ABC faking a crime scene.
Anderson Cooper faking a scene.
Which is it Washington Post? One of these articles is FALSE.
We are losing faith in journalism because the journalists are WRONG.
He also did an on-air segment with the full footage: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/09/1....
Not to say that CNN is not often wrong, but this is a meme that isn't true.
It doesn't matter which hurricane it is; it's whether or not it's bullshit for him to be doing that. That's it. The picture isn't fake, it's true that he FAKED that news. It's fake news. The hurricane's name doesnt matter.
The massive corporate centralization of all media channels is the primary source of distrust in journalism now. It seeks profit by whatever controversy, fake news, or distraction that will sell ads, regardless of traditional value.
Being a staunch environmentalist I obviously loathe most Republicans and hate centrist-dominated Democrats almost as much.
But it is clear to me that the partisanship of the country is due to a flood of media desperate for clicks, overwhelming people who have not or cannot adapt to the propaganda firehose.
Here's a fun little experiment: where can you tune in on TV for balanced opinions on issues that will actually account for more that a single viewpoints, coming out of the same mouth? You know, things like "caveats" or saying "granted" about some aspect of the opposing side?
Moderation doesn't fuel emotions, and emotions and radicalization are what gets you constant viewership.
Like all other industries in America, the conglomerates need to be split up.
Most people know good and well whats happening, its more the intellectuals who are making out well in this current environment who are doing (in good faith) the mental gymnastics to put the fault of the american media's decline on some abstract idea as if tree's didn't bear fruit.
What are your thoughts on the requirement that environmental policies are tied very closely to left economic policies? I'd like the option to vote for string environmental policies but they seem coupled with economic policies that I don't want to vote for.
It also seems like it might be hard to write about certain political stories without being accused of bias. Is it possible to write anything about the shutdown and border wall fiasco that doesn't paint he President and GOP in a bad light? Wont many people incorrectly perceive that as biased reporting?
I don't mean to imply that there isn't actual bias but it just seems like a strange thing to bring up at a time when certain political figures are acting in such extreme ways. Simply reporting on those actions and their consequences if often going to be very negative.
And of course all the botched bombshell scoops that are retracted 24 hrs later.
> It is not hard to find examples of how far we have strayed from reporting standards in the Trump era. A simple example is Time Magazine falsely reporting on President Donald J. Trump’s first day in office, stating that he’d removed a statue of Martin Luther King from the Oval Office. The news went viral. But the writer did not follow the most basic rule of journalism — pick up the phone and ask the White House if it was really gone, and why? The writer late wrote a correction on his Twitter account, stating “The MLK bust is still in the Oval Office. It was obscured by an agent and door.”
There are numerous examples. Most recently the entire media running with a Buzzfeed story to the tune of "Trump is finished" that Mueller himself disputed, or the stuff about the MAGA hat kids that allegedly surrounded and mocked a Native American peace activist (turns out he had muscled his way into their gathering and was physically intimidating them, but the press ran with a selectively edited video and didn't bother corroborating it). This is stuff that gets widespread coverage before any journalist bothers with due diligence.
I think it's a shame because a free press is one of the only ways to keep the government in check but they are shredding their own credibility, apparently because of personal biases (but who really knows), and the result of that is a government that can rightfully dismiss a lot of what gets reported. How do you recover after "crying wolf" too many times?
There is also a tendril that reaches into Academia. Free speech on most campuses is dead. The left has seen to that. Kids are being militantly trained to shut down speakers with whom they disagree, simply because they disagree. This empowers the rest of politics because these kids will never let fairness and unbiased reporting happen and the more prestigious the school this happens at, the more likely these students will affect the media in their lifetimes.
You're not wrong, but I see that as self-correcting. If the media continues to undermine their credibility, then independent journalism will continue to rise. We're already seeing YouTube creators with bigger followings than any of the traditional media channels. This is a double-edged sword because a lot of these channels don't have the same level of journalistic training that traditional media champions, but training is also a moot point when the traditional actors have abandoned their best practices to chase sensational headlines.
We are rapidly approaching a place where people can choose whatever facts they want to believe because everything is questionable. That is more dangerous to democracy than the so-called fascist president the media is railing against.
MSNBC’s programming in the US evenings is largely opinion/political talk, and isn’t presented as news but as editorial. One can object to opinions, but it is unfair to criticize journalists for op/ed content—just like with newspapers. Very often the journalists personally disagree with opinion/editorial page content, but everyone understands that content isn’t bound by journalism’s standards.
Looks like you're running with what their PR firm says.
What if the PR firm is saying the truth?
If you can't imagine such a story would possibly portray the current administration in a positive light, then you are not visualizing the story from the other point of view. Imagine allowing the White House to write the story, for instance. Or Fox News. Or the RNC. etc. I'm not saying this is the way the story should be written-- only that it is certainly possible to spin the story either way.
It's the journalist's job to present just the facts, without spin. It's not an easy task, but that's the way it should be.
