9 ms·

Nothing made me respect mainstream media more than a thousand "alternative" pundits crying foul while not only failing to do better but regressing on the basics

Nothing made me respect mainstream media more than a thousand "alternative" pundits crying foul while not only failing to do better but regressing on the basics: asking accused parties for comment, asking adjacent experts for comment, retracting articles when conflicting evidence arises, clearly delineating op/ed, etc. It's fair to argue that these things aren't sufficient, but it's absolutely wild how easy it wound up being to pass off regression for progression on this front. People really do just want to hear confirmation of their own opinions.

rayiner 3y ago
> asking accused parties for comment, asking adjacent experts for comment, retracting articles when conflicting evidence arises, clearly delineating op/ed, etc Mainstream media doesn’t do that anymore. Completely random example that I just saw: https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/05/politics/road-to-270-electoral-votes-2024/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/05/politics/road-to-270-electora.... The article says: “Trump is a seriously flawed candidate who has promised to govern in undemocratic ways.” That’s not in the opinion section.
- shawndrost 3y ago
  (Incidentally, I'm pretty sure this is an opinion/analysis article, not a news article. However, the fact that CNN doesn't clearly label opinion/analysis -- and the existence of analysis at all, which I don't remember being a thing a decade ago -- do[es] support your point.)
- jdewerd 3y ago
  If I had nothing to compare CNN to, I'd be scandalized.
  - downWidOutaFite 3y ago
    What is the general cable news alternative with better journalism? I know of none. For individual news shows I think the best are 60 Minutes and Frontline.
- hobs 3y ago
  That's his personal testimony and by all objective metrics the truth - if you think that's an opinion that's more telling on yourself. Just because its about someone for a political race doesn't mean its particularly political to notice trump did a treason.
  - mrangle 3y ago
    That's absolutely a political opinion: dependent on a particular narrative and presentation of facts that is different from others. Just like it is one that the 2019 riots were eight months of pre-election terrorism incited and protected by the party that now sits in the White House. And who is bent on making a four hour riot the center of attention instead. Funny that. We could do this all day.
    - acdha 3y ago
      No, it’s not. He’s continuously lied about a democratic election, refusing to admit that he lost it and attempting to get people to falsify votes to cancel out his loss. None of that is a political opinion any more than any other statement of fact. You can still say you like him, but you can’t get away from reality by saying it’s an opinion.
      - mrangle 3y ago
        Yes, it is an opinion. People are allowed to contest elections. There is no legal requirement to admit loss. He tried to get no one to "falsify votes". That's spin. None of that amounts to "a treason". Your narrative depends on a curated set of statements made in a very specific manner. To wit, it is a carefully crafted opinion.
        acdha 3y ago
        People are allowed to ask for recounts and present arguments and evidence following the legal process in that state. They are are not allowed to pressure local officials to “find” votes, try to avoid leaving office, or encourage their followers to commit acts of violence against government employees fulfilling their legal duties. You might not personally be willing to accept that your guy did that but it’s a matter of public record, and he notably had ample legal opportunity to produce evidence or question the state evidence in the many cases he lost. You aren’t entitled to personal facts because you find the real ones politically inconvenient. Many of the officials he railed against and the judges who found his claims unconvincing were Republicans, but they were also Americans who took their duties seriously and found against him.
- gloryjulio 3y ago
  Didn't Trump said himself that the wants to be a dictator even for 1 day? Is that enough for being undemocratic?
  - rayiner 3y ago
    He didn’t say anything like that: https://transcripts.cnn.com/show/cnr/date/2023-12-09/segment/05 https://transcripts.cnn.com/show/cnr/date/2023-12-09/segment... “He says, you're not going a dictator, are you? I said, no, no, no. Other than day one. We're closing the border, and we're drilling, drilling, drilling. After that I'm not a dictator.” He’s clearly turning back the “dictator” comment and using a metaphor to talk about things within his executive authority. Trump has the power to close the border. He also has the power to approve oil drilling permits. He then specifically says: “after that I’m not a dictator.” The way CNN ran with this comment was unmistakably in bad faith.
    - gloryjulio 3y ago
      Who cares about CNN? Not interested in mental gymnastic of the Trump fans, even 1 day is a day. It's not like he didn't have other instances: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-truth-social-dictatorship/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-truth-social-dictato... Why do Trump fans pretend to care about democracy after Jan 6, just take the mask off. Everyone knows Trump and the cult do not care about democracy ;)
      - jacquesm 3y ago
        What's really interesting is former democrats of color voting for the one guy that if he really got into power would try to turn the USA into the next installment of the white power movement. How people can make this mistake over and over again is something that really puzzles me, people that directly vote against their best interest. It's not as if Trump has been subtle about it with all of his dog whistling. And the dogs came running.
