4 hours of news straight from one of the cable news networks, how much new information would you learn in a four hour period? Not much huh? Alright take that 4 hours and put it up against any other 4 hours in the day, you'd gain even less new information.

In contrast watch one 4 hours of Discovery Channel and you would learn an hours worth of new information. The news is not designed to inform us. There is so much to talk about. Discussions with labor unions, farmers, low level white collar workers. Interview with our enemies to inform us of their desires from their own mouths, not out State department filtered version.

A journalist should not be going to the government except when it wants the government perspective on a story, journalism requires you go to the source of a particular perspective as well. That is not in corporate interests. And the media works in the interest of its owners first and foremost, not the people of America.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
net2007
post Oct 22 2017, 06:29 PM
Post #10


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,219
Member No.: 7,629
Joined: April-27-07

From: North Carolina
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(droop224 @ Oct 18 2017, 10:35 PM) *
The problem isn't journalistic standards. The problem is a lack of journalism. That exists because the infiltration of business and corporate ideals and a consolidation of media outlets in media, not just in America but globally. Chalk that up as another wonderful idea of conservatism! I can only say so much before someone screams "socialism!!" The goal of media is not to inform, their goal is to cause us to react emotionally. It works to further the goals of corporate interests.

I know that puts me in the "conspiracy theorist" category. However, look up conspiracy. I think it is a conspiracy and I think all you have to do is look at the news to see its true. They are not informing us.

Now as for consumers, the more conservative groups don't seem to want to be informed, they want to have their point of view parroted. When this does not happen they start screaming liberal media bias. There is another debate where we have hashed this out, now point in rehashing here. When big business gets into our politics it corrupts it. When big business gets into our health care it corrupts it. When big business gets into our media it corrupts it.

There are TONS of documentaries on this. Its not like some journalist goes out gets a scoop and then says "here is the story, here are my references" put it on air or in print. Those stories not only have to get vetted for accuracy, but also have to get approval to exist. There is a reason why very intelligent people who want to expose truths of American wrong doing do not go to our media first.

Our media is purposefully designed this way so I don't blame journalism totally. However I can't argue with any of the points made by Julian either. I will say that it is my opinion the media is designed to give us the illusion of choice. But lets be real.... ready

Many of us here I guarantee are or were at some point news junkies. Now if you were just to take 4 hours of news straight from one of the cable news networks, how much new information would you learn in a four hour period? Not much huh? Alright take that 4 hours and put it up against any other 4 hours in the day, you'd gain even less new information.

In contrast watch one 4 hours of Discovery Channel and you would learn an hours worth of new information. The news is not designed to inform us. There is so much to talk about. Discussions with labor unions, farmers, low level white collar workers. Interview with our enemies to inform us of their desires from their own mouths, not out State department filtered version.

A journalist should not be going to the government except when it wants the government perspective on a story, journalism requires you go to the source of a particular perspective as well. That is not in corporate interests. And the media works in the interest of its owners first and foremost, not the people of America.


Droop, no conservative suggested they didn't want to be informed in the media bias thread. What concerns most conservatives is the lopsided coverage which for decades has favored the left, though there are certainly exceptions. When the media or journalist inform the public, I believe they offer criticisms of the right that should be made. I'm always open to hearing out the left, as I have been with you. I don't always agree with you, or other liberals, but that's different.

In your last post, I absolutely agree that it's a struggle to be informed by the news media. When I watch a network like Fox News, I know that I have to consider there's another side to the story and seek out opposing viewpoints. The discovery channel, and channels like it, are awesome by the way. I'm a geek when it comes to space or rocketry based documentaries, that's actually something that I wish the right would embrace more than they do.

If focusing on conservative media helps to drive home the point, lets consider Tucker Carlson on Fox News. You can learn things that are factual but every night on his show he's sharing information and offering opinions on that information which are favorable to conservatives. He's particularly bad, I've seen him invite liberal guests who he knows did or said something wrong, then he baits them and calls them out. When the liberal in question offers a defense he gets agitated and interrupts them. This is my pet peeve, one set of facts and opinions are valued while the opposition is disregarded.

While I believe making money is important to the media (as you've suggested), being biased and running a corporation which wants to make money are not mutually exclusive concepts. A news network or journalist can actually make money by using their bias to appeal to a like-minded constituency. You can tell that there's bias involved simply by witnessing how emotional many journalists and news anchors get. Their opinions are extremely important to them and that's reflected in their writings and coverage.

When I mentioned this about left wing media and shared multiple examples of it you suggested I was cherry picking, but this happens on a daily basis. All you have to do is turn on a major network like Fox News or CNN and you'll see examples of this. I believe the left is more responsible primarily because there's more of them in the media by a long shot....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix...m=.819cfa212ff0

QUOTE
"Compared with 2002, the percentage of full-time U.S. journalists who claim to be Democrats has dropped 8 percentage points in 2013 to about 28 percent, moving this figure closer to the overall population percentage of 30 percent, according to a December 12-15, 2013, ABC News/Washington Post national poll of 1,005 adults. This is the lowest percentage of journalists saying they are Democrats since 1971. An even larger drop was observed among journalists who said they were Republicans in 2013 (7.1 percent) than in 2002 (18 percent), but the 2013 figure is still notably lower than the percentage of U.S. adults who identified with the Republican Party (24 percent according to the poll mentioned above)."


