Media trust hits new low

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Kal'Stang, Jan 21, 2021.

  1. Adfundum

    Adfundum Moderator Staff Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2018
    Messages:
    5,267
    Likes Received:
    2,852
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Essentially, what you say is true. However, Sullivan did go on to elaborate much more specifically in her editorial. For example, instead of simply referring to certain comments as inaccurate or unsupported, she says that media needs to take the time and go into why and how the claims are inaccurate and to look at what is and is not supported. Her intention seems to be to let the public have the all the facts rather than having dots laid out in front of them. Her article is worth thinking about.
     
  2. Kal'Stang

    Kal'Stang Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2015
    Messages:
    5,947
    Likes Received:
    4,704
    Trophy Points:
    113
    As long as the person relaying the information has the facts that are able to be proven then I don't care where the information comes from. That's part of the problem going on right now. People dismiss something simply because its not from a "reliable source". Even an "unreliable" source can have facts on their side and be truthful. Everyone should, on an individual basis, examine what is said and try and disprove/prove what is said for themselves.

    For example if someone tells me that Michael Brown had his hands up and said "don't shoot" I would not believe it because several witnesses testified that he never did that. IE: There was proof that he didn't. I know that because of court transcripts that I can read for myself.

    Now of course you can take what I have said here to the extreme. Some things are not provable or disprovable. If you can't do either then you sit on the fence until such time as it can be proved or disproved.
     
    LoneStarGal likes this.
  3. Kal'Stang

    Kal'Stang Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2015
    Messages:
    5,947
    Likes Received:
    4,704
    Trophy Points:
    113
    She also quotes Jay Rosen (and presumably agrees with him considering context) when he said, from her own article:

    LINK: Three ways the media can vanquish the Big Lie that will linger even after Trump is gone
    (its the Washington Post so if you don't have any more "free viewings" or are not subscribed it may be paywalled for you)

    In other words only allow those that agree with you to get air time.

    The perfect example that I don't even need to make up is the claim of "very fine people". The media reported it as Trump referring to white supremacists. They would not let anyone else report the actual facts. One had to read the actual transcript of Trumps speech to find out that he didn't call white supremacists "very fine people" because he specifically stated that he wasn't talking about them and that they should be condemned completely.

    It's not hard to find lawyers who can agree with you on a particular subject. So the media often only uses lawyers that agree with them in order to support X and treat that lawyer as "factual". While ignoring that there are lawyers that disagree with that lawyers assessment. Every time someone came along with 1000 lawyers signed petition to....blah blah blah I would always roll my eyes and ask myself, "yeah? What about the 1000 lawyers that disagree? where's their input?". There is none. They're ignored. Not even asked. And any individual lawyer that dared to speak up and disagree was considered a crackpot or some other derogatory thing.
     
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2021
    Sanskrit and HockeyDad like this.
  4. aenigma

    aenigma Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2015
    Messages:
    899
    Likes Received:
    291
    Trophy Points:
    63
    You got us
    You got venezuela
    And you probably want to consider you dont have to be one extreme or the other, most of europe is somewhere in between and doing fine.
     
  5. Adfundum

    Adfundum Moderator Staff Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2018
    Messages:
    5,267
    Likes Received:
    2,852
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Again, true, and I disagree with her comments (up to a point). However, she did have a point about not entertaining issues that have been proven to be false. Because repetition is a key element in propaganda, hosting or interviewing someone who tries to keep hammering away at the same discredited information actually does work to promote or repeat that narrative. Suppose we continue on with the rape accusations against Kavanaugh or tirelessly promote the idea that Trump had Putin working on his side in 2016? Should there be a point where you say "I'm not going to indulge those fantasies anymore"? Should Alex Jones be taken seriously and his false claims repeated, or should we just step around Jones as an unreliable source?

    But before we get too far from my original question about what she meant by getting people to accept what the media writes--That's an example of how certain quotes can be used to craft narratives. Is it wrong to get people to accept what they write? Is it possible she was saying that telling the truth and exposing falsehoods is a way to get readers to accept what the media says?