I agree with #1 to some extent, but they came up with the dumbest possible example in pointing out that the lawsuit was funded by Peter Thiel. I'm pretty sure there's a concept on the "left" that says it's not your right to "out" a person's sexuality. Gawker violated that. Not that I (or even the law) care one way or another, and not that this was the focus of the trial (it wasn't), but I get why Thiel was livid with them. Thiel (secretly) funded a lawsuit against Gawker for posting a sex tape of Hulk Hogan. I'm not even sure what mental backflips you have to do to presume that this was newsworthy or okay. They tried to explain it to us, and the best they got was the meta-point that Thiel funded the lawsuit. Nothing worthy of note about why they had a right (via Freedom of the Press) to make a sex tape public against the wishes of one of the participants. Maybe if it was a sex tape surrounding the impeachment of a current president, I'd understand.
And somehow, I'm supposed to believe that this means there's a slippery slope now, where journalists can no longer freely state the news, for fear of being sued. As if this case weren't limited to the example of, maybe don't post a sex tape of some D-list celebrity as news.
All that said, and per the article here, I am unhappy with "journalists" as a group, specifically with their sanctimonious claims that they're protecting democracy. And the conclusion of this idea, when you take it to the end, is that people simply need to believe them on moral principle, non-believers are against democracy.
They're the victims here, the perpetrators are all the people who don't believe their stories any more--as if there was nothing they did to put themselves in this place.
But when ~6 companies own 90% of US media, that doesn't count as influence.
The best part is, they don't even have to lie. They can shape public opinion just by selecting which stories get covered, or get more prominence, without giving you a smoking gun false-story you can point at to prove their bias.
One of most hilarious things happening, as others point out is the “fact checks” which should be called “gotcha on technicalities”. No, it wasn’t 200,000 gallons, it was 189,480 gallons, liar! No, unemployment isn’t down to 4.2%, it’s actually expected to be down to 3.9%, you are so wrong!
It's a shame, really. But I'm very glad Lara Logan is speaking out. It will cost her, but by raising awareness of the issue maybe things can start to improve.
Reuters, for example, still does a great job at focusing only on the facts, without attempting to interpret or inject personal opinions. They hold their journalists to a very high degree of journalistic integrity, and it really shows.
Political Bias is in my mind largely a side effect: politically charged stories get lots of eyes and getting to them late means missing out on the inevitable flutter of angry and indignant retweets about the story. So loads of political stories get rushed, which means we see a lot of slanted ones (because more are written), and because they were rushed they are missing facts or have incorrect facts.
So yeah, bias. I'm not at all convinced this is a "both sides" issue. You can find errors in coverage and examples of bias, but the scale of the Murdoch/Mercer news empires really has no match from the center. The actual left wing is pretty well unrepresented.
The big problem I have is their obsession with ridiculous fact checking now. Not checking how many bodies are actually in the morgue, or whether or not a statue was removed. I mean the bullshit pedantry. Donald Trump says in the state of the union that the US has been at war in the middle east for almost 19 years. The NYT "fact checks" that as "actually it's only been almost 18 years". What does that accomplish? Is anyone more informed? Is there any story there? Is there any commentary on the state of the union, or just a summary? Does it matter at all? Is their fact check even accurate?
My problem with it is that this has replaced any sort of quality journalism with just a mass of worthless fact checks and the important stuff gets buried.
There are very few moderate left or moderate right news outlets, perhaps because moderate news isn't as prone to the virality of the far left/far right viewpoints.
"Fact checking" largely seems to be an attempt at appeasement to the error-rate of instant news.
> After defending the report for more than a week, Logan was forced to apologize and later take an indefinite leave of absence while CBS conducted an internal inquiry. Her colleagues, including veteran CBS correspondents Steve Kroft and Bob Simon, were apoplectic about the damage to 60 Minutes’ reputation. Morley Safer, the only founding member of the cast left on the 45-year-old program, went into the office of CBS News chairman and 60 Minutes executive producer Jeff Fager’s office last fall and demanded that he fire Logan.
But Fager (who declined to comment for this story) refused. Instead, he said that Logan will return sometime this year. His decision sent a ripple of discontent through CBS News, prompting questions about Fager’s judgment. And as the months have rolled on, Logan’s return appears less and less certain.
> And just as important was the enthusiasm of Moonves. “The only person who pushed Lara on Don [Hewitt] was Les,” says a CBS staffer familiar with those events. “He said that Moonves loved her.”
Logan was not shy about letting people know she had a direct line to the boss. “She was very fond of saying, ‘I could end your career with a phone call,’ ” says a former CBS producer.
> Because of the short deadline, and because it was a book by a sister company, 60 Minutes’ usual fact-checking procedures were not followed. No calls were made to the State Department or the FBI specifically to vet Davies’s claims.
> Logan’s own credulity, it seems, was the central pillar of the report. When asked why she found Davies’s account believable, Logan said that Davies was one of the “best guys you’ll ever meet” and a few minutes with him would convince anyone of his candor, according to a person familiar with her comments. And Davies’s tale of heroic special-forces operators being let down by politicians and bureaucrats thousands of miles from the front made sense in the world in which Logan had been living for the better part of a decade. And while that narrative cast might have raised eyebrows at the old CBS News, the politics in the post-Rather era were more complicated—McClellan leans more conservative than has been traditional at the show.
