6 ms·

It's not too surprising. How can anyone trust a journalism that has chosen to prioritize advocacy over the nuts and bolts of reporting? Fox news was the first -

It's not too surprising. How can anyone trust a journalism that has chosen to prioritize advocacy over the nuts and bolts of reporting? Fox news was the first -- it's all Fox news today. See https://www.city-journal.org/journalism-advocacy-over-reporting https://www.city-journal.org/journalism-advocacy-over-report...

rajin444 5y ago
I can’t think of a single major news outlet that is trustworthy. They still provide some value, but you need a heavy dose of skepticism.
- tomp 5y ago
  That's why I love ZeroHedge. No credibility by definition, so you don't even expect it. You have to think on your own. But, they provide very timely news on "market-moving" information (i.e. news that are/will be breaking news), often faster than mainstream media. So that is a very valuable service (for me).
unyttigfjelltol 5y ago
We have a generation of 'reporters' who never knew the old way of journalism. Dispatches from flagship news outlets disclose no awaress they're doing their jobs in a tragically wrongheaded manner.
- CountDrewku 5y ago
  They're not reporters anymore they're political activists and that's the problem.
trutannus 5y ago
The blend of activism and journalism is the crux of the problem. In Canada the state-run news organization CBC knows they have low trust, however can't admit their role in it. About once a year they write an op-ed talking about the best ways to use legislation to fix the problem. This is the same state-run media company that said objectivity is "potentially harmful": https://www.cbc.ca/radio/sunday/the-sunday-edition-for-july-12-2020-1.5639297/objectivity-is-the-view-from-nowhere-and-potentially-harmful-expert-1.5639304 https://www.cbc.ca/radio/sunday/the-sunday-edition-for-july-...
- MAGZine 5y ago
  I think what the link is saying is that, people are inherently biased, and to try to pretend otherwise is "potentially harmful," because you still inject your own views in biases into a topic, while pretending that you don't. It's a nice quote to pull out of context though.
  - seneca 5y ago
    > I think what the link is saying is that, people are inherently biased, and to try to pretend otherwise is "potentially harmful," because you still inject your own views in biases into a topic, while pretending that you don't. This is a common talking point of the advocacy crowd. The problem is that, as used, it's a non-sequitur. Sure, human beings have inherent bias. The answer to that is, and always has been, to strive for objectivity as best we can even though we are flawed. The advocacy crowd instead takes it as an excuse to throw objectivity out entirely and double down on their own bias.
    - matthewdgreen 5y ago
      The link you cited and attributed to "the state run media company" wasn't actually from any current representative of the state-run media company. It was from a professor at a University who had formerly been a journalist. (ETA: meant to reply to the previous post by "trutannus", sorry!)
      - seneca 5y ago
        I believe you're replying to the wrong post and poster.
      - trutannus 5y ago
        I'm not sure why you have state run media in scare-quotes. CBC is state owned and run: https://cbc.radio-canada.ca/en/vision/mandate https://cbc.radio-canada.ca/en/vision/mandate "the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, as the national public broadcaster" Further: Minister Responsible: Steven Guilbeault, Minister of Canadian Heritage, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Broadcasting_Corporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Broadcasting_Corporat...
silent_cal 5y ago
CNN/MSNBC are every bit as bad as Fox.
- themitigating 5y ago
  But they aren't equal. Considering the amount of content and people who work at each company how is it possible for both to be equally bad?
- gremloni 5y ago
  Not even close. Fox literally lies and updated their manifest to suggest they’re entertainment and not fact based.
  - BitwiseFool 5y ago
    >"updated their manifest to suggest they’re entertainment and not fact based." This is not new, nor exclusive to Fox. The Daily Show goes out of it's way to declare they aren't a news outlet, and Rachel Maddow also calls her program entertainment rather than news. Daily Show: Abandon News All Ye Who Enter Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Show#/media/File:TDS_Studio_Entrance.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Show#/media/File:TDS... "A Court Ruled Rachel Maddow's Viewers Know She Offers Exaggeration and Opinion, Not Facts": https://greenwald.substack.com/p/a-court-ruled-rachel-maddows-viewers https://greenwald.substack.com/p/a-court-ruled-rachel-maddow...
    - gremloni 5y ago
      A satirical show on Comedy Central vs an entire news channel. You’re making my point.
      - BitwiseFool 5y ago
        Is there really a difference, though? To me this is all just "a rose by any other name" and calling something news vs entertainment is a distinction without a difference.
OrvalWintermute 5y ago
I think the biggest issue is that in many cases we see advocacy with a particular party position in mind, and not openly declaring which party position they advocate. This means that Fox is really Mainstream Republican, opposed to MAGA and Libertarians. Likewise, CNN is Progressive, NBC, CBS, ABC are mainstream Democrat. This explains the rise of more alternative media to the Right of Fox, and to the Left of many of the Democrat channels. I think there is still an untapped market around the Libertarian Left which to me doesn't really have a major newsmedia company pushing it yet. It has really changed what is needed to get different perspectives on the same story, almost that you need to consume it from 3 channels to get all the angles. That may be a fault of newsbite sized media rather than depth which is regularly needed.

