dawnnikol
Prolific Pea
'A life without books is a life not lived.' Jay Kristoff
Posts: 8,552
Sept 21, 2015 18:39:25 GMT
|
Post by dawnnikol on Jul 10, 2024 22:40:38 GMT
Regardless of your political opinions, I think we would all agree that disinformation is rampant. It's absolutely ludicrous that you can't open a newspaper and rest assured that the "journalist" did their due diligence. It's all about clicks.
How the Real Mainstream Media Bias Favors Donald Trump
"Generations ago, we condescendingly referred to newspapers that emphasized scandal and celebrity intrigue as “yellow journalism.” The phrase dates back to the 1890s and William Randolph Hearst. From the 1890s until the World War II era, this brand of journalism dominated the American media scene. It took two world wars to push public demand for real news and serious reporting—and an emphasis on fact-based reporting and substance over flash—back into media dominance. They birthed what became the era of Walter Cronkite and Kathryn Graham, with honest, credible reporting on everything from Nixon’s Watergate crimes to the horrors of the Kennedy assassination and the Vietnam War." ... "The best corrective, and the best chance to save our republic, is for all of us to speak out loudly when we see this kind of modern-day yellow journalism practiced. As we saw last week when The New York Times featured an editorial calling for its heavily Democratic readers not to vote and then altered the headline in response to public outrage, our pressure can alter media behavior." |
|
|
|
Post by smasonnc on Jul 10, 2024 23:20:19 GMT
To your point, I check this website to see how to take what a news service has to say. League of Women Voters Media BiasMy father was one of the editors of the Baltimore Sun. Impartiality was a badge of honor. I was a journalism major until I realized I couldn't keep my opinion out of my writing so I switched to advertising/marketing. Journalism professors were idealistic about impartiality and ruthless with a red pen if there was bias. Not so anymore. I read newspapers and listen to broadcasts both from home and abroad just to get a sense of what's true without spin. The world press often gives us a straighter view of what's true. Add social media where anyone can voice their opinions and it's chaos. Once news departments became profit centers they lost their objectivity. We've all heard, "If it bleeds, it leads." The media gatekeepers are not charged with delivering what's true. It's their job to deliver eyeballs to advertisers. Objectivity? Nope. The New Republic linked above is on the cusp of "Most Extreme Liberal" and "Hyper-Partisan Liberalism" according to the League of Women Voters' evaluations of bias so take that into account when reading the article. |
|
dawnnikol
Prolific Pea
'A life without books is a life not lived.' Jay Kristoff
Posts: 8,552
Sept 21, 2015 18:39:25 GMT
|
Post by dawnnikol on Jul 10, 2024 23:41:28 GMT
To your point, I check this website to see how to take what a news service has to say. League of Women Voters Media BiasMy father was one of the editors of the Baltimore Sun. Impartiality was a badge of honor. I was a journalism major until I realized I couldn't keep my opinion out of my writing so I switched to advertising/marketing. Journalism professors were idealistic about impartiality and ruthless with a red pen if there was bias. Not so anymore. I read newspapers and listen to broadcasts both from home and abroad just to get a sense of what's true without spin. The world press often gives us a straighter view of what's true. Add social media where anyone can voice their opinions and it's chaos. Once news departments became profit centers they lost their objectivity. We've all heard, "If it bleeds, it leads." The media gatekeepers are not charged with delivering what's true. It's their job to deliver eyeballs to advertisers. Objectivity? Nope. The New Republic linked above is on the cusp of "Most Extreme Liberal" and "Hyper-Partisan Liberalism" according to the League of Women Voters' evaluations of bias so take that into account when reading the article. I check the impartiality as well, but does that not change everything when certain news sources that are "Neutral / Fact Reporting" are now skewing differently? For instance, the NYT "skews Liberal" and falls into the "Fact Reporting", right? Yet, just in the last few days, it's been non-stop about Biden dropping out and those who want him out. Even reporting that Pelosi wanted Biden to reconsider his position. NBC misquoting Sen Blumenthal about his "deep concern for Biden". Chaos is right and it only serves to help a few. |
|
|
|
Post by moretimeplease on Jul 10, 2024 23:53:24 GMT
To your point, I check this website to see how to take what a news service has to say. League of Women Voters Media BiasI’m curious when that infographic was created, and whether there have been shifts since then. Lately I don’t feel that NYT leans liberal at all. To the main point of the thread, I so very much wish more people understood that objectivity in news is gone. |
|
|
|
Post by smasonnc on Jul 11, 2024 0:30:24 GMT
I check the impartiality as well, but does that not change everything when certain news sources that are "Neutral / Fact Reporting" are now skewing differently? For instance, the NYT "skews Liberal" and falls into the "Fact Reporting", right? Good point. NYT is all over the place. I suspect they'll say anything that will deliver more eyeballs because print media is swirling the drain. I canceled my subscription in 2016 because, although I was as upset as anyone that Trump got elected, NYT lost their minds and every "news" story was a tirade about Trump. I still expected objectivity in news media. They had lost theirs and their yammering about something we couldn't change was just depressing. FYI, I'm a left-leaning registered independent, taking each side's narrative with a grain of salt. |
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Jul 12, 2024 16:49:38 GMT