- downWidOutaFite 3y ago
  How is he not flawed? He's under multiple indictments, has been impeached twice, and voters already rejected him once. Seriously flawed is about right.
  - mrangle 3y ago
    No one on either side is going to see opposition investigations, prosecutions, and tactics as legitimate. They only make a candidate "flawed" in the eyes of those who already viewed them as flawed. For everyone else, its even a net gain because it reinforces authenticity. Which may be the hottest commodity in Washington. If anything is the opposite of "flawed" in the world of politics, it is "authentic". And if there are going to be these extreme tactics, they have to work the first time to work at all. Politically speaking. In order to not look extremely inauthentic. Maybe the RNC and DNC shouldn't have gone so hard in the paint starting in 2015, if they wanted anything done now to not have the oppposite intended effect. It doesn't matter if he lost once. There isn't an authentic candidate to take his place. Many on the Right would rather see Joe Biden or even Hillary Clinton in office than Nikki Haley. Because at least they wouldn't be ruling inauthentically in the name of conservative voters.
    - downWidOutaFite 3y ago
      I don't get it. The authenticity overreaction is weird to me. Like something immature youngsters would be concerned with.
      - mrangle 3y ago
        I can help you. Authenticity is a synonym for trust, in the context of elections. Its the core of voting preference. That is, the candidate who wins is the one who the voters best trust to represent them. Inauthentic candidates are seen as less trustworthy to do so. To varying degree. In other words, they are seen to be liars to varying degree. That is, inauthentic. Now you've caught up on how the American mind works in elections. In the context of how the Get Trump Witch Hunt, ongoing since 2015, has affected eelections going forward: voters are now prone to see such unusual behavior from the opposition as a marker of candidate authenticity. Such is the nature of democracy poisoning actions. In other words, if a candidate is not subjected to roughly equal treatment, then they will be widely seen as less authentic (more aligned with the opposing party than someone who is subject to it). This was obviously going to be the case going forward, beginning in 2016-17. Which is a horrific situation for democracy. To wit, in January 2024, Trump's RNC opposition have degraded themselves to appeals to the supposed fact that the opposition hates them less and therefore they will be more effective. They largely don't (at least effectively) sell themselves on authentic behavior. Possibly because they lack the actual conviction to sell it. Instead, they are essentially tacking toward inauthencity as their primary sales pitch. As a result, they don't stand a snowflake's chance if voters are the determining factor in a head to head primary.
jevoten 3y ago
> asking accused parties for comment, asking adjacent experts for comment Don't forget the most important part of all: omitting details and testimony for the public good: https://jonathanturley.org/2023/12/04/the-responsibility-to-not-report-irish-journalist-calls-on-colleagues-to-suppress-immigration-stories/ https://jonathanturley.org/2023/12/04/the-responsibility-to-...
- mrangle 3y ago
  Lying by omission is observably a central ethic of media.
  - jdewerd 3y ago
    Right, and the "opposition comment" standards were clearly efforts to address that problem. Insufficient as they were, they pretty clearly helped. Media is worse for their loss and they have yet to be replaced. Ground News is the first "new" thing that seems to be a clear step in a good direction, but I don't know how much adoption it actually has vs flash in the pan VC money.
hexage1814 3y ago
Nothing made me respect mainstream media less than when in 2020 during the COVID pandemic they said they were absolutely 100% totally sure that COVID didn't leak from a Chinese biolab and that who ever suggested such possibility was a conspiracy theorist who should be banned from social media and the like.
- the_gastropod 3y ago
  First, what mainstream media outlet did this? Second, recall: 1. There was basically (and as far as I know, still is) no evidence to support this being the case. There was a suspicion at most, and it was basically a conspiracy theory in 2020. 2. This conspiracy theory had a deep root in anti-China / anti-Asian racism. Anti-Asian hate crimes rose 150% in 2020 [1]. So I think it's pretty understandable that mainstream media outlets felt a responsibility to quell interest in conspiracy theories resulting in real-world harm. [1] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/anti-asian-hate-crimes-increased-nearly-150-2020-mostly-n-n1260264 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/anti-asian-hate-c...
  - caseysoftware 3y ago
    > There was basically (and as far as I know, still is) no evidence to support this being the case. If you're not aware of the evidence, it's not from lack of information being publicly available. From almost a year ago: https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/28/politics/wray-fbi-covid-origins-lab-china/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/28/politics/wray-fbi-covid-origi... https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-origin-china-lab-leak-807b7b0a https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-origin-china-lab-leak-807... And Fauci, et al actively worked to discredit the lab leak theory in Jan-Mar 2020 when there were some early clues.. therefore casting anyone digging into them as a conspiracy theorist as you just did: https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Final-Report-7.pdf https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Final...