rajin444 5y ago

I can’t think of a single major news outlet that is trustworthy. They still provide some value, but you need a heavy dose of skepticism.

tomp 5y ago
That's why I love ZeroHedge. No credibility by definition, so you don't even expect it. You have to think on your own. But, they provide very timely news on "market-moving" information (i.e. news that are/will be breaking news), often faster than mainstream media. So that is a very valuable service (for me).

unyttigfjelltol 5y ago

We have a generation of 'reporters' who never knew the old way of journalism. Dispatches from flagship news outlets disclose no awaress they're doing their jobs in a tragically wrongheaded manner.

CountDrewku 5y ago
They're not reporters anymore they're political activists and that's the problem.

trutannus 5y ago

The blend of activism and journalism is the crux of the problem. In Canada the state-run news organization CBC knows they have low trust, however can't admit their role in it. About once a year they write an op-ed talking about the best ways to use legislation to fix the problem. This is the same state-run media company that said objectivity is "potentially harmful": https://www.cbc.ca/radio/sunday/the-sunday-edition-for-july-12-2020-1.5639297/objectivity-is-the-view-from-nowhere-and-potentially-harmful-expert-1.5639304 https://www.cbc.ca/radio/sunday/the-sunday-edition-for-july-...

MAGZine 5y ago
I think what the link is saying is that, people are inherently biased, and to try to pretend otherwise is "potentially harmful," because you still inject your own views in biases into a topic, while pretending that you don't. It's a nice quote to pull out of context though.
- seneca 5y ago
  > I think what the link is saying is that, people are inherently biased, and to try to pretend otherwise is "potentially harmful," because you still inject your own views in biases into a topic, while pretending that you don't. This is a common talking point of the advocacy crowd. The problem is that, as used, it's a non-sequitur. Sure, human beings have inherent bias. The answer to that is, and always has been, to strive for objectivity as best we can even though we are flawed. The advocacy crowd instead takes it as an excuse to throw objectivity out entirely and double down on their own bias.
  - matthewdgreen 5y ago
    The link you cited and attributed to "the state run media company" wasn't actually from any current representative of the state-run media company. It was from a professor at a University who had formerly been a journalist. (ETA: meant to reply to the previous post by "trutannus", sorry!)
    - seneca 5y ago
      I believe you're replying to the wrong post and poster.
    - trutannus 5y ago
      I'm not sure why you have state run media in scare-quotes. CBC is state owned and run: https://cbc.radio-canada.ca/en/vision/mandate https://cbc.radio-canada.ca/en/vision/mandate "the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, as the national public broadcaster" Further: Minister Responsible: Steven Guilbeault, Minister of Canadian Heritage, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Broadcasting_Corporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Broadcasting_Corporat...

silent_cal 5y ago

CNN/MSNBC are every bit as bad as Fox.

themitigating 5y ago
But they aren't equal. Considering the amount of content and people who work at each company how is it possible for both to be equally bad?
gremloni 5y ago
Not even close. Fox literally lies and updated their manifest to suggest they’re entertainment and not fact based.
- BitwiseFool 5y ago
  >"updated their manifest to suggest they’re entertainment and not fact based." This is not new, nor exclusive to Fox. The Daily Show goes out of it's way to declare they aren't a news outlet, and Rachel Maddow also calls her program entertainment rather than news. Daily Show: Abandon News All Ye Who Enter Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Show#/media/File:TDS_Studio_Entrance.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Show#/media/File:TDS... "A Court Ruled Rachel Maddow's Viewers Know She Offers Exaggeration and Opinion, Not Facts": https://greenwald.substack.com/p/a-court-ruled-rachel-maddows-viewers https://greenwald.substack.com/p/a-court-ruled-rachel-maddow...
  - gremloni 5y ago
    A satirical show on Comedy Central vs an entire news channel. You’re making my point.
    - BitwiseFool 5y ago
      Is there really a difference, though? To me this is all just "a rose by any other name" and calling something news vs entertainment is a distinction without a difference.

OrvalWintermute 5y ago

I think the biggest issue is that in many cases we see advocacy with a particular party position in mind, and not openly declaring which party position they advocate. This means that Fox is really Mainstream Republican, opposed to MAGA and Libertarians. Likewise, CNN is Progressive, NBC, CBS, ABC are mainstream Democrat. This explains the rise of more alternative media to the Right of Fox, and to the Left of many of the Democrat channels. I think there is still an untapped market around the Libertarian Left which to me doesn't really have a major newsmedia company pushing it yet. It has really changed what is needed to get different perspectives on the same story, almost that you need to consume it from 3 channels to get all the angles. That may be a fault of newsbite sized media rather than depth which is regularly needed.