> Benghazi had been thoroughly politicized from the beginning. But rather than steering clear of the political battle, Logan headed right toward it, consulting with Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a strong critic of the administration’s handling of the incident whom she’d met once in Afghanistan. “I really didn’t know her until she started doing this piece on Benghazi,” he told me.
The two met two or three times to talk about the Libya attack, with Graham telling Logan that from his point of view, it was “a fair thing to say” that there was a “build-up of Al Qaeda types” in the area—a major talking point for the right in arguments that the Obama White House tried covering up alleged terrorist links.
Graham declared Logan’s report the “death blow” to the Obama administration’s narrative about Benghazi.
After the story was revealed to be false, she was given favorable treatment. At no point did I attack Ms. Logan's "personality", but yes I did strongly criticize her reporting.
This is an argument by example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_by_example.
Even if that’s true (sorry, I’m too lazy to fact check stuff about a person I didn’t knew existed 1 hour ago), what she reported in the past is still not too relevant to this particular story
With sufficient motivation and modern internet, people can find unpleasant things about the past of any person, including you and me.
Just because we can doesn’t mean we should. Also doesn’t mean we should stop discussing any subjects at all, and instead discuss what the article authors did 15 years ago.
The argument I'm making is simple: in the originally submitted article, Ms. Logan is making a claim:
> We dismiss conservative media outlets for their political bias, but we don’t hold liberal media outlets to the same standard. Many journalists who claim to be objective have publicly taken a political stand, saying the urgency of the time justifies a departure from journalistic standards. Yet they ask us to believe their reporting is still unbiased?
Please actually read what was linked and sourced, and see if this isn't just a little bit ironic. She was given special treatment to report a story that conservatives very much wanted to be true. When it turned out not to be, she was spared punishment that one of her very prominent liberal predecessors endured.
Secondly, this didn't happen 15 years ago. The Benghazi story is literally Lara Logan's last significant journalistic piece of note. The fact that you are "too lazy to fact check" is your own issue.
Right, and I provided none. Maybe if will search I’ll find counter-links. Maybe your links are 100% unbiased and accurate. Who knows?
> and see if this isn't just a little bit ironic
I don’t see irony but I see a confirming fact. The OP is a professional journalist herself, she never claims she is, or always was, free from the political bias she writes about. Quite the opposite, she confirms she has bias herself: “There is nothing more human than opinions and bias. To say we have none is dishonest.” She also admits the responsibility: “Frankly, I don’t blame them. Responsibility for this begins with us.”
> She was given special treatment to report a story that conservatives very much wanted to be true.
I live in Europe and therefore I don’t care too much about US politics. But based what I read on US media, the story seems true objectively. If you’ll read other comments to this HN post, you’ll see many anecdotal evidences.
These are just anecdotes, but based on multiple opinion polls, US population in general also thinks so. Couple links:
The first one has “by party” graph, which shows the trend has started around 2006, long before Trump, and while the results indeed correlate with party, the downward trend is same across all respondents.
What happened in 2006? Many things, but one among them, Facebook opened free registration to general public and its user base has exploded. Was 6m monthly users in 2005, became 58m in 2007. Might be related.
> I live in Europe and therefore I don’t care too much about US politics. But based what I read on US media, the story seems true objectively. If you’ll read other comments to this HN post, you’ll see many anecdotal evidences.
Again, you misunderstand. She reported a Benghazi story, that if true would have damned the Obama administration for a potentially criminal cover-up. If you paid any attention to the 2016 US election, one of Trump's primary attack lines against Clinton was her handling of the Benghazi attack and subsequent investigation. This is the "story" I'm referring to.
Take a look at some real academic studies on this matter: https://observer.com/2018/06/media-bias-can-readers-trust-me.... http://www.niemanlab.org/2018/10/heres-how-much-americans-tr....
Americans don't trust media, but ask them if they trust media outlets that are associated with their own partisan leanings, and you will see there is quite vibrant support.
Look at the polling for support for some of the largest names in American media. The support is quite robust. In fact, look at an updated version of the very Gallup poll you cite: https://news.gallup.com/poll/243665/media-trust-continues-re.... Notice any changes?
Sorry mate, I did not.
> at some real academic studies on this matter
Do you think Simmons Research, LLC are real academics and this is unlike Gallup, Inc.? Neither of them is from academia, both are commercial entities selling some B2B services.
I’ve just tried to but I wasn’t able to find academic sources on fake news, but here’s tangential research. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6380/1146 Hint: sci-hub.tw Given user base of social networks in modern world, this is not reassuring at all.
Also this http://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6380/1094.full but that’s just an overview article with little actual data.
> Notice any changes?
Some improvement indeed, but still, 55% people said they trust “not very much” or “none at all“. Don’t you think the number is a bit too high?