4 ms·

Much of this is the media's own doing but they're not alone: politicians have been drumming this beat for decades. They don't want voters to trust the media bec

Much of this is the media's own doing but they're not alone: politicians have been drumming this beat for decades. They don't want voters to trust the media because that's the primary means by which they are held accountable.

z3c0 5y ago
I enjoy the tag line for Adam Curtis' Hypernormalisation: "They know we know they lie". So for them, the game becomes to make everything look like a lie so that we can't distinguish what the truth is. Demonizing media and creating fractured narratives is the prime way to accomplish this.
throwaway894345 5y ago
I'm sure politicians and others enjoy the low levels of trust, but I think (to your point) this has been brought on by the media's own rejection of aspirations of objectivity and neutrality. As some love to say, "[perfect] objectivity and neutrality are impossible [so the media is right in going full-on activist]". The media is having a firesale on its own credibility, and the "proceeds" are going to specific ideological causes to the detriment of society as a whole (what good can possibly come from an ideology which explicitly and routinely condemns objectivity, neutrality, rigor, etc?).
- matthewdgreen 5y ago
  "The media" is generally a series of for-profit corporations that wish to maintain an audience by any means possible, and also have major business interests in front of Congress. When the OP says "politicians prefer it when objective media goes away and gets replaced with advocates" and you say (paraphrasing) that "the objective media has responded to financial incentives and become advocates [so they can gain viewers and credibility with Congress]" you aren't saying anything different. You're just describing a situation in which societal and political incentives were changed to disincentivize the financial benefit of responsible reporting, and both media companies and politicians are responding to those incentives. To then say "gosh I'm really mad at the media because they're bad" is like being mad at raindrops because they're wet. If you don't like the situation, propose an actual political or policy change that will improve the situation. I see too many people saying "I hate the media, and [my preferred politicians] rail against the media, ergo I will vote for [my preferred politicians]" failing to recognize that this dynamic simply reinforces the feedback loop rather than changing anything.
  - throwaway894345 5y ago
    > When the OP says "politicians prefer it when objective media goes away and gets replaced with advocates" and you say (paraphrasing) that "the objective media has responded to financial incentives and become advocates [so they can gain viewers and credibility with Congress]" you aren't saying anything different. I know, hence my "to your point" > To then say "gosh I'm really mad at the media because they're bad" is like being mad at raindrops because they're wet. The media landscape degraded in the last ~decade. Raindrops have always been wet. I don't propose a solution because I don't understand the dynamics exactly. I don't think I have to understand the dynamics exactly (or have a solution in mind) in order to talk about the problem. > I see too many people saying "I hate the media, and [my preferred politicians] rail against the media, ergo I will vote for [my preferred politicians]" failing to recognize that this dynamic simply reinforces the feedback loop rather than changing anything. Of course, this doesn't describe me. Contrary to the media portrait, you can't draw any reasonable inferences about someone's politics based on whether they support or criticize the changes to the media landscape.
pessimizer 5y ago
Politicians are as untrusted by the public as the media is, and they work together constantly. Sometimes politicians what you to believe everything you read, because the people that whiteboarded out then slipped the story into the media are working for the people who are funding that politician. That politician is going to quote that editorial to excuse their awful vote in support of something their biggest donor wants passed.

z3c0 5y ago

I enjoy the tag line for Adam Curtis' Hypernormalisation: "They know we know they lie". So for them, the game becomes to make everything look like a lie so that we can't distinguish what the truth is. Demonizing media and creating fractured narratives is the prime way to accomplish this.

throwaway894345 5y ago

I'm sure politicians and others enjoy the low levels of trust, but I think (to your point) this has been brought on by the media's own rejection of aspirations of objectivity and neutrality. As some love to say, "[perfect] objectivity and neutrality are impossible [so the media is right in going full-on activist]". The media is having a firesale on its own credibility, and the "proceeds" are going to specific ideological causes to the detriment of society as a whole (what good can possibly come from an ideology which explicitly and routinely condemns objectivity, neutrality, rigor, etc?).

matthewdgreen 5y ago
"The media" is generally a series of for-profit corporations that wish to maintain an audience by any means possible, and also have major business interests in front of Congress. When the OP says "politicians prefer it when objective media goes away and gets replaced with advocates" and you say (paraphrasing) that "the objective media has responded to financial incentives and become advocates [so they can gain viewers and credibility with Congress]" you aren't saying anything different. You're just describing a situation in which societal and political incentives were changed to disincentivize the financial benefit of responsible reporting, and both media companies and politicians are responding to those incentives. To then say "gosh I'm really mad at the media because they're bad" is like being mad at raindrops because they're wet. If you don't like the situation, propose an actual political or policy change that will improve the situation. I see too many people saying "I hate the media, and [my preferred politicians] rail against the media, ergo I will vote for [my preferred politicians]" failing to recognize that this dynamic simply reinforces the feedback loop rather than changing anything.
- throwaway894345 5y ago
  > When the OP says "politicians prefer it when objective media goes away and gets replaced with advocates" and you say (paraphrasing) that "the objective media has responded to financial incentives and become advocates [so they can gain viewers and credibility with Congress]" you aren't saying anything different. I know, hence my "to your point" > To then say "gosh I'm really mad at the media because they're bad" is like being mad at raindrops because they're wet. The media landscape degraded in the last ~decade. Raindrops have always been wet. I don't propose a solution because I don't understand the dynamics exactly. I don't think I have to understand the dynamics exactly (or have a solution in mind) in order to talk about the problem. > I see too many people saying "I hate the media, and [my preferred politicians] rail against the media, ergo I will vote for [my preferred politicians]" failing to recognize that this dynamic simply reinforces the feedback loop rather than changing anything. Of course, this doesn't describe me. Contrary to the media portrait, you can't draw any reasonable inferences about someone's politics based on whether they support or criticize the changes to the media landscape.

pessimizer 5y ago

Politicians are as untrusted by the public as the media is, and they work together constantly. Sometimes politicians what you to believe everything you read, because the people that whiteboarded out then slipped the story into the media are working for the people who are funding that politician. That politician is going to quote that editorial to excuse their awful vote in support of something their biggest donor wants passed.