    How do you get readers to accept what you say is the truth?
     
    dairyair likes this.
  6. liberalminority

    liberalminority Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Messages:
    25,181
    Likes Received:
    1,601
    Trophy Points:
    113
    readers will accept what you say is the truth by saying true lies.

    the movie gives a visual meaning.

    https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.08333#:~:text=Download PDF,that becomes true when announced.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_Lies
     
    Adfundum likes this.
  7. fmw

    fmw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2009
    Messages:
    20,292
    Likes Received:
    7,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nuclear codes aren't deception. They are classified. Classifying something isn't deception. Everybody knows they are secret. Competition is the cornerstone of capitalism. Remove it and you remove capitalism. If the state wants to have its own media to compete with private media, fine. But to replace private media with a state run media is, well, do I really need to tell you?

    They have the ability to tell the truth. They choose not to. That will only destroy them in the long run. The free market will opt for new media that does tell the truth. I don't care if the media destroy themselves. It is a choice. But failing to print the truth will not stand the test of time.

    The people do pick. It is what freedom is all about.
     
  8. HB Surfer

    HB Surfer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2009
    Messages:
    30,895
    Likes Received:
    15,426
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The Establishment's lock on information is going to die and fantastic death! There are already significant lists being circulated for people that want real Freedom of Information.

    https://ghostbin.co/paste/hwzn6

    It's fantastic to know that the populace is waking up to the corruption of the Leftist News Media and Big Tech.
     
    LoneStarGal likes this.
  9. Kal'Stang

    Kal'Stang Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2015
    Messages:
    5,947
    Likes Received:
    4,704
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I do agree that there comes a time when an issue should no longer get the light of day. But that should be when the majority of people are no longer interested in a particular subject. Best way to determine that is viewership. If viewership declines then people are no longer interested so its time to move on. I don't believe its the news media's job to tell us what or when a subject is done with.

    As for when they let the Alex Jones types on? They don't have to at all. But if they're right, then they're right. Alex Jones, for all his idiocy, has a mixed track record. In other words he's not always wrong. Most of the time he's just a bloviating ass sure, but he's been right on what he has said more than his detractors would like to admit.

    I don't think the media should be telling us what is truth and what isn't truth period. It's not their job. Sure, most definitely get the facts, but if someone views those facts differently then that should be a part of their programing. There are many ways to view the same thing in politics, or even life in general. The media's job should be about informing the people. Not telling. Get my drift? Give the people all information pertaining to a particular subject regardless of what it is or how they (the media) views (whether its junk or not) it themselves. And let the people decide.

    Me personally? I don't. :shrug: (need a shrug emoji!!! lol) I tell people what I believe and why I believe what I do by either using logic or by adding links. If they accept it as truth then great! If not then that is their choice. Perhaps they're just viewing things differently. When the subject no longer interests me I move on. I don't believe in trying to force someone to believe something I say by hook or by crook.
     
    LoneStarGal likes this.
  10. Adfundum

    Adfundum Moderator Staff Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2018
    Messages:
    5,267
    Likes Received:
    2,852
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I would agree except that part of the problem with media today is its dependence/reliance on viewership. That's where the money is and that seems to be the single most important concern. What's going to get our attention and ultimately, our wallets? Essentially, that suggests accuracy or truthfulness mean little, and that's part of why we're is this socially dysfunctional state.

    But the Jones types are the ones that up the viewership. People like the drama, angst, anger, and so forth. We seem to have a need to have an enemy to blame all our problems on. We get all caught up in that and shove our critical thinking aside, defaulting to the fast-thinking part of our consciousness.

    I'm not in favor of the media being our arbiter of truth either. I still cling to that old notion of balanced news reporting from back in the day when we had a limited number of sources that had to please all sides or go out of business. There was something slightly more noble about that, but that's just my idealism gone amok. It's a different world. In addition, if we surrender our critical thinking skills to our favorite media, we don't deserve anything better.

