How to solve the media problem?

Incorrect, Fox News while biased is far superior to any left leaning news source like cnn or Washington post, msnbc, etc. they are essentially propaganda networks at this point. Fox News had it right on the collusion hoax, the same cannot be said for any of the other mentioned sources.

who is falsely claiming the libertarian tag?

 

I haven't found an American libertarian that isn't misadvertising. They're typically right wingers looking for an exotic label. Libertarianism is very much an anarchist outlook.

Your reaction to my post is not credible. I've merely referred to well known evidence (e.g. Stefano DellaVigna, Ethan Kaplan, The Fox News Effect: Media Bias and Voting, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Volume 122, Issue 3, August 2007, Pages 1187–1234).

You may disagree, but we all know about opinions don't we? Stick to evidence!

 

Who are you accusing in particular of misusing the label? Me? Someone else?

Libertarianism is not the same as anarchy, you clearly dont understand what libertarianism is, I suggest you do more research on it.

Evidence is certainly on my side here, regardless if you choose to “feel” my response is credible or not. The sources I mentioned are very much propagandists at this point, this is seen by the amount of lies they tell, and misrepresentations. Also in their falling support by the populace, although it isn’t quite falling quick enough.

 

I'm sure that you've read what I said. I clearly stated that the whole American libertarian movement is a sham, effectively bought by big business to peddle neoliberalism. Given libertarianism is really an anarchist outlook, its a classic example of the result of media bias

Complete nonsense. The libertarian will have more in common with Marx than Hayek. The American ****show is essentially a reinventing of classical liberalism for the gullible. Its particularly worthless as they can't even get the basics of classical liberalism right (such as Adam Smith's egalitarianism).

This isn't a valid response. I've referred to reality: an empirical evidence which, by isolating Fox News within its study of big data, tests hypothesis on voting behaviour. And you? You've rambled on about your opinion, pretending that you can use it to ignore the evidence.

This does, mind you, also illustrate how Fox is inherently embedded within post-truth society.

 

Incorrect, its not a sham at all. You have demonstrated that you need to do more research on it as you clearly misunderstand the differences between libertarianism and anarchy.

Again, incorrect. It’s no sham, the idea that it can be irrationally compared to anarchy is a considerable failure analysis.

It’s absolutely a valid response, you may “feel” otherwise but that doesn’t make it true. I’ve specifically referred to reality, the reality that CNN, msnbc, among other left leaning sources are essentially propaganda sources and I specifically stated why, based on facts and evidence. Further than that, the idea you think that study is empirical evidence also shows a complete misunderstanding on what empirical evidence is.

I think you need to look into that a bit more to be completely honest. Those in the post truth society are very much in CNN, among the other left leaning sources I noted.

 

Sooooo many things wrong with this, but so little time.

Let's begin with the obvious....why the general broad strokes? Name names. Which media outlet is "lying" and about what? And by what thought process, logic and research have given you the knowledge and authority to declare a specific media outlet as having such a poor grasp of journalism for it to be single handily dismissed?

 

I specifically gave examples, I have named names and gave examples of what and why. It’s as if you didnt read the post lol.

But how do you think the media can be improved and how to effect that change?

 

You seem to think debate involves "I'm correct so you must be wrong". Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Lets go through my argument objectively to allow you to construct an actual argument:

So, I've referred to Liberal Political Economy. Do you agree that Adam Smith is a key figure in classical liberalism? Do you also agree that, via his Moral Sentiments, he provided a focus on egalitarianism and hardly mentions the invisible hand in Wealth of Nations? Answering positive to either would mean you've yet to muster an argument.

Next I've referred to how American Libertarianism is really just an offshoot of libertarianism. Two questions for you here. How are the libertarian pressure groups funded and can you reject significiant funding by big business and rich benefactors? And have these groups been reliant on the Austrian school, an offshoot of neoliberalism? Answering positive here will confirm what I said: American libertarianism is just a means to bias the narrative towards neoliberalism.

And finally can we use these right wing 'libertarian' economic approaches to conclude support for liberty? We can refer to the obvious, such as links to dictators such as Pinochet. But let's go with the poster child of the movement: Thatcher and her reliance on Hayek and Friedman. End result? The outcome of neoliberalism are greater inequalities (Thatcher, for example, harvested child poverty and destroyed any notion of equality of opportunity) and greater centralisation to enforce it.

I'm merely dealing with fact. Libertarianism has always gone hand in hand with anarchism. Its only in the US that the meaning has been corrupted by right wing political economy.

Again you only shy away from credible debate. I've already described the approach adopted in the literature: an empirical specification which controls for numerous socio-economic variables, allowing the researchers to isolate Fox News effects through econometric methodology. That you're not aware of this only confirms that you're referring to bias without any understanding of the scholarly research.

How would you know? I've referred to evidence and you've avoided it. For example, the source referenced agrees with multiple other papers that (apparently) liberal media sources do not significantly impact on voting outcomes.

You need to read the research. Your complete reliance on opinion has essentially meant that you've hid from the real debate. Bit of a shame.

 

You only mentioned CNN, but you keep referring to the plural, as in MSM. So who are the members of this MSM that includes CNN?

