4 ms·

> The natural response from many people is simply to stop watching, and to get their news elsewhere. I'm sympathetic to your description of mainstream news (wh

> The natural response from many people is simply to stop watching, and to get their news elsewhere. I'm sympathetic to your description of mainstream news (which is a bit of a nebulous term, I must admit; "legacy" might be a better description), but, in my experience, the news you get from "elsewhere" is often unabashedly biased. So, is the fall in popularity of mainstream news a result of the lack of neutrality, or because it's not partisan enough? After all, wildly biased news is wildly popular online and mainstream news has to compete. There's a network effect to that. Social media has made the ability to curate one's newsfeed to a degree of ideological specificity that is pretty incredible. Bias sells. Personally, I don't think it's "neutrality" or even "bias" that is the issue with most news these days. A lot of news orgs have simply abdicated themselves from the vital role of journalism in a functioning liberal democracy: accountability. Most people follow the news incessantly but actually know next to nothing about what is actually happening in government or politics. All they get in the news is a slice of a soap-opera instead of insight into governance or politicking, backstage where the sausage is actually made and where crime, graft, negligence, corruption, stupidity, and brazen cruelty in the pursuit of power, is endemic by both parties. Journalism has also become a "status" job that is often only attainable and maintainable as a career by people from elite education or with connections to the industry. You end up with a particular class of people as journalists interacting with politicians or executives or other people from the same class. This leads an effect whenever they try to cover lower class people that is similar to that famous image of Hilary Clinton walking into that small apartment.

rayiner 3y ago
> So, is the fall in popularity of mainstream news a result of the lack of neutrality, or because it's not partisan enough? I don’t think those two explanations are at odds with each other. People may prefer listening to a news source that tries to be neutral. But if the reporters can’t hide their personal leanings, they would rather go with a news source where the reporters’ personal leanings agree with their own. Part of this is driven by the increasing polarization of journalists. In 1971, democrats somewhat outnumbered republicans among journalists. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/tiny-percentage-american-journalists-republicans-study-finds https://www.foxnews.com/politics/tiny-percentage-american-jo.... By 2022, that ratio is now 10:1 https://ustimesmirror.com/a-tiny-shrinking-percentage-of-american-journalists-are-republicans-study-finds https://ustimesmirror.com/a-tiny-shrinking-percentage-of-ame.... People aren’t stupid. They can tell the difference between someone who is trying to overcome their personal leaning and be neutral, and someone who is so affected by their personal leaning that they can’t even conceal it. People can trust the former person even if they disagree. People can’t trust the latter person.
- beezlebroxxxxxx 3y ago
  I largely agree, but I think it speaks to a larger point about the news landscape and how people access and use the news. How people use the news has shifted. Instead of a way of getting informed in order to hold elected officials accountable, for instance, it's used to confirm one's personal leanings --- essentially to make their reader/viewer comfortable. There's the story and the news, and then there's how it is presented. Comforting and confirming someone's personal leanings is a much more effective business strategy than a recipe for good journalism, and yet here we are. It's possible for someone to trust and agree with the presentation of the news; to distrust, but agree; to trust, but disagree; or to distrust and disagree (there's also not caring at all, which is another issue all together). In TV, you might call these segments. In my view, most news organizations have become hyper focused at catering to the "trust and agree" segment so much so that it has become the majority of what they do. All they work on is comforting that segment. I think much of the popular dissatisfaction and distrust with news orgs in general, is really that in 2024 the news is actually not very useful. Instead, people are starting to see that it's kind of more like an imaginary friend who never disagrees who and who offers you comfort almost on demand.
  - rayiner 3y ago
    I agree with that too, but “accountability” is a loaded concept. Hold politicians accountable for what? That depends on your vision for what America should look like.
    - beezlebroxxxxxx 3y ago
      > Hold politicians accountable for what? Well, ideally, in a liberal democracy, hold politicians accountable for whether they do what they say they will do. They are elected on a certain set of promises ("I will do x", "I will support value y") and, ideally, people made informed decisions based on that when voting. Whether they get reelected is a way of holding elected officials accountable in a blunt sense. One way for voters to be informed of whether politicians are doing what they said they would do (even, really on what politicians are doing at all) is to have journalists write accounts of what politicians said and then did, because normal everyday people are not paid to follow politics all day figuring out whether they're actually doing what they said they would do---journalists do that for us. They report on what happened. > That depends on your vision for what America should look like. That's also why I think people are way too hung up on things like "neutrality" and "objectivity" in their news. It's not clear cut and not a science, journalists tell stories which are factual to the degree possible by them. They are useful. When they don't do that well, or dishonestly, they lose credibility as stand-ins for us following politicians around. We hold journalists to account in the same way. Ideally, they do the same by retracting or publicizing their errors as well. That's also why a diverse news environment is a good thing. But, as we know, it can also easily become hyper polarized to the point where it stops really becoming useful at all, just comforting, and in some cases practically a blatant ideological tool in service of certain politicians, which for many years was considering deeply embarrassing for a journalist.

