4 ms·

> When the media does everything it can to slowly erode trust Your link provides nothing to support that comment. Your link does clearly show people's trust i

> When the media does everything it can to slowly erode trust Your link provides nothing to support that comment. Your link does clearly show people's trust in the media is extremely low, but it makes no claims as to why the trust has eroded. There have certainly been times when various media parties have not lived up to their ethical duties, but to say blanket that the media has "done everything it can to slowly erode trust" seems exaggerated. Do you think political party rhetoric can erode trust in the media? One presidential candidate regularly claimed reports about him from one specific media outlet were lies, although they have turned out to be usually true [1]. One presidential candidate made claims during the debates that he did not say things which, simply, he did. The claims he denied making were well-documented on the internet, frequently from his own social media account. Is it unreasonable to think this rhetoric had some effect on the big drop in mass media trust from supporters of that political party, documented in the gallup.com link you posted? And would you have recommendations for ways "the media" to gain back that trust? Note that I take issue with the phrase "the media", since it's another unhelpful blanket statement. 1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/16/donald-trumps-gripes-about-the-new-york-times-are-usually-about-stories-that-are-shown-to-be-accurate/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/16/do...

adnzzzzZ 10y ago
>One presidential candidate The other presidential candidate has been shown to be colluding multiple times with various media outlets, while they don't fairly report on that collusion. I think things like that erode people's trust in media.
- karmelapple 10y ago
  > The other presidential candidate has been shown to be colluding multiple times with various media outlets That appears to be true, too - I agree! So we've identified two causes of eroding media trust. I'd be curious if any research has been done on what erodes trust more: authority criticizing it, muckraking journalism (no pejorative implied there - muckraking is a good thing to expose corruption!), or other things yet. The huge amount of fake news in people's social media has certainly had some kind of impact on people's trust of news sources in general, too. I am most interested in how to combat that; simply doing good work won't necessarily bring a media outlet the attention it needs to stay in business these days. Incentives in journalism are currently pretty out of whack.
- croon 10y ago
  > The other presidential candidate has been shown to be colluding multiple times with various media outlets Source? Because that line is a prime example of the problem. The only thing the emails showed were checking stories for accuracies with sources, and checking what off-the-record information could be put on-the-record. Which is the ethical discourse.
  - karmelapple 10y ago
    I believe the prime example is CNN giving questions to the Clinton campaign ahead of a debate, which is certain unethical. http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/31/media/donna-brazile-cnn-resignation/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/31/media/donna-brazile-cnn-resi... https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2016/10/31/with-question-leaking-cnn-has-a-scandal-on-its-hands/?utm_term=.194755078c28 https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2016/10/... http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/10/31/donna-brazile-clinton-cnn-debate-wikileaks/93058560/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/... Multiple outlets, though - I don't know about that. As pointed out, checking for accuracy and talking to a campaign is certainly not off-limit.
    - croon 10y ago
      Yes, while that looks really bad, it's: 1) Uncertain at what level it was when the person involved got the boot. 2) Only one actor, which I'd rank fairly low compared to Guardian, Atlantic, Foreign Policy, NYT, WP, etc. I read your links, and I agree with them, but it's still only what it is, uncertain what it means... there's definitely no proof of a conspiracy, regardless if there is one or not. The seed of one of these maybe-stories, flaring into a craze of "every news channel is evil, burn them all" is unhelpful at best, damaging to democracy at worst.
  - ConfuciusSay02 10y ago
    Wrong. They showed much much more than just checking for accuracy. Several "journalists" asked specifically for advice on how they should characterize their articles. They were part of conversations with campaign staffers on what angles to choose to pursue for their articles. Worst of all, they directly passed debate and other interview questions in advance to a certain candidate. The media, and frankly those who buy into the "it's all because of fake news" nonsense, ignores this evidence at their own peril.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
sergiotapia 10y ago
Here you go, here's one reason why nobody trusts the mainstream media anymore, -especially- CNN: http://i.imgur.com/1Y0sN6b.png http://i.imgur.com/1Y0sN6b.png And it's real. https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/785299709342654465 https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/785299709342654465 Mirror: http://archive.is/JBUzM http://archive.is/JBUzM
- karmelapple 10y ago
  I saw this tweet go around, and although it seems silly to those of us with technological experience, isn't clarifying what all this means a good thing? Perhaps rather than making this a fact check-like piece of media, it would be helpful to simply make a clarification. However, for someone who isn't familiar with tech too much, I think it's reasonable for them to hear a server and acid discussed, and assume acid was somehow poured or ventilated into the machine. It sounds really weird to those of us who deal with technology every day and had familiarity with this story, but I think it's a clarification worth making.
- slowmotiony 10y ago
  It's really bizarre that they would post this...
  - karmelapple 10y ago
    Precisely why is it bizarre? The word "acid" has a clear physical connotation, and the post pointed out that there was software that deleted emails, not some physical process. I don't think it was helpful to be in a fact-check, "this is false" style, but clarifying precisely what happened... that's what news is all about. Please clarify why you think it's bizarre, so I can have a better understanding.
- ZeroGravitas 10y ago
  Could you explain in detail why you think fact checking this particular false claim from Trump is a bad thing that erodes trust in the "mainstream" media? > Trump, Sept. 5: You see what’s going on with her emails. It’s a disgrace. It’s a disgusting situation where she pretends like she doesn’t know. I mean, she had her emails — 33,000 emails — acid washed. The most sophisticated person never heard about acid washing. Acid washing is a very expensive process and that’s to really get rid of them. > Trump, Sept. 6, North Carolina: But why do you acid wash, or bleach, the emails? Nobody even heard of it before. Very expensive. Just ask yourself. > Trump, Sept. 6, Virginia: How about the acid wash of the e-mails that didn’t mean anything? How about the 33,000 missing e-mails that were acid washed — acid washed. And Rudy was telling me, nobody does it because it’s such an expensive process. OK, 33,000. http://www.factcheck.org/2016/09/trump-pence-acid-wash-facts/ http://www.factcheck.org/2016/09/trump-pence-acid-wash-facts... edit: I'm now reading all the replies to that tweet and further boggling at the people I share my world with. One claims everyone knew what he meant, while another seems to think the correction is that she used "bleach" (which has a high pH) rather than "acid". Another seems to believe NBC are autistic jews to even mention this.
tomp 10y ago
Western media has slowly been turning into propaganda outlets (or has it always been like that, and I just started noticing more). Even ignoring the WMD fiasco, in recent years they've been just regurgitating facts from government mouthpieces (e.g. that NK hacked Sony and Russia hacked DNC - without any concrete proof), and they're incredibly one-sided - always attacking and vilifying Russia (e.g. the recent reporting about Russian/Syrian offensive of Aleppo vs. US/Iraq offensive of Mosul is one such example), attacking Trump and largely ignoring Hillary's sins. I also personally have an issue with the media engaging in identity politics and calling everybody racist, sexist, etc, and pretty much ignoring the much more significant economic inequalities (e.g. Panama papers got some coverage, but it was quickly replaced by more "important" topics like Trump's "locker room talk"). To regain the trust, I think the main recommendation would be, explicitly include a plurality of views, and push back against this trend of "political correctness above all else" - critical thinking is still valuable, even if it sometimes results in some inconvenient truths. Edit: [0] is an example of what good media should be. Actually non-hysterical and fact-based. Even if you disagree with his conclusions, it's laudable that he included a link to an opinion that contradicts his. [0] http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/11/16/you-are-still-crying-wolf/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/11/16/you-are-still-crying-wo...
hueving 10y ago
>And would you have recommendations for ways "the media" to gain back that trust? Not feeding questions to a debate to 'the chosen candidate' before the debate.
- croon 10y ago
  Well, regardless of substantiated or not, Fox News was never respectable.