    And I'll add to that the idea of dropping questions in every once in a while just to take us a little deeper into issues. We can be so shallow in our thinking at times that we think and talk in binary terms of good/bad etc., and make use of our stereotypes (us/them) that we will believe some pretty questionable information.

    My thought is to start from the position of seeing all sources as biased. If ten people witness the same event, you'll get ten different versions of what happened. The same story can get reported on ten news sources and each will have a different feel to it. What's included and what's left out of the story? What modifiers were chosen to push my preferred bias? What provocative phrases were highlighted to trigger my emotions?

    If I'm convinced that one group of people is more prone to believing fake news because of their news sources, then I am the one who is falling for the propaganda. It's up to me to distrust myself and acknowledge that my own biases can lead me to some alternate reality.
     
    Last edited: Jan 25, 2021
    Kal'Stang likes this.
  11. Kal'Stang

    Kal'Stang Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2015
    Messages:
    5,947
    Likes Received:
    4,704
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Quite frankly there is nothing here I disagree with. Can't even add to it without being repetitive.
     
    Adfundum likes this.
  12. grapeape

    grapeape Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2015
    Messages:
    10,182
    Likes Received:
    5,440
    Trophy Points:
    113
    All due respect Kal, but Trump has been screaming for months now, so loud that their was an attempted coup, that the election was stolen, and their is literally not one shred of evidence to prove that. In fact their is actually proof to the contrary.

    Today’s world is not about truth, it is about confirmation bias. People what to hear what the WANT to hear, not what is true.

    And lets just be honest here. After 4 years of Trump calling everything “fake news” his followers wanted to believe it, so they now believe it. I said it the first day he made the claim after his inauguration when the media called him out, showed the actual pictures to prove their claim, and he just kept saying it. There is an old saying: “if you hear it enough, it becomes a fact”, and the distrust of the media today is the fruition of that.

    This all started with Fox News. They changed the game. They were a propaganda network from the word go. And the right claims that everyone else was wrong, and that FOX was “right” and after thinking that for long enough, no matter what facts were put in front of them, they believed it, because they wanted to. Fox didn’t invent confirmation bias, but they sure as hell perfected it.

    That’s not to say that the left doesn’t have their own in MSNBC, but the left has a much smaller footprint in that space. Most people in america have chosen a side, and they only get their news from the sources they “trust”. You should watch MSNBC do their newscast, and then turn over to Fox and watch their newscast, and they can report on the very same thing, and have two COMPLETELY different reports that aren’t even in the same universe. And those are the actual news broadcasts on those channels, but then watch their “talking heads” and they aren’t in the same realm of time and space

    Trump called out CNN on day one because they didn’t report what he told them, they actually fact checked him. Now having politician or a president not like a certain news outlet because they don’t like the way they cover them is one thing, but Trump took that to a new level. He called them fake news ad-nauseam, and at some point that just became fact for the base. So much so, that when Trump went a bridge to far for Fox News, and they actually stopped being “state news”, he started to call them out. Thus, the birth of the new “conspiracy news outlets” OAN/Newsmax/Epoc. Their motto should be “when Fox isn’t X-Files enough for you....”

    This is a very dangerous road were on, and I honestly dont think we can come back from this one. We are more divided today than at any point in our history other than the civil war. We actually had an attempted coup less than a month ago. We as a country cannot minimize that, and we need to address that 8000 pound gorilla in the room, or we will not survive as a nation. This grand experiment might just be over
     
    Last edited: Jan 25, 2021
  13. Moolk

    Moolk Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2020
    Messages:
    6,889
    Likes Received:
    4,928
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Trump broke the msm, that much is clear.

    now everyone sees them for what they are.

    propaganda
     
    LoneStarGal, Sanskrit and JET3534 like this.
  14. Pollycy

    Pollycy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    24,959
    Likes Received:
    10,443
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I wouldn't trust CNN, MSNBC, NBC, or any of the rest of the hyperliberal "news" media stooges as far as I could puke into a 100-mile-an-hour headwind. There! That was pretty succinct, wasn't it...?