rayiner 3y ago

> asking accused parties for comment, asking adjacent experts for comment, retracting articles when conflicting evidence arises, clearly delineating op/ed, etc Mainstream media doesn’t do that anymore. Completely random example that I just saw: https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/05/politics/road-to-270-electoral-votes-2024/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/05/politics/road-to-270-electora.... The article says: “Trump is a seriously flawed candidate who has promised to govern in undemocratic ways.” That’s not in the opinion section.

shawndrost 3y ago
(Incidentally, I'm pretty sure this is an opinion/analysis article, not a news article. However, the fact that CNN doesn't clearly label opinion/analysis -- and the existence of analysis at all, which I don't remember being a thing a decade ago -- do[es] support your point.)
jdewerd 3y ago
If I had nothing to compare CNN to, I'd be scandalized.
- downWidOutaFite 3y ago
  What is the general cable news alternative with better journalism? I know of none. For individual news shows I think the best are 60 Minutes and Frontline.
hobs 3y ago
That's his personal testimony and by all objective metrics the truth - if you think that's an opinion that's more telling on yourself. Just because its about someone for a political race doesn't mean its particularly political to notice trump did a treason.
- mrangle 3y ago
  That's absolutely a political opinion: dependent on a particular narrative and presentation of facts that is different from others. Just like it is one that the 2019 riots were eight months of pre-election terrorism incited and protected by the party that now sits in the White House. And who is bent on making a four hour riot the center of attention instead. Funny that. We could do this all day.
  - acdha 3y ago
    No, it’s not. He’s continuously lied about a democratic election, refusing to admit that he lost it and attempting to get people to falsify votes to cancel out his loss. None of that is a political opinion any more than any other statement of fact. You can still say you like him, but you can’t get away from reality by saying it’s an opinion.
    - mrangle 3y ago
      Yes, it is an opinion. People are allowed to contest elections. There is no legal requirement to admit loss. He tried to get no one to "falsify votes". That's spin. None of that amounts to "a treason". Your narrative depends on a curated set of statements made in a very specific manner. To wit, it is a carefully crafted opinion.
      - acdha 3y ago
        People are allowed to ask for recounts and present arguments and evidence following the legal process in that state. They are are not allowed to pressure local officials to “find” votes, try to avoid leaving office, or encourage their followers to commit acts of violence against government employees fulfilling their legal duties. You might not personally be willing to accept that your guy did that but it’s a matter of public record, and he notably had ample legal opportunity to produce evidence or question the state evidence in the many cases he lost. You aren’t entitled to personal facts because you find the real ones politically inconvenient. Many of the officials he railed against and the judges who found his claims unconvincing were Republicans, but they were also Americans who took their duties seriously and found against him.
gloryjulio 3y ago
Didn't Trump said himself that the wants to be a dictator even for 1 day? Is that enough for being undemocratic?
- rayiner 3y ago
  He didn’t say anything like that: https://transcripts.cnn.com/show/cnr/date/2023-12-09/segment/05 https://transcripts.cnn.com/show/cnr/date/2023-12-09/segment... “He says, you're not going a dictator, are you? I said, no, no, no. Other than day one. We're closing the border, and we're drilling, drilling, drilling. After that I'm not a dictator.” He’s clearly turning back the “dictator” comment and using a metaphor to talk about things within his executive authority. Trump has the power to close the border. He also has the power to approve oil drilling permits. He then specifically says: “after that I’m not a dictator.” The way CNN ran with this comment was unmistakably in bad faith.
  - gloryjulio 3y ago
    Who cares about CNN? Not interested in mental gymnastic of the Trump fans, even 1 day is a day. It's not like he didn't have other instances: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-truth-social-dictatorship/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-truth-social-dictato... Why do Trump fans pretend to care about democracy after Jan 6, just take the mask off. Everyone knows Trump and the cult do not care about democracy ;)
    - jacquesm 3y ago
      What's really interesting is former democrats of color voting for the one guy that if he really got into power would try to turn the USA into the next installment of the white power movement. How people can make this mistake over and over again is something that really puzzles me, people that directly vote against their best interest. It's not as if Trump has been subtle about it with all of his dog whistling. And the dogs came running.
downWidOutaFite 3y ago
How is he not flawed? He's under multiple indictments, has been impeached twice, and voters already rejected him once. Seriously flawed is about right.
- mrangle 3y ago
  No one on either side is going to see opposition investigations, prosecutions, and tactics as legitimate. They only make a candidate "flawed" in the eyes of those who already viewed them as flawed. For everyone else, its even a net gain because it reinforces authenticity. Which may be the hottest commodity in Washington. If anything is the opposite of "flawed" in the world of politics, it is "authentic". And if there are going to be these extreme tactics, they have to work the first time to work at all. Politically speaking. In order to not look extremely inauthentic. Maybe the RNC and DNC shouldn't have gone so hard in the paint starting in 2015, if they wanted anything done now to not have the oppposite intended effect. It doesn't matter if he lost once. There isn't an authentic candidate to take his place. Many on the Right would rather see Joe Biden or even Hillary Clinton in office than Nikki Haley. Because at least they wouldn't be ruling inauthentically in the name of conservative voters.
  - downWidOutaFite 3y ago
    I don't get it. The authenticity overreaction is weird to me. Like something immature youngsters would be concerned with.
    - mrangle 3y ago
      I can help you. Authenticity is a synonym for trust, in the context of elections. Its the core of voting preference. That is, the candidate who wins is the one who the voters best trust to represent them. Inauthentic candidates are seen as less trustworthy to do so. To varying degree. In other words, they are seen to be liars to varying degree. That is, inauthentic. Now you've caught up on how the American mind works in elections. In the context of how the Get Trump Witch Hunt, ongoing since 2015, has affected eelections going forward: voters are now prone to see such unusual behavior from the opposition as a marker of candidate authenticity. Such is the nature of democracy poisoning actions. In other words, if a candidate is not subjected to roughly equal treatment, then they will be widely seen as less authentic (more aligned with the opposing party than someone who is subject to it). This was obviously going to be the case going forward, beginning in 2016-17. Which is a horrific situation for democracy. To wit, in January 2024, Trump's RNC opposition have degraded themselves to appeals to the supposed fact that the opposition hates them less and therefore they will be more effective. They largely don't (at least effectively) sell themselves on authentic behavior. Possibly because they lack the actual conviction to sell it. Instead, they are essentially tacking toward inauthencity as their primary sales pitch. As a result, they don't stand a snowflake's chance if voters are the determining factor in a head to head primary.