According to this study mentioned by the slightly left-leaning Washington Post, as of 2013 just 7% of journalist identified as Republican compared to 28% who identified as Democrat, and let's be honest here, modern liberals and progressives dominate the Democratic party. The article later suggested that this study showed that the number of partisans in the media is dropping on both sides but I believe that they missed something important. Many independents who don't describe themselves as Republican or Democrat still favor one or the other. I believe the bias and partisanship is getting worse because people are fighting more than they did when I was growing up in the 80s and 90s.

Either way, I've found several studies which suggest the same thing and many people on the left will acknowledge the fact that the left dominates journalism and the media. This, in combination with the fact that left-wing journalist and anchors share one set of facts and opinions over another, while often getting emotional about it, are the primary things which reveal that journalism and the media are biased in favor of the left. This is because their writings and coverage usually match their political affiliation.

This isn't a right-wing concoction, it's what the left has chosen to do. Regardless, I believe when either side in the media either lies or omits information for the benefit of like-minded individuals it's a problem and definitely a pet peeve of mine. I keep in mind that sharing facts is different than seeking the truth, I'm sure you often feel this way about conservatives as well.

You said you didn't want to rehash this which is okay. We don't have to go further but there's my side of the argument.

______________

Edited for spell check, oops tongue.gif

This post has been edited by net2007: Oct 23 2017, 03:04 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Nov 6 2017, 03:08 PM
Post #11


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,328
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



This I found interesting after the mass shooting in Texas yesterday (11/5):

https://www.buzzfeed.com/talalansari/fake-n...8b1#.ojQa3vzp5W

Seems reoccurring fake news surrounds mass shootings, trying to tie the left side of politics to the deadly firearm violence that happens in the USA. Some of it is just plain stupid, perhaps as a show of how gullible people can be. It's similar to how certain public figures have taken Onion lampoons as true, thereby demonstrating beyond doubt their inherent mental weakness. Tsk tsk, perhaps this is a result of private education in which Mark Twain isn't among the required-reading authors. He suggested it's better to stay quiet rather than removing all doubt about one's ability to be idiotic.

The nineteenth century was a period full of fake news, and such can be found throughout history. It just wasn't called fake news back then, more sensitively referred to as myths, tall tales, and bald-faced lies w00t.gif

There is a tendency for people to believe what they want despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The most common example of this today has to do with global warming, in which public opinion has been swayed away from denial only after undeniable natural disasters that keep coming and coming and coming, no end to it in sight. This has also been manifested by distrust of all science, but that seems to be fading away as supernatural beings simply don't show up to fix things. Or destroy everything -- interesting human psychology at work here.

While I do see skepticism to be healthy, there's also such a thing as too much skepticism. Take for instance flat-earth thinking -- yeah, maybe it's all a hoax that major celestial bodies are spheres due to how gravity works. But then where are all the earth-edge prime properties? And exactly how thick is the disk? When things don't add up, it's time for skepticism. When proponents of an idea have to ignore facts, that's another good place for it -- especially when they propose alternative facts.

Which brings me to Trump & Crew. His loose lips are sinking his own ships, so unfair! It's all the fault of fake news media and their habit of reporting exactly what he says.

And so an Onion lampoon has become our nation's leader. Or so he thinks ... ... NOT! Flake snooze.

Anyway, sanity might have another crack at it. Age of Re-enlightenment?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hobbes
post Nov 14 2017, 04:05 PM
Post #12


Group Icon

**********
No More Mr. Nice Guy!

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 5,310
Member No.: 1,155
Joined: September-8-03

From: Dallas, TX
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Sep 19 2017, 11:12 AM) *
Probably neither and both if history is used as a gauge. Meanwhile, we get to watch via news reports that are very often slanted this or that way, so we also get to decide what and what not to believe.


The problem is that's when confirmation bias kicks in. Which the media then thrives on. Does that mean its a death spiral? No, I don't think so. I find it hard to believe that at some point, most people will decide 'ENOUGH!', and the pendulum will swing back. The interesting thing is it can't overcorrect, IMHO. How much 'real news' is too much? I guess you could swing to where there wasn't any opinion pieces or editorializing at all, but would that really be a bad thing for 'news'? I would love it if the media performed its objective purpose in our democracy, which is to be critical of government, no matter who is in office, to act as a balance to government power. It doesn't do that currently, as doing that requires the removal of bias.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Nov 15 2017, 12:24 PM
Post #13


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,328
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



Seems catering to people's biases might become something other than a news media business plan:

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-roo...n-in-dc-in-2018

Huh, doesn't sound all that attractive to me. But then I like the old-school journalism, some ratty guy with a cigarette hanging off his lip pounding on a beat-up manual typewriter in a seedy hotel room, open bottle of cheap bourbon next to the overflowing ashtray, waiting for a visit from the mysterious Lady in Red with No Tats but great, um, foundations.

