3 ms·

The news is not only shaped by news "organs" but also shaped these days by journalists themselves with their own interests and agendas whereas before they had a

by mc32 4y ago

The news is not only shaped by news "organs" but also shaped these days by journalists themselves with their own interests and agendas whereas before they had an editor to dampen some of that personal stuff. But now we have journalists lying in the face of facts or ignoring strong counterarguments. In other words they have more or less all have their personal slant and push it to the fore without much restraint. There is little nuance. And by god, do they copy pasta talking points. Today Shinzo Abe out of the blue acquired the adjective "divisive".

vkou 4y ago
> whereas before they had an editor to dampen some of that personal stuff. Or alternatively, before they had an editor to set that set of interests and agendas.
- mc32 4y ago
  They did but editors tend to temper their journalists and keep them from going off the deep end of the pool. So yes, they had agendas too but they were kept from going into wild Pravda as well as The Enquirer territory.
unity1001 4y ago
I very much think that all of those 'journalists' always magically agree with the majority shareholders of the organization who pay their paycheck. https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/five-reasons-why-we-don-t-have-free-and-independent-press-in-uk-and-what-we-can-do-about/ https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/five-reason... "All Murdoch editors, what they do is this: they go on a journey where they end up agreeing with everything Rupert says but you don't admit to yourself that you're being influenced. Most Murdoch editors wake up in the morning, switch on the radio, hear that something has happened and think: what would Rupert think about this? It's like a mantra inside your head, it's like a prism. You look at the world through Rupert's eyes." ... It would not be different in any other corporate media outlet. Only maybe more subtle.

by mc32 4y ago

vkou 4y ago

> whereas before they had an editor to dampen some of that personal stuff. Or alternatively, before they had an editor to set that set of interests and agendas.

mc32 4y ago
They did but editors tend to temper their journalists and keep them from going off the deep end of the pool. So yes, they had agendas too but they were kept from going into wild Pravda as well as The Enquirer territory.

unity1001 4y ago

I very much think that all of those 'journalists' always magically agree with the majority shareholders of the organization who pay their paycheck. https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/five-reasons-why-we-don-t-have-free-and-independent-press-in-uk-and-what-we-can-do-about/ https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/five-reason... "All Murdoch editors, what they do is this: they go on a journey where they end up agreeing with everything Rupert says but you don't admit to yourself that you're being influenced. Most Murdoch editors wake up in the morning, switch on the radio, hear that something has happened and think: what would Rupert think about this? It's like a mantra inside your head, it's like a prism. You look at the world through Rupert's eyes." ... It would not be different in any other corporate media outlet. Only maybe more subtle.