5 ms·

The MSM in the US is almost entirely corrupt. It's proven time and time again that it will push agendas, hide facts, kill stories, make things up... If you dou

The MSM in the US is almost entirely corrupt. It's proven time and time again that it will push agendas, hide facts, kill stories, make things up... If you doubt what I say I suggest you spend some time looking into MSM coverage of Epstein and Weinstein. Just recently it was leaked that ABC news killed an Epstein story for political reasons then tracked the whistleblower down at their new job at CBS and got CBS to fire them. I suggest reading Ronan Farrow's Catch and Kill to get an accurate take on the current state of journalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catch_and_Kill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catch_and_Kill

davidw 7y ago
No one doubts there are serious problems here and there, but "almost entirely corrupt" is hyperbole. Everything is imperfect and can be improved, but that doesn't mean you need to throw the whole thing out and start from scratch, in most cases. Can you point to something that actually functions better?
- malvosenior 7y ago
  Well when the press works in coordination to hide a pedophile ring involving two presidents, a prince, Bill Gates and tons of media and business leaders, then yes I don't think "almost entirely corrupt" is an inaccurate statement. > Can you point to something that actually functions better? I think Wikileaks is a good model. Get raw information out there. We don't need filters and narrative in the way of figuring out what's going on. Social media helps too, especially when the long form of highly edited videos becomes available. The whole thing with the Covington teens is a great example.
  - davidw 7y ago
    Raw info dumps are a horrible alternative. City council meetings where I live regularly run on for 2/3/4 hours. Trying to process the video of that myself, rather than have a reporter there who can synthesize would be a colossal waste of my time. And that's just one source of information. County, state, national, and international news are also important to some degree. And that's without even going into Wikileaks' connection with Russian intelligence agencies, or whatever the heck went on.
    - malvosenior 7y ago
      I don't think you should do it yourself. The community will do it and the original source material will be there to reference.
      - davidw 7y ago
        "The community"... is not going to sit through mostly boring evening meetings for free every few weeks and sum things up for you, all for free.
  - organsnyder 7y ago
    > I think Wikileaks is a good model. Get raw information out there. We don't need filters and narrative in the way of figuring out what's going on. I don't see how anyone can conflate Wikileaks with "raw information", given their history of timing info dumps to inflict maximum damage in political campaigns.
    - mc32 7y ago
      What’s the difference between that and “swift-boats” and many other critical “explosive” news that have sunk many candidates? The news orgs which have produced those items don’t release the expose of whatever as soon as confirmed —or not in Dan Rather’s case. They release them when they feel they’ll have impact.
chime 7y ago
Yes to all of that but that is still 100x better than a completely fabricated story about Politician X dying when they are in fact living published on houston-star-ledger-journal.com. That's fake news. The examples you stated are not fake, but examples of yellow journalism and other fourth-estate power grabs.
- malvosenior 7y ago
  I'm not sure it is 100X better. The tabloids have always published clear fictions. I think the danger is that people take ABC and the New York Times way more seriously than houston-star-ledger-journal.com. They're both problems but I think the mainstream media version is much more dangerous and powerful.
- taborj 7y ago
  Completely fabricated, eh? The big outlets don't do that, eh? https://twitter.com/JessicaGKwong/status/1200208471599321089 https://twitter.com/JessicaGKwong/status/1200208471599321089
  - davidw 7y ago
    She got fired. What happens to "reporters" at propaganda outlets that post "news" that they know is fake?
    - mc32 7y ago
      And what happened to Dan Rather after “rathergate”? They could “afford” to fire a little known reporter. And then there is the phenomenon of entertainment disguised as news which many people take for news which infuse enormous amounts of opinion and bias in their reporting. The only ones which make a decent attempt at impartiality is PBS with their national news. Their local news tends to have intrusions where news is colored with opinion and bias, unfortunately.
      - davidw 7y ago
        No one on this thread is saying news is perfect. But what some people seem to be saying is that propaganda outlets are just the same as people who at least try and do real news, which is pretty horrible. That's how the propaganda wins.

davidw 7y ago

No one doubts there are serious problems here and there, but "almost entirely corrupt" is hyperbole. Everything is imperfect and can be improved, but that doesn't mean you need to throw the whole thing out and start from scratch, in most cases. Can you point to something that actually functions better?

malvosenior 7y ago
Well when the press works in coordination to hide a pedophile ring involving two presidents, a prince, Bill Gates and tons of media and business leaders, then yes I don't think "almost entirely corrupt" is an inaccurate statement. > Can you point to something that actually functions better? I think Wikileaks is a good model. Get raw information out there. We don't need filters and narrative in the way of figuring out what's going on. Social media helps too, especially when the long form of highly edited videos becomes available. The whole thing with the Covington teens is a great example.
- davidw 7y ago
  Raw info dumps are a horrible alternative. City council meetings where I live regularly run on for 2/3/4 hours. Trying to process the video of that myself, rather than have a reporter there who can synthesize would be a colossal waste of my time. And that's just one source of information. County, state, national, and international news are also important to some degree. And that's without even going into Wikileaks' connection with Russian intelligence agencies, or whatever the heck went on.
  - malvosenior 7y ago
    I don't think you should do it yourself. The community will do it and the original source material will be there to reference.
    - davidw 7y ago
      "The community"... is not going to sit through mostly boring evening meetings for free every few weeks and sum things up for you, all for free.
- organsnyder 7y ago
  > I think Wikileaks is a good model. Get raw information out there. We don't need filters and narrative in the way of figuring out what's going on. I don't see how anyone can conflate Wikileaks with "raw information", given their history of timing info dumps to inflict maximum damage in political campaigns.
  - mc32 7y ago
    What’s the difference between that and “swift-boats” and many other critical “explosive” news that have sunk many candidates? The news orgs which have produced those items don’t release the expose of whatever as soon as confirmed —or not in Dan Rather’s case. They release them when they feel they’ll have impact.

chime 7y ago

Yes to all of that but that is still 100x better than a completely fabricated story about Politician X dying when they are in fact living published on houston-star-ledger-journal.com. That's fake news. The examples you stated are not fake, but examples of yellow journalism and other fourth-estate power grabs.

malvosenior 7y ago
I'm not sure it is 100X better. The tabloids have always published clear fictions. I think the danger is that people take ABC and the New York Times way more seriously than houston-star-ledger-journal.com. They're both problems but I think the mainstream media version is much more dangerous and powerful.
taborj 7y ago
Completely fabricated, eh? The big outlets don't do that, eh? https://twitter.com/JessicaGKwong/status/1200208471599321089 https://twitter.com/JessicaGKwong/status/1200208471599321089
- davidw 7y ago
  She got fired. What happens to "reporters" at propaganda outlets that post "news" that they know is fake?
  - mc32 7y ago
    And what happened to Dan Rather after “rathergate”? They could “afford” to fire a little known reporter. And then there is the phenomenon of entertainment disguised as news which many people take for news which infuse enormous amounts of opinion and bias in their reporting. The only ones which make a decent attempt at impartiality is PBS with their national news. Their local news tends to have intrusions where news is colored with opinion and bias, unfortunately.
    - davidw 7y ago
      No one on this thread is saying news is perfect. But what some people seem to be saying is that propaganda outlets are just the same as people who at least try and do real news, which is pretty horrible. That's how the propaganda wins.