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Jan 25, 2021
  15. JET3534

    JET3534 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2014
    Messages:
    7,669
    Likes Received:
    5,701
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The Washington Post provides an excellent case study of why people no longer trust the news media. For years the Washington Post was run by Catherine Graham. Under her leadership the newspaper was a liberal editorial policy and certainly did not hold back in publishing things like the Pentagon Papers and so forth. But she maintained professional standards of journalism. Compare and contrast that now with the Washington Post under the leadership of Jeff Bizos. Now it is pure propaganda. Not even up to the standards of pre 1992 Pravda, the notorious propaganda arm of the Soviet Union.

    Currently the liberal media makes up the news. They quote tweets and anonymous Internet comments as news. No longer do Reports venture out to conduct interviews and research on which to base news. Can anyone here on PF forum point me to a pro Trump article from the Washington Post? Even the Post's "Democracy Dies in Darkness" was intended as a Trump attack.

    The only paper that currently maintains journalistic standards that I am aware of is the Epoch times. They actually send out reporters to cover stories.
     
    Last edited: Jan 25, 2021
    Pollycy likes this.
  16. JET3534

    JET3534 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2014
    Messages:
    7,669
    Likes Received:
    5,701
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They will try.
     
    LoneStarGal and TheGreatSatan like this.
  17. dairyair

    dairyair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    57,322
    Likes Received:
    10,673
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What media do you specifically post about?
     
  18. JET3534

    JET3534 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2014
    Messages:
    7,669
    Likes Received:
    5,701
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A good start is to stop watching TV. I did away with my Dish Network subscription over a year ago and tossed my Cable box in the trash.
     
    LoneStarGal and HockeyDad like this.
  19. dairyair

    dairyair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    57,322
    Likes Received:
    10,673
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Only if one is foolish enough to believe them.

    Many believe the RW and LW so called media. Or course, none of them are real news media.
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  20. dairyair

    dairyair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    57,322
    Likes Received:
    10,673
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Believe 1/2 of what you see and none of what you read/hear.
    That has always been true.
    There is side 1 story, there is side 2 story, the real story is somewhere in the middle.
     
  21. dairyair

    dairyair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    57,322
    Likes Received:
    10,673
    Trophy Points:
    113
    An unreliable source has a credibility problem.
    No matter is they sprinkle in a fact once in a while, no one believes one who have who has no trust.

    It's best to not lost trust if one wants to be taken as credible.

    There's an old saying, 1 awshit wipes out 100 attaboys.

    1 wrong story can wipe out years of credibility.
     
    Last edited: Jan 25, 2021
  22. 61falcon

    61falcon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2018
    Messages:
    17,419
    Likes Received:
    9,569
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And yet somehow you right wingers believe the total bullshi spewed by QAnon and Breitfart????
     
  23. Kat236

    Kat236 Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2019
    Messages:
    231
    Likes Received:
    120
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Funny how he’s not President anymore and people still can’t seem to stop talking about him. Usually people who are hated go away immediately.
    See post below:
     
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2021
  24. Kat236

    Kat236 Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2019
    Messages:
    231
    Likes Received:
    120
    Trophy Points:
    43
    That’s not where the politicians of this country want us though. They won’t stop until they have complete control.
    I’m mean come on, the taxpayers are just fine with getting s*** on. Your rich fat leaders sit in their tax funded protection bubbles making laws that don’t apply to them and the taxpayers say nothing.
    Illegals are welcomed in with free housing, medical, food, and the taxpayers say nothing.
    Now they’re starting to restrict what you can say in social media, do you really think it will end there? No, the politicians could turn the heat up full blast and receive no resistance.
    Sad
     
    LoneStarGal likes this.
  25. Kal'Stang

    Kal'Stang Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2015
    Messages:
    5,947
    Likes Received:
    4,704
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In my view every source has a credibility problem now a days. Pick any source you'd like to from the media and I'll show you how they are manipulating things. Don't care what source it is. When you pick one then pick one of their articles and I'll use it.
     

Share This Page