Maybe the problem is with how tech has sanitized muck raking. I've known for a long time that my problem is not living in the 1930s. Life was a lot easier when Nazis didn't live in the suburbs, down in Mom's basement, and being red-blooded was more important than consuming red meat (or not). Yep, and the .38 Special was the weapon of choice among crooks and cops. Also people in the movies died right away, no messy fuss, like taking a nap.

Good Lord, I have indeed become my father. Oh well, it's a comfortable suit. Now if only I had a black coupe with a flathead straight eight. Instead I have to pretend I'm Jason Bourne running to the Alps with that beautiful homely woman in the Smart-arse Car.

Yeah, don't mess with JB, he will bum rush you to hell.

Guess it's time to play some old jazz on the Godin humbucking box. Guitars are better now, so that's something to hang the hat on.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Nov 15 2017, 12:24 PM
Post #14


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,328
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



Seems catering to people's biases might become something other than a news media business plan:

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-roo...n-in-dc-in-2018

Huh, doesn't sound all that attractive to me. But then I like the old-school journalism, some ratty guy with a cigarette hanging off his lip pounding on a beat-up manual typewriter in a seedy hotel room, open bottle of cheap bourbon next to the overflowing ashtray, waiting for a visit from the mysterious Lady in Red with No Tats but great, um, foundations.

Maybe the problem is with how tech has sanitized muck raking. I've known for a long time that my problem is not living in the 1930s. Life was a lot easier when Nazis didn't live in the suburbs, down in Mom's basement, and being red-blooded was more important than consuming red meat (or not). Yep, and the .38 Special was the weapon of choice among crooks and cops. Also people in the movies died right away, no messy fuss, like taking a nap.

Good Lord, I have indeed become my father. Oh well, it's a comfortable suit. Now if only I had a black coupe with a flathead straight eight. Instead I have to pretend I'm Jason Bourne running to the Alps with that beautiful homely woman in the Smart-arse Car.

Yeah, don't mess with JB, he will bum rush you to hell.

Guess it's time to play some old jazz on the Godin humbucking box. Guitars are better now, so that's something to hang the fedora on.

This post has been edited by AuthorMusician: Nov 15 2017, 12:27 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mrs. Pigpen
post Nov 15 2017, 01:46 PM
Post #15


Group Icon

**********
Carpe noctum

Sponsor
June 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,308
Member No.: 598
Joined: March-12-03

Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Nov 15 2017, 07:24 AM) *
Seems catering to people's biases might become something other than a news media business plan:

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-roo...n-in-dc-in-2018

Huh, doesn't sound all that attractive to me.



WOW That's hilarious! laugh.gif
I thought it was something out of the Onion until I checked it out with Bloomberg.
Thanks for sharing that. flowers.gif

Oh, boy. I think this might just be the worst business move I've ever seen. Worse than "I cuss, you cuss, we all cuss for asparagus". LOL
Not because so many people like Trump, but because the number of people who would choose a hotel in this particular manner are few
(and probably so smugly arrogant they are very very annoying to be around).

This post has been edited by Mrs. Pigpen: Nov 15 2017, 01:47 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Nov 18 2017, 04:59 AM
Post #16


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,328
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Nov 15 2017, 09:46 AM) *
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Nov 15 2017, 07:24 AM) *
Seems catering to people's biases might become something other than a news media business plan:

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-roo...n-in-dc-in-2018

Huh, doesn't sound all that attractive to me.



WOW That's hilarious! laugh.gif
I thought it was something out of the Onion until I checked it out with Bloomberg.
Thanks for sharing that. flowers.gif

Oh, boy. I think this might just be the worst business move I've ever seen. Worse than "I cuss, you cuss, we all cuss for asparagus". LOL
Not because so many people like Trump, but because the number of people who would choose a hotel in this particular manner are few
(and probably so smugly arrogant they are very very annoying to be around).

Agreed, and the whole thing smells like what cults do -- surround victims with one viewpoint. Yet too many people are attracted to it because it gives a sense of belonging to community, a fundamental human need.

That's because our social structures have left too many people out, starting with family. Maybe ending there too, the alpha and omega. It's really complex, so I'll just leave it there. Can add that more folks have become aware of this problem that leads to things like Illinois Nazis (Blues Bros. 1). However, more people have found constructive ways to deal with dysfunctional families, so there's that. And it's common knowledge that building community works against gangs. So there's a lot of hope that we'll figure out solutions before things get out of hand, i.e., uncontrollable.

In simpler terms, I hope this business idea falls flat. If not, it could make things a lot worse. Or maybe it's too late already? I'm not sure if it's close to the dawn or if it'll get even darker. I'm more sure that what's happening can't be reversed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: February 20th, 2018 - 02:07 AM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.