6 ms·

Instead of 50 professional reporters confirmed writing about an event, we’ll have 5 That's pretty what we already have actually. The amount of original reporti

Instead of 50 professional reporters confirmed writing about an event, we’ll have 5 That's pretty what we already have actually. The amount of original reporting done on a major news story is far, far lower than the number of newspapers out there. This study from 2010 is useful: http://www.niemanlab.org/2010/02/the-googlechina-hacking-case-how-many-news-outlets-do-the-original-reporting-on-a-big-story/ http://www.niemanlab.org/2010/02/the-googlechina-hacking-cas... Out of the 121 distinct versions of last week’s story about tracing Google’s recent attackers to two schools in China, 13 (11 percent) included at least some original reporting. And just seven organizations (six percent) really got the full story independently. Only seven stories (six percent) were primarily based on original reporting. These were produced by The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, The Guardian, Tech News World, Bloomberg, Xinhua (China), and the Global Times (China). The story being studied had an international dimension which bumped up the number of outlets doing original reporting, as it was impactful to both the USA and China. Most stories that are only relevant to one country would have far fewer. This is one of the reasons why the newspaper industry is shrinking - the internet makes it clear for the first time how little original reporting there really is, and how much duplication of that little original reporting goes on. As for picking teams, gaslighting etc ... US media is experiencing a surge in profits right now, and as far as I can tell the reason is that they've more or less openly abandoned any pretence of political neutrality. They've become anti-Trump cheerleaders that are more in the business of helping their readers feel superior than in the business of real news. It's hard to blame them because this appears to be a more profitable business to be in than trying to be neutral and it's caused a surge in trust amongst democrats only. But of course it makes them vulnerable, even in a country with the first amendment. The USA doesn't have a president who hates the media for no reason.

bjourne 8y ago
Trump hated "the Media" long before he became president. The idea that "the Media" are anti-Trump cheerleaders need some corrobating evidence because otherwise it is bullshit.
- a_tractor 8y ago
  >Trump hated "the Media" long before he became president. Because it is obvious how they operate, and its only becoming more and more blatant. What that means is he is probably the least surprised by how they are behaving now. It was clear throughout his campaign that he was prepared for it. >corrobating (sic) evidence because otherwise I mean, really? Just turn on CNN, MSNBC, CBS, even Comedy Central... open up a copy of the NYT, or go check out HuffPo. It is obvious. Turn on any late-night comedy show, Trevor Noah, Colbert... Watch the Oscars. If you need more than that, then I am not sure what you mean by evidence...
- repolfx 8y ago
  That's because Trump is a conservative and conservatives have been losing trust in the media for a long time. https://news.gallup.com/poll/219824/democrats-confidence-mass-media-rises-sharply-2016.aspx?g_source=MEDIA&g_medium=topic&g_campaign=tiles https://news.gallup.com/poll/219824/democrats-confidence-mas... Do you really need evidence US media is anti-Trump? Can you name any large, well known newspapers that endorsed him? From what I recall they all went for Hillary, there was even one paper (the USA Today?) that had never endorsed a candidate before and they went for Hillary.
  - moorhosj 8y ago
    ==That's because Trump is a conservative== Based on what criteria? ==Do you really need evidence US media is anti-Trump? Can you name any large, well known newspapers that endorsed him?== Is the second part actually evidence of the first part or does it simply reinforce your prior belief? Can you name any candidate in history who was gifted more free screen-time or print-space by US media?
    - repolfx 8y ago
      Hmm. Are you arguing Trump is not a conservative? He ran under a Republican banner and has many classically conservative policies. As for the latter paragraph, are you implying news outlets simply sell screen-time and print-space? How can the media "gift" coverage? Their job is to report what's happening and things said and done by a presidential candidate is clearly news. And yes of course the abundance of newspapers openly stating they wanted his opponent to win is evidence of being anti-Trump: that's basic logic.
jsutton 8y ago
> they've more or less openly abandoned any pretence of political neutrality There's an enormous federal investigation into the political operatives of only one party. The counts of corruption are far higher for one party. When news comes out about indictments and criminal trials of those in only one party, it's not because the media outlet has abandoned neutrality.
- mehrdadn 8y ago
  It is true that when there is more news about one party then there needs to be more reporting on that party, but I'm not sure it really negates what the parent was saying. I do get the feeling there are outlets that have become either biased in their reporting. (Of course, I also see ones that haven't.) As an example, check out this segment [1] that I was watching from CNN just yesterday. The anchor is trying very, very hard to persuade the viewer of what they assess to be a fact, not that differently from how Fox News sometimes seems to. It does not seem like the kind of unbiased, professional, arm's-length fact-reporting that I seem to (hopefully correctly?) remember being the norm. On top of that, it doesn't help that their words are more casual/informal than what I remember to be usual news reporting. (e.g.: look at the word choice, intonation, and body language where she says: "Right..?? He said it was 'cause of Russia to /NBC news/, and another time he said it was 'cause the deputy attorney general told him to /do/ it... this is a president who changes his story"... it does not make the storytelling come across as unbiased.) This is not to say I don't understand why they're infuriated with Trump (I likely would be too), or that I somehow think they're spreading fake news, or anything like that. But the thing is, some outlets (like CNN, but it's not the only one) do at least appear to have become less neutral and more hostile to Trump (even if justifiably so). It's by no means anything close to all of them, but the effect unfortunately does seem apparent for some of them, and it does almost seem like they don't really notice or mind it. [1] https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/08/08/donald-trump-rudy-giuliani-sot-erin-vpx.cnn https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/08/08/donald-trump-...
doktrin 8y ago
> as far as I can tell the reason is that they've more or less openly abandoned any pretence of political neutrality. They've become anti-Trump cheerleaders that are more in the business of helping their readers feel superior than in the business of real news... The USA doesn't have a president who hates the media for no reason. Comically absurd. Trump injects himself into media headlines on a daily basis, more often than not because he's picking a fight on twitter with someone over something petty. He has nobody but himself to blame for his unfavorable coverage. Pretending he's a victim here is a cookie cutter case of amoral tribalism and rank partisanship.