adnzzzzZ 10y ago

>One presidential candidate The other presidential candidate has been shown to be colluding multiple times with various media outlets, while they don't fairly report on that collusion. I think things like that erode people's trust in media.

karmelapple 10y ago
> The other presidential candidate has been shown to be colluding multiple times with various media outlets That appears to be true, too - I agree! So we've identified two causes of eroding media trust. I'd be curious if any research has been done on what erodes trust more: authority criticizing it, muckraking journalism (no pejorative implied there - muckraking is a good thing to expose corruption!), or other things yet. The huge amount of fake news in people's social media has certainly had some kind of impact on people's trust of news sources in general, too. I am most interested in how to combat that; simply doing good work won't necessarily bring a media outlet the attention it needs to stay in business these days. Incentives in journalism are currently pretty out of whack.
croon 10y ago
> The other presidential candidate has been shown to be colluding multiple times with various media outlets Source? Because that line is a prime example of the problem. The only thing the emails showed were checking stories for accuracies with sources, and checking what off-the-record information could be put on-the-record. Which is the ethical discourse.
- karmelapple 10y ago
  I believe the prime example is CNN giving questions to the Clinton campaign ahead of a debate, which is certain unethical. http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/31/media/donna-brazile-cnn-resignation/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/31/media/donna-brazile-cnn-resi... https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2016/10/31/with-question-leaking-cnn-has-a-scandal-on-its-hands/?utm_term=.194755078c28 https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2016/10/... http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/10/31/donna-brazile-clinton-cnn-debate-wikileaks/93058560/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/... Multiple outlets, though - I don't know about that. As pointed out, checking for accuracy and talking to a campaign is certainly not off-limit.
  - croon 10y ago
    Yes, while that looks really bad, it's: 1) Uncertain at what level it was when the person involved got the boot. 2) Only one actor, which I'd rank fairly low compared to Guardian, Atlantic, Foreign Policy, NYT, WP, etc. I read your links, and I agree with them, but it's still only what it is, uncertain what it means... there's definitely no proof of a conspiracy, regardless if there is one or not. The seed of one of these maybe-stories, flaring into a craze of "every news channel is evil, burn them all" is unhelpful at best, damaging to democracy at worst.
- ConfuciusSay02 10y ago
  Wrong. They showed much much more than just checking for accuracy. Several "journalists" asked specifically for advice on how they should characterize their articles. They were part of conversations with campaign staffers on what angles to choose to pursue for their articles. Worst of all, they directly passed debate and other interview questions in advance to a certain candidate. The media, and frankly those who buy into the "it's all because of fake news" nonsense, ignores this evidence at their own peril.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