rayiner 3y ago

> So, is the fall in popularity of mainstream news a result of the lack of neutrality, or because it's not partisan enough? I don’t think those two explanations are at odds with each other. People may prefer listening to a news source that tries to be neutral. But if the reporters can’t hide their personal leanings, they would rather go with a news source where the reporters’ personal leanings agree with their own. Part of this is driven by the increasing polarization of journalists. In 1971, democrats somewhat outnumbered republicans among journalists. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/tiny-percentage-american-journalists-republicans-study-finds https://www.foxnews.com/politics/tiny-percentage-american-jo.... By 2022, that ratio is now 10:1 https://ustimesmirror.com/a-tiny-shrinking-percentage-of-american-journalists-are-republicans-study-finds https://ustimesmirror.com/a-tiny-shrinking-percentage-of-ame.... People aren’t stupid. They can tell the difference between someone who is trying to overcome their personal leaning and be neutral, and someone who is so affected by their personal leaning that they can’t even conceal it. People can trust the former person even if they disagree. People can’t trust the latter person.

beezlebroxxxxxx 3y ago
I largely agree, but I think it speaks to a larger point about the news landscape and how people access and use the news. How people use the news has shifted. Instead of a way of getting informed in order to hold elected officials accountable, for instance, it's used to confirm one's personal leanings --- essentially to make their reader/viewer comfortable. There's the story and the news, and then there's how it is presented. Comforting and confirming someone's personal leanings is a much more effective business strategy than a recipe for good journalism, and yet here we are. It's possible for someone to trust and agree with the presentation of the news; to distrust, but agree; to trust, but disagree; or to distrust and disagree (there's also not caring at all, which is another issue all together). In TV, you might call these segments. In my view, most news organizations have become hyper focused at catering to the "trust and agree" segment so much so that it has become the majority of what they do. All they work on is comforting that segment. I think much of the popular dissatisfaction and distrust with news orgs in general, is really that in 2024 the news is actually not very useful. Instead, people are starting to see that it's kind of more like an imaginary friend who never disagrees who and who offers you comfort almost on demand.
- rayiner 3y ago
  I agree with that too, but “accountability” is a loaded concept. Hold politicians accountable for what? That depends on your vision for what America should look like.
  - beezlebroxxxxxx 3y ago
    > Hold politicians accountable for what? Well, ideally, in a liberal democracy, hold politicians accountable for whether they do what they say they will do. They are elected on a certain set of promises ("I will do x", "I will support value y") and, ideally, people made informed decisions based on that when voting. Whether they get reelected is a way of holding elected officials accountable in a blunt sense. One way for voters to be informed of whether politicians are doing what they said they would do (even, really on what politicians are doing at all) is to have journalists write accounts of what politicians said and then did, because normal everyday people are not paid to follow politics all day figuring out whether they're actually doing what they said they would do---journalists do that for us. They report on what happened. > That depends on your vision for what America should look like. That's also why I think people are way too hung up on things like "neutrality" and "objectivity" in their news. It's not clear cut and not a science, journalists tell stories which are factual to the degree possible by them. They are useful. When they don't do that well, or dishonestly, they lose credibility as stand-ins for us following politicians around. We hold journalists to account in the same way. Ideally, they do the same by retracting or publicizing their errors as well. That's also why a diverse news environment is a good thing. But, as we know, it can also easily become hyper polarized to the point where it stops really becoming useful at all, just comforting, and in some cases practically a blatant ideological tool in service of certain politicians, which for many years was considering deeply embarrassing for a journalist.