6 ms·

Well put, but I take issue with one part: > even back in the days of slow news the MSM got things really wrong on a regular basis This is false nostalgia. The

by gizmo 10y ago

Well put, but I take issue with one part: > even back in the days of slow news the MSM got things really wrong on a regular basis This is false nostalgia. The mainstream media may be terrible today (and I think it is) but it's still better than it has ever been. Not long ago people subscribed to a single newspaper that never needed to print retractions. There were no comment sections to set the record straight. Journalists wouldn't get held to account on twitter. Journalists used to be middle-class white men, now it's more diverse.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
makomk 10y ago
None of this is as clear-cut an improvement as you're suggesting. For example, take the rather dubious story about Trump's supposed secret communications channel with Russia - a dozen or so outlets refused to touch it, but the moment Salon decided to ignore the obvious issues with it and run it anyway it spread like wildfire on social media even to people who wouldn't normally read them. Social media effectively reduces the standards of the media as a whole to whatever the most clickbaity outlet is willing to initially run. Random members of the public and journalists who don't consider journalistic practices to apply to their social media also start dubious claims which spread wildly. Any corrections, retractions or debunkings never reach the same level of virality and go unseen.
- gizmo 10y ago
  We are more inundated with clickbaity trash journalism than ever before, but we also have more access to serious in-depth investigative journalism than ever before. So if you really want to figure out what's going on in the world, you now can. Corrections and retractions and debunkings only reach a fraction of their original audience, as you say, but this has always been the case. When was the last time the NYT ran a front page mea culpa, for example?
  - intended 10y ago
    Untrue - you could figure out what was going on in the world before. Until people were allowed to get away with creating a media empire that could just pander to their audience. Hence stuff like creationism or global warming denial first enjoying a campaign of FUD and then landing up on the news as "teach the debate" or other catchy jingles. And then the internet came along and destroyed paper after newspaper. Magazine after magazine. The remainder got bought over and committed 100% to survive in the shortened media attention world. These pitfalls were highlighted but lost in the cheerleading and revolution of citizen journalism. We lost many editorial boards and years of experience. That experience is now being relearned by people manning forums as moderators who don't have the benefit of mentors, or bloggers who are fighting for clicks. The world Was made less clear. A false narrative was used to elevate spurious arguments, emotional coddling to Drive advertising. When the internet hit, the structure gave way to the new necessities of survival.
    - gizmo 10y ago
      The PR industry has engaged in FUD and disinformation campaigns since the 50s, far before the advent of the internet. Business and other establishment interests have attempted to control the media for much longer. Journalists that didn't fit the mold just wouldn't get hired by any newspaper, and as a result the media has always had enormous blind spots. The loss of many editorial boards is regrettable, but in exchange we have gotten access to news from all over the world. Desperate fighting for clicks conflicts with journalistic values, but newspapers have always depended on advertisement income. The newspapers of old didn't dare offend their advertising patrons. Major news organizations in every country should be funded by the public, just like we fund the other checks and balances in society like the courts system and law enforcement.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]

by gizmo 10y ago

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

makomk 10y ago

None of this is as clear-cut an improvement as you're suggesting. For example, take the rather dubious story about Trump's supposed secret communications channel with Russia - a dozen or so outlets refused to touch it, but the moment Salon decided to ignore the obvious issues with it and run it anyway it spread like wildfire on social media even to people who wouldn't normally read them. Social media effectively reduces the standards of the media as a whole to whatever the most clickbaity outlet is willing to initially run. Random members of the public and journalists who don't consider journalistic practices to apply to their social media also start dubious claims which spread wildly. Any corrections, retractions or debunkings never reach the same level of virality and go unseen.

gizmo 10y ago
We are more inundated with clickbaity trash journalism than ever before, but we also have more access to serious in-depth investigative journalism than ever before. So if you really want to figure out what's going on in the world, you now can. Corrections and retractions and debunkings only reach a fraction of their original audience, as you say, but this has always been the case. When was the last time the NYT ran a front page mea culpa, for example?
- intended 10y ago
  Untrue - you could figure out what was going on in the world before. Until people were allowed to get away with creating a media empire that could just pander to their audience. Hence stuff like creationism or global warming denial first enjoying a campaign of FUD and then landing up on the news as "teach the debate" or other catchy jingles. And then the internet came along and destroyed paper after newspaper. Magazine after magazine. The remainder got bought over and committed 100% to survive in the shortened media attention world. These pitfalls were highlighted but lost in the cheerleading and revolution of citizen journalism. We lost many editorial boards and years of experience. That experience is now being relearned by people manning forums as moderators who don't have the benefit of mentors, or bloggers who are fighting for clicks. The world Was made less clear. A false narrative was used to elevate spurious arguments, emotional coddling to Drive advertising. When the internet hit, the structure gave way to the new necessities of survival.
  - gizmo 10y ago
    The PR industry has engaged in FUD and disinformation campaigns since the 50s, far before the advent of the internet. Business and other establishment interests have attempted to control the media for much longer. Journalists that didn't fit the mold just wouldn't get hired by any newspaper, and as a result the media has always had enormous blind spots. The loss of many editorial boards is regrettable, but in exchange we have gotten access to news from all over the world. Desperate fighting for clicks conflicts with journalistic values, but newspapers have always depended on advertisement income. The newspapers of old didn't dare offend their advertising patrons. Major news organizations in every country should be funded by the public, just like we fund the other checks and balances in society like the courts system and law enforcement.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]