4 ms·

Not for me. I've noticed a HUGE decline in media accuracy. It has nothing to do with politics or an external enemy. All they care about these days is outrage.

by ars 6y ago

Not for me. I've noticed a HUGE decline in media accuracy. It has nothing to do with politics or an external enemy. All they care about these days is outrage. Why? Because it drives clicks. Story: Group XYZ refusing vaccination, huge problems!! (And it's accurate if all you care about is the bare number.) 2 weeks later: Group XYZ taking vaccination like any other group. Absolute silence from the media (I actually searched to look for any updated stories.) Why did Group XYZ not take vaccination? No one offered it to them - not that you'd know that from the media. The media implies that Group XYZ is horrible and must be shunned. It's like that with story after story after story - they'll tell you every bit of horrible terrible news, and hide under "it's factual", without balancing it with the 99% situation. Another crime: They REALLY need to stop reporting minority opinions as if they represent a group! They'll find the one guy with the exciting option, and report on that. And never even mention the 99 other guys with the ordinary opinion. Are they informing you? Or outraging you? They need to decide.

ceejayoz 6y ago
> 2 weeks later: Group XYZ taking vaccination like any other group. Absolute silence from the media How’d you hear about it?
- jussij 6y ago
  There are levels of reporting which means it is never as black and white as suggested by the original OP. However when you take these levels into account the OP does make a point about '2 weeks later' you never hear about it. A better term would be 'selective reporting'. A good example of 'selective reporting' is when a story splashes over the from page of a newspaper, which then allows other news outlets to report on that front page, which means the story spreads far and wide. Some short time later, fearing a legal challenge or public backlash, the paper is forced to print a retraction (because their original reporting was wrong). That retraction happens in one inch of print, contained in one short sentence, hidden away on page 12. At that point the retraction is worthless and the original lie lives on. Edit: Thinking about this a bit more, I suspect the what original OP was trying to say and what I am trying to say can be easily summarized by the phrase 'fair and balanced reporting'. I think that type of reporting seems to be a thing of the past.
- ars 6y ago
  I heard about it because I went to the government website that tracked this data and checked for myself.
  - ceejayoz 6y ago
    I ask, because there's currently a kerfluffle in my town over a killing where the local talk radio folks are claiming that local news is "covering it up" despite it being front page news on all of those news outlets. Your example sounds a lot like the "Black people hesitant to take the vaccine" thing from a few months ago, which got a bunch of recent coverage about how they're not actually hesitant, and that Republicans are higher on the hesitant list. (https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/poll-50-percent-of-unvaccinated-trump-voters-say-they-will-never-get-inoculated-for-covid-how-biden-hopes-to-change-their-minds-090001162.html https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/poll-50-percent-of-unvaccina...) This is a pretty common thing; "they aren't covering X, which I heard about from this article in the media..."
    - ars 6y ago
      It's not about "aren't covering", I was genuinely curious about the results two weeks later and went searching for an update and there was nothing. I finally found the government site with the data I wanted. No, this was just media wanting to stir up trouble, and not interested in doing a "boring" follow up.
AnimalMuppet 6y ago
> Are they informing you? Or outraging you? They need to decide. They decided. They're outraging you. (Somewhat more precisely, outrage vs. inform is a spectrum, not a binary, and they are moving more toward outrage and less toward inform. They still inform, but less reliably than they used to. And as a result, media trust hits a new low, because people can tell that media is informing less than it used to.)

by ars 6y ago

ceejayoz 6y ago

> 2 weeks later: Group XYZ taking vaccination like any other group. Absolute silence from the media How’d you hear about it?

jussij 6y ago
There are levels of reporting which means it is never as black and white as suggested by the original OP. However when you take these levels into account the OP does make a point about '2 weeks later' you never hear about it. A better term would be 'selective reporting'. A good example of 'selective reporting' is when a story splashes over the from page of a newspaper, which then allows other news outlets to report on that front page, which means the story spreads far and wide. Some short time later, fearing a legal challenge or public backlash, the paper is forced to print a retraction (because their original reporting was wrong). That retraction happens in one inch of print, contained in one short sentence, hidden away on page 12. At that point the retraction is worthless and the original lie lives on. Edit: Thinking about this a bit more, I suspect the what original OP was trying to say and what I am trying to say can be easily summarized by the phrase 'fair and balanced reporting'. I think that type of reporting seems to be a thing of the past.
ars 6y ago
I heard about it because I went to the government website that tracked this data and checked for myself.
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  I ask, because there's currently a kerfluffle in my town over a killing where the local talk radio folks are claiming that local news is "covering it up" despite it being front page news on all of those news outlets. Your example sounds a lot like the "Black people hesitant to take the vaccine" thing from a few months ago, which got a bunch of recent coverage about how they're not actually hesitant, and that Republicans are higher on the hesitant list. (https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/poll-50-percent-of-unvaccinated-trump-voters-say-they-will-never-get-inoculated-for-covid-how-biden-hopes-to-change-their-minds-090001162.html https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/poll-50-percent-of-unvaccina...) This is a pretty common thing; "they aren't covering X, which I heard about from this article in the media..."
  - ars 6y ago
    It's not about "aren't covering", I was genuinely curious about the results two weeks later and went searching for an update and there was nothing. I finally found the government site with the data I wanted. No, this was just media wanting to stir up trouble, and not interested in doing a "boring" follow up.

AnimalMuppet 6y ago

> Are they informing you? Or outraging you? They need to decide. They decided. They're outraging you. (Somewhat more precisely, outrage vs. inform is a spectrum, not a binary, and they are moving more toward outrage and less toward inform. They still inform, but less reliably than they used to. And as a result, media trust hits a new low, because people can tell that media is informing less than it used to.)