sergiotapia 10y ago

Here you go, here's one reason why nobody trusts the mainstream media anymore, -especially- CNN: http://i.imgur.com/1Y0sN6b.png http://i.imgur.com/1Y0sN6b.png And it's real. https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/785299709342654465 https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/785299709342654465 Mirror: http://archive.is/JBUzM http://archive.is/JBUzM

karmelapple 10y ago
I saw this tweet go around, and although it seems silly to those of us with technological experience, isn't clarifying what all this means a good thing? Perhaps rather than making this a fact check-like piece of media, it would be helpful to simply make a clarification. However, for someone who isn't familiar with tech too much, I think it's reasonable for them to hear a server and acid discussed, and assume acid was somehow poured or ventilated into the machine. It sounds really weird to those of us who deal with technology every day and had familiarity with this story, but I think it's a clarification worth making.
slowmotiony 10y ago
It's really bizarre that they would post this...
- karmelapple 10y ago
  Precisely why is it bizarre? The word "acid" has a clear physical connotation, and the post pointed out that there was software that deleted emails, not some physical process. I don't think it was helpful to be in a fact-check, "this is false" style, but clarifying precisely what happened... that's what news is all about. Please clarify why you think it's bizarre, so I can have a better understanding.
ZeroGravitas 10y ago
Could you explain in detail why you think fact checking this particular false claim from Trump is a bad thing that erodes trust in the "mainstream" media? > Trump, Sept. 5: You see what’s going on with her emails. It’s a disgrace. It’s a disgusting situation where she pretends like she doesn’t know. I mean, she had her emails — 33,000 emails — acid washed. The most sophisticated person never heard about acid washing. Acid washing is a very expensive process and that’s to really get rid of them. > Trump, Sept. 6, North Carolina: But why do you acid wash, or bleach, the emails? Nobody even heard of it before. Very expensive. Just ask yourself. > Trump, Sept. 6, Virginia: How about the acid wash of the e-mails that didn’t mean anything? How about the 33,000 missing e-mails that were acid washed — acid washed. And Rudy was telling me, nobody does it because it’s such an expensive process. OK, 33,000. http://www.factcheck.org/2016/09/trump-pence-acid-wash-facts/ http://www.factcheck.org/2016/09/trump-pence-acid-wash-facts... edit: I'm now reading all the replies to that tweet and further boggling at the people I share my world with. One claims everyone knew what he meant, while another seems to think the correction is that she used "bleach" (which has a high pH) rather than "acid". Another seems to believe NBC are autistic jews to even mention this.

tomp 10y ago

Western media has slowly been turning into propaganda outlets (or has it always been like that, and I just started noticing more). Even ignoring the WMD fiasco, in recent years they've been just regurgitating facts from government mouthpieces (e.g. that NK hacked Sony and Russia hacked DNC - without any concrete proof), and they're incredibly one-sided - always attacking and vilifying Russia (e.g. the recent reporting about Russian/Syrian offensive of Aleppo vs. US/Iraq offensive of Mosul is one such example), attacking Trump and largely ignoring Hillary's sins. I also personally have an issue with the media engaging in identity politics and calling everybody racist, sexist, etc, and pretty much ignoring the much more significant economic inequalities (e.g. Panama papers got some coverage, but it was quickly replaced by more "important" topics like Trump's "locker room talk"). To regain the trust, I think the main recommendation would be, explicitly include a plurality of views, and push back against this trend of "political correctness above all else" - critical thinking is still valuable, even if it sometimes results in some inconvenient truths. Edit: [0] is an example of what good media should be. Actually non-hysterical and fact-based. Even if you disagree with his conclusions, it's laudable that he included a link to an opinion that contradicts his. [0] http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/11/16/you-are-still-crying-wolf/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/11/16/you-are-still-crying-wo...

hueving 10y ago

>And would you have recommendations for ways "the media" to gain back that trust? Not feeding questions to a debate to 'the chosen candidate' before the debate.

croon 10y ago
Well, regardless of substantiated or not, Fox News was never respectable.