jevoten 3y ago

> asking accused parties for comment, asking adjacent experts for comment Don't forget the most important part of all: omitting details and testimony for the public good: https://jonathanturley.org/2023/12/04/the-responsibility-to-not-report-irish-journalist-calls-on-colleagues-to-suppress-immigration-stories/ https://jonathanturley.org/2023/12/04/the-responsibility-to-...

mrangle 3y ago
Lying by omission is observably a central ethic of media.
- jdewerd 3y ago
  Right, and the "opposition comment" standards were clearly efforts to address that problem. Insufficient as they were, they pretty clearly helped. Media is worse for their loss and they have yet to be replaced. Ground News is the first "new" thing that seems to be a clear step in a good direction, but I don't know how much adoption it actually has vs flash in the pan VC money.

hexage1814 3y ago

Nothing made me respect mainstream media less than when in 2020 during the COVID pandemic they said they were absolutely 100% totally sure that COVID didn't leak from a Chinese biolab and that who ever suggested such possibility was a conspiracy theorist who should be banned from social media and the like.

the_gastropod 3y ago
First, what mainstream media outlet did this? Second, recall: 1. There was basically (and as far as I know, still is) no evidence to support this being the case. There was a suspicion at most, and it was basically a conspiracy theory in 2020. 2. This conspiracy theory had a deep root in anti-China / anti-Asian racism. Anti-Asian hate crimes rose 150% in 2020 [1]. So I think it's pretty understandable that mainstream media outlets felt a responsibility to quell interest in conspiracy theories resulting in real-world harm. [1] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/anti-asian-hate-crimes-increased-nearly-150-2020-mostly-n-n1260264 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/anti-asian-hate-c...
- caseysoftware 3y ago
  > There was basically (and as far as I know, still is) no evidence to support this being the case. If you're not aware of the evidence, it's not from lack of information being publicly available. From almost a year ago: https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/28/politics/wray-fbi-covid-origins-lab-china/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/28/politics/wray-fbi-covid-origi... https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-origin-china-lab-leak-807b7b0a https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-origin-china-lab-leak-807... And Fauci, et al actively worked to discredit the lab leak theory in Jan-Mar 2020 when there were some early clues.. therefore casting anyone digging into them as a conspiracy theorist as you just did: https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Final-Report-7.pdf https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Final...