bjourne 8y ago

Trump hated "the Media" long before he became president. The idea that "the Media" are anti-Trump cheerleaders need some corrobating evidence because otherwise it is bullshit.

a_tractor 8y ago
>Trump hated "the Media" long before he became president. Because it is obvious how they operate, and its only becoming more and more blatant. What that means is he is probably the least surprised by how they are behaving now. It was clear throughout his campaign that he was prepared for it. >corrobating (sic) evidence because otherwise I mean, really? Just turn on CNN, MSNBC, CBS, even Comedy Central... open up a copy of the NYT, or go check out HuffPo. It is obvious. Turn on any late-night comedy show, Trevor Noah, Colbert... Watch the Oscars. If you need more than that, then I am not sure what you mean by evidence...
repolfx 8y ago
That's because Trump is a conservative and conservatives have been losing trust in the media for a long time. https://news.gallup.com/poll/219824/democrats-confidence-mass-media-rises-sharply-2016.aspx?g_source=MEDIA&g_medium=topic&g_campaign=tiles https://news.gallup.com/poll/219824/democrats-confidence-mas... Do you really need evidence US media is anti-Trump? Can you name any large, well known newspapers that endorsed him? From what I recall they all went for Hillary, there was even one paper (the USA Today?) that had never endorsed a candidate before and they went for Hillary.
- moorhosj 8y ago
  ==That's because Trump is a conservative== Based on what criteria? ==Do you really need evidence US media is anti-Trump? Can you name any large, well known newspapers that endorsed him?== Is the second part actually evidence of the first part or does it simply reinforce your prior belief? Can you name any candidate in history who was gifted more free screen-time or print-space by US media?
  - repolfx 8y ago
    Hmm. Are you arguing Trump is not a conservative? He ran under a Republican banner and has many classically conservative policies. As for the latter paragraph, are you implying news outlets simply sell screen-time and print-space? How can the media "gift" coverage? Their job is to report what's happening and things said and done by a presidential candidate is clearly news. And yes of course the abundance of newspapers openly stating they wanted his opponent to win is evidence of being anti-Trump: that's basic logic.

jsutton 8y ago

> they've more or less openly abandoned any pretence of political neutrality There's an enormous federal investigation into the political operatives of only one party. The counts of corruption are far higher for one party. When news comes out about indictments and criminal trials of those in only one party, it's not because the media outlet has abandoned neutrality.

mehrdadn 8y ago
It is true that when there is more news about one party then there needs to be more reporting on that party, but I'm not sure it really negates what the parent was saying. I do get the feeling there are outlets that have become either biased in their reporting. (Of course, I also see ones that haven't.) As an example, check out this segment [1] that I was watching from CNN just yesterday. The anchor is trying very, very hard to persuade the viewer of what they assess to be a fact, not that differently from how Fox News sometimes seems to. It does not seem like the kind of unbiased, professional, arm's-length fact-reporting that I seem to (hopefully correctly?) remember being the norm. On top of that, it doesn't help that their words are more casual/informal than what I remember to be usual news reporting. (e.g.: look at the word choice, intonation, and body language where she says: "Right..?? He said it was 'cause of Russia to /NBC news/, and another time he said it was 'cause the deputy attorney general told him to /do/ it... this is a president who changes his story"... it does not make the storytelling come across as unbiased.) This is not to say I don't understand why they're infuriated with Trump (I likely would be too), or that I somehow think they're spreading fake news, or anything like that. But the thing is, some outlets (like CNN, but it's not the only one) do at least appear to have become less neutral and more hostile to Trump (even if justifiably so). It's by no means anything close to all of them, but the effect unfortunately does seem apparent for some of them, and it does almost seem like they don't really notice or mind it. [1] https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/08/08/donald-trump-rudy-giuliani-sot-erin-vpx.cnn https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/08/08/donald-trump-...

doktrin 8y ago

> as far as I can tell the reason is that they've more or less openly abandoned any pretence of political neutrality. They've become anti-Trump cheerleaders that are more in the business of helping their readers feel superior than in the business of real news... The USA doesn't have a president who hates the media for no reason. Comically absurd. Trump injects himself into media headlines on a daily basis, more often than not because he's picking a fight on twitter with someone over something petty. He has nobody but himself to blame for his unfavorable coverage. Pretending he's a victim here is a cookie cutter case of amoral tribalism and rank partisanship.