To your point, I check this website to see how to take what a news service has to say. League of Women Voters Media BiasMy father was one of the editors of the Baltimore Sun. Impartiality was a badge of honor. I was a journalism major until I realized I couldn't keep my opinion out of my writing so I switched to advertising/marketing. Journalism professors were idealistic about impartiality and ruthless with a red pen if there was bias. Not so anymore. I read newspapers and listen to broadcasts both from home and abroad just to get a sense of what's true without spin. The world press often gives us a straighter view of what's true. Add social media where anyone can voice their opinions and it's chaos. Once news departments became profit centers they lost their objectivity. We've all heard, "If it bleeds, it leads." The media gatekeepers are not charged with delivering what's true. It's their job to deliver eyeballs to advertisers. Objectivity? Nope. The New Republic linked above is on the cusp of "Most Extreme Liberal" and "Hyper-Partisan Liberalism" according to the League of Women Voters' evaluations of bias so take that into account when reading the article. I check the impartiality as well, but does that not change everything when certain news sources that are "Neutral / Fact Reporting" are now skewing differently? For instance, the NYT "skews Liberal" and falls into the "Fact Reporting", right? Yet, just in the last few days, it's been non-stop about Biden dropping out and those who want him out. Even reporting that Pelosi wanted Biden to reconsider his position. NBC misquoting Sen Blumenthal about his "deep concern for Biden". Chaos is right and it only serves to help a few. Without question, the NYT editorials skew liberal. However, lately, the NYT has it out for Biden. Maybe because he refused an exclusive interview with them? After the release of the special counsel's report and after the debate, the NYT has been gunning for Biden. I have a subscription with them but am seriously considering canceling it after their latest shenanigans. I posted this in another thread, but it's relevant here, too. Does this really sound like fair, unbiased, impartial or objective journalism? Forget skewing liberal. At a minimum, they're ignoring the elephant in the room (Trump and his questionable mental fitness and recent rallies) heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/july-5-2024-fridayJournalist Jennifer Schulze of Heartland Signal noted today that as of 8:00 this morning, the New York Times had published 192 pieces on Biden’s debate performance: 142 news articles and 50 opinion pieces. Trump was covered in 92 stories, about half of which were about the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling. Although Trump has frequently slurred his words or trailed off while speaking and repeatedly fell asleep at his own criminal trial, none of the pieces mentioned Trump’s mental fitness. |
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Jul 12, 2024 16:55:37 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by smasonnc on Jul 12, 2024 17:18:29 GMT
Journalists want to do stories that the public will find valuable and that their audiences will find interesting. The Biden story is both. News organizations can identify what gets the most traction. People read the Biden stories so the news outlets publish more of them and it boosts the numbers they can present to advertisers. People ask why they don't cover similar gaffes when Trump makes them. It isn't news because we all know about it already. Trump spouting crazy $#it is just another day so it doesn't attract the same level of frenzy. The Biden story wouldn't be news either if we'd been told the truth all along. By the same principle, here in Florida, the Weather Channel starts screaming like a bunch of little girls as soon as there is a storm. That gets everyone glued to their TVs and the advertisers love it. The local weather folks don't take their jackets off until it's a category 4. |
|
|
|
Post by librarylady on Jul 12, 2024 21:50:05 GMT
I agree with aj2hall that the NYTIMES has been gunning for Joe Biden lately. I canceled my subscription this week because of it. We only have 2 viable candidates for POTUS and their articles that are hostile to Biden help DT. Therefore, NYT will no longer have my money to work with. Apparently lots of subscribers feel like I do, as I read they had many cancelations this week. They need to quit giving support to DT unless they are in favor of having a dictator run the USA. |
|
|
|
Post by lisae on Jul 13, 2024 0:14:07 GMT
I think the reason the NYTimes wants Biden out is because he is going to lose and they don't want Trump to win. The only option at this point is a new Democratic candidate. It is really as simple as that.
The failure I see in journalism right now is how no journalist seemed to notice Biden's decline. They are all complaining that he didn't give them enough access and yet it is trickling in that people did notice things and just didn't say anything. They travel with the President, they cover his events. He may not have held press conferences but they did notice things. One on CNN was interviewed about the fundraiser he covered before the debate. It was clear he did notice something troubling about Biden's welfare that night. Where was the story? Did they bury these suspicions because they didn't want to harm Biden's campaign and then after the debate it could not be hidden anymore?
|
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Jul 13, 2024 3:16:35 GMT
I think journalists and pundits are reasonably scared about the threats to democracy if Trump is elected. But, the opportunity to elect a different candidate has sailed. Removing Biden and choosing another candidate would be undemocratic, lead to chaos and probably, hand the election to Trump. Even if I thought it was necessary or a good idea (I don't) there isn't another Democrat strong enough to unite the party. I like VP Harris but after years of attacks from the conservative media and a few missteps, regrettably, she's polarizing. If the party skips over her, that will not be well received. Alternatively, if she's chosen, I'm not sure that she could defeat Trump. A lot of the attacks against her, like the offensive claim that she is a DEI VP and would be a DEI president are racist and misogynistic. I'm not a fan of Newsom and he's not the right candidate for a few reasons. There are other Democrats with strong leadership skills and potential like Pete Buttigieg, Whitmer, Shapiro, Beto, Chris Murphy, Jamie Raskin, Cory Booker, Stacey Abrams, Jasmine Crockett and others but I don't know that they have enough national recognition, fundraising capability or time to defeat Trump.
|
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Jul 13, 2024 4:22:40 GMT
Brooks makes an excellent point about the media focus on Biden's articulation. I don't agree with everything he says, but about 6 1/2 minutes in,, he talks about the media's focus on articulation and how they immediately draw conclusions about cognitive abilities. Biden has never been a great speaker, in part because of his speech disability. www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFIMNqiqRVI |
|
