5 ms·

It's abundantly clear at this point that the media leverage their power and reach to push their agenda and manufacture consent. This is just one new milestone.

It's abundantly clear at this point that the media leverage their power and reach to push their agenda and manufacture consent. This is just one new milestone. Not just Fox News either. It was pretty clear that during the democratic primary that MSNBC and NYT were putting their thumb on the scale to select news and design coverage to favour their candidate of choice. Of course media with an agenda is nothing new, early newspapers were straight up published by political parties, but due to media consolidation they now have an incredible ability to bend reality. Remarkable that the media world we live in in 2020 was predicted by of all things, a video game released in 2001, Metal Gear Solid 2. The assertion made by that game that in the future thanks to the internet and deluge of information, it will be impossible to know what is true or not.

BurningFrog 6y ago
You're right about mainstream media, but remember that in 2020 we have many alternative media sources. A lot of them are hideously slanted garbage, but I they make for it in volume :) Hopefully in a few years, some new reliable news institutions will have emerged.
- black_puppydog 6y ago
  Hate to be "that guy" here, but do you see any market mechanisms that will/should lead to more solid, factually reliable outlets? All the ones I see seem to point in the "get much content out fast" direction.
  - BurningFrog 6y ago
    Yeah, I'm more expressing a hope than making a prediction :) It seems like such an essential thing that something is bound to appear. If not though pure market forces, maybe through billionaire philanthropy or something. At minimum, I expect much to change in this field. If in good or bad ways, we'll see.
  - Gibbon1 6y ago
    I keep saying market incentives are limited and have issues with being gamed. Good faith is important. But in the US we've decided that acting in good faith is somehow immoral.
  - _bxg1 6y ago
    It's possible we could see a reversal like we did in food, once people catch on and realize how empty it all is. The health food/organic craze came out of a disenchantment with the old guard. Realness and integrity became the thing to market yourself as. Of course, many companies just changed their marketing without changing their actual product. But the consumer taste changed, at least.
  - simonblack 6y ago
    The best market mechanism is to ignore faulty sites. On the web, that means 'no clicks', for the printed news that means 'no sales'. There is a good reason that the number of newspapers printed around the world is a mere shadow of what it once was.
    - DougN7 6y ago
      I don’t believe that has anything to do with newspapers not having integrity and everything to do with much more competition in many more, and convenient media types.
notatoad 6y ago
Media outlets have always "put their thumb on the scale", but there's a big difference bias and lies. when they portray stories in a way that highlights one side over another, or choose to cover certain events and not others in a way that pushes a certain narrative, they are still publishing true information. As long as they're publishing biased but true information, it's possible to get a more accurate picture by consuming news from multiple sources to try to balance out the biases. If fox news were honest, you could read Fox to try to balance out the bias you know exists on MSNBC. Publishing straight-up lies is another thing entirely. When news sources publish lies, reading multiple news sources doesn't give you a more accurate picture, it gives you a less accurate one.
- black_puppydog 6y ago
  ... and in conclusion, the only way to stay informed is to not read repeat offenders at all.
  - simonblack 6y ago
    Which is why I have completely blocked the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal from my system. Several other news sources are hanging on by a thread. Why do many 'news' sources think we have no memory of what they have written? It doesn't take very long to discover which news sites are unreliable and which ones are mostly correct.
- koheripbal 6y ago
  I agree, but one word of caution... > If fox news were honest, you could read Fox to try to balance out the bias you know exists on MSNBC... You cannot properly derive the truth with two opposite biases. We need reputable journalism.
clairity 6y ago
agreed, the 2016 elections were a real jumping-the-shark moment for 'lefty' news. it was bubbling up before, but the new normal of agenda-driven editing and editorializing of those media outlets make them no longer reliable for news. it's frustrating because it leaves no really reliable national news options.
ykevinator 6y ago
That's a false equivalency. Fox News is way way worse. They argue with science, refuse to acknowledge that racism exists, etc

BurningFrog 6y ago

You're right about mainstream media, but remember that in 2020 we have many alternative media sources. A lot of them are hideously slanted garbage, but I they make for it in volume :) Hopefully in a few years, some new reliable news institutions will have emerged.

black_puppydog 6y ago
Hate to be "that guy" here, but do you see any market mechanisms that will/should lead to more solid, factually reliable outlets? All the ones I see seem to point in the "get much content out fast" direction.
- BurningFrog 6y ago
  Yeah, I'm more expressing a hope than making a prediction :) It seems like such an essential thing that something is bound to appear. If not though pure market forces, maybe through billionaire philanthropy or something. At minimum, I expect much to change in this field. If in good or bad ways, we'll see.
- Gibbon1 6y ago
  I keep saying market incentives are limited and have issues with being gamed. Good faith is important. But in the US we've decided that acting in good faith is somehow immoral.
- _bxg1 6y ago
  It's possible we could see a reversal like we did in food, once people catch on and realize how empty it all is. The health food/organic craze came out of a disenchantment with the old guard. Realness and integrity became the thing to market yourself as. Of course, many companies just changed their marketing without changing their actual product. But the consumer taste changed, at least.
- simonblack 6y ago
  The best market mechanism is to ignore faulty sites. On the web, that means 'no clicks', for the printed news that means 'no sales'. There is a good reason that the number of newspapers printed around the world is a mere shadow of what it once was.
  - DougN7 6y ago
    I don’t believe that has anything to do with newspapers not having integrity and everything to do with much more competition in many more, and convenient media types.

notatoad 6y ago

Media outlets have always "put their thumb on the scale", but there's a big difference bias and lies. when they portray stories in a way that highlights one side over another, or choose to cover certain events and not others in a way that pushes a certain narrative, they are still publishing true information. As long as they're publishing biased but true information, it's possible to get a more accurate picture by consuming news from multiple sources to try to balance out the biases. If fox news were honest, you could read Fox to try to balance out the bias you know exists on MSNBC. Publishing straight-up lies is another thing entirely. When news sources publish lies, reading multiple news sources doesn't give you a more accurate picture, it gives you a less accurate one.

black_puppydog 6y ago
... and in conclusion, the only way to stay informed is to not read repeat offenders at all.
- simonblack 6y ago
  Which is why I have completely blocked the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal from my system. Several other news sources are hanging on by a thread. Why do many 'news' sources think we have no memory of what they have written? It doesn't take very long to discover which news sites are unreliable and which ones are mostly correct.
koheripbal 6y ago
I agree, but one word of caution... > If fox news were honest, you could read Fox to try to balance out the bias you know exists on MSNBC... You cannot properly derive the truth with two opposite biases. We need reputable journalism.

clairity 6y ago

agreed, the 2016 elections were a real jumping-the-shark moment for 'lefty' news. it was bubbling up before, but the new normal of agenda-driven editing and editorializing of those media outlets make them no longer reliable for news. it's frustrating because it leaves no really reliable national news options.

ykevinator 6y ago

That's a false equivalency. Fox News is way way worse. They argue with science, refuse to acknowledge that racism exists, etc