EDIT TO ADD: You know, on a second read of the OP something smells fishy, with a back odor of cheap cigarettes and vodka.

 

Fox News AGAIN? Damn near every major "media' company in the country leans so far left it's a wonder they don't fall off the planet, yet it's always " Oh God, FOX NEWS!". It's breathtaking. It's hilarious. Do they REALLY frighten you THAT much?

 

You seem to have gone off on one. Lost your yoga mat? The point was obvious: empirical evidence only find statistically significant impact on voting behaviour by Fox News. Just a nasty ole fact ignored by right wingers too busy whining about liberals to read the research...

 

The wallet is the only way I know.

Cancel cable. Ignore their websites, question any fact that comes from them through others. Ignore cable news.

Perhaps start a new channel, but why do that in a dying industry that is smothered in competition already. I could spend all day consuming media and never watch 1% of what's out there and cable news gets about 1% of my available media time, Ive been ignoring it for years.

To the sheep: Read a book, go outside, and you will find out that the earth still rotates even when your not watching some random talking head ramble on about a nothingburger

I can't help the sheep, I've given up on them, they need to help themselves.

 

That was it's original purpose. Since the sixties it has largely been coopted by leftist asshats full of self and empty of intellectual rigor or honesty. It tracks well with the change from being reporters to journalist.

 

What specific lies are you referring to and who specifically is spreading them?

 

In other words, you'd like to suppress media outlets that are critical of the president, but the in-official propaganda network of the WH, i.e. Fox news, shall remain untouched? As I said, welcome to the Prawda-style Soviet Union.

 

The earth will still rotate long after humans have disappeared. Not a great argument.

I agree, however, that most media are garbage. That's why I don't have cable at home. The problem started when for-profit media became the norm. Guess what, they are in it for the profit, not for the truth.

 

The mainstream media is hopelessly corrupt. Part of that is explained by its corporate ownership in this fascist state in which we live, and part of it is explained by the historical fact of Operation Mockingbird, going back to the 50's.

The main function of the media is to keep the populace distracted and in a state of fear by way of propaganda supporting the status quo we suffer under. In that mission, it does a terrific job, and nothing demonstrates that better than our 19th anniversary of 911 and today's media-generated crisis with the virus.

 

This is really simple.
If someone tells a lie point out with evidence that it is a lie.
If something offends you don't watch read etc
If someone disagrees with you realize that it is their right to do so.
Finally reread the First Amendment.

 

It is bad enough that they are critical of the president on grounds that are mostly unjustified what is worse us that they are hyper critical if the country as a whole.

 

Unfortunately it is only the populace that can change the media, and it would require a large minority sufficiently loud and adamant. That would have to have things get much worse and the progressives to not get more powerful. Whether that will happen before we reach a point of no return is problematic.

 

To the contrary our founders did expect the media to be a check on government while at the same time a successful business. That is why they singled it out for protection in the 1st Amendment.

 

Thank you for recognizing the single most destructive force in America is the lies of Faux.

 

When the means of communication for media was licensed frequencies of broadcast, the Feds did have more control. The internet and cable has reduced this. What is critically important here is the relationship between what people believe and reality- for it is impossible to make good decisions without accurate understanding and knowledge of issues.

Most people only know a few hundred others, and most of those they will not know well. Thus a great deal of what we "know" is derived from media- and for most of our history, the press adhered to the tenets of ethical journalism like a Hippocratic oath, where ethics and honesty took precedence over all other influences. This of course- is a dead philosophy today, with the majority of the media being propaganda mills, serving this or that special interests and disseminating false images to the public- to be sure that they didn't have the ability to make judgements on issues based on facts. The general purpose is not unlike those dark figures preying on you via the internet known as hackers- Except that the media now what to hack your mind, hack how and what you think.... cause you to believe what they want you to believe, and have no legitimate perspective on reality that would allow you to think for yourself. The best hackers do this without you being aware of it- and the media has become very, very good at it They distort the facts into garbage, they present it to the public as honest news or opinion... and your mind, lacking an honest basis of information, will produce- garbage. Garbage in, garbage out- It works in computers, and that is exactly what you mind is. When we distort what people think they know, we distort their conclusions and their ability to make rational judgements.

While there are many reasons for the failures of today- the majority of them could not be occurring without the aid of corruption of the journalistic ethic, which pervades the majority of today's media.

 

Problem is you are confusing entertainment and opinion shows with "news". CNN, FOX and the other twenty four hour stations are basically entertainment and opinion channels with a little bit of news stories sprinkled in. It's not their fault you think they are about news - not profit.

If you want news, go to the local stations who don't have time to do much editorial input. But it's silly to be mad at entertainment and op ed shows for being editorial and op ed shows - it's like being mad at water for being wet.

 

There is only one way to do it, make a law that they can only report FACTS or if thats too much government interference in your opinion, then they change the name to NEWS ENTERTAINMENT

WWE is WORLD WRESTLING ENTERTAINMENT since its technically not "real" wrestling

So i could be like this:
Change CNN to CNEN (the E being for Entertainment)
and change FOX to FOXRN (RN being for REAL NEWS)
problem solved!