Menu
Jump to content

What's with the ads?

Minerva

Fact checking your news sources

Recommended Posts

I don't know if I agree about getting what we pay for.

 

People have never had to pay for prime channel news on their tv. Such as the ABC, PBS, CBS, Fox, NBC channel on rabbit ears. Are you (General you) saying that people who watch the 10 o'clock news deserve faux news or pseudo news? Though people aren't usually paying for those channels, those channels/websites get lots of funding via other means.

 

They didn't have to pay for them before the Internet either.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. I understood you. If journalists are not making sure their information is coming from credible sources, then who are they to whine about the general populace being taken by fake news?

 

Journalists make errors. Sure.

 

It is not just some error to not validate that their facts are indeed facts.

 

If they want to blame how fast they have to get the story out, even if it isn't actually a story, or blame that they just don't have the budget to validate their sources - then basicly they are useless and not much better than any other pseudo news source.

 

And that's what I'm referring to right there.

 

That can quickly turn into a reality where all news is faux news. Or at best, it certainly creates so much question about the reliability of it that it's hard to convince people to respect it.

 

That's simply not what I meant. I meant that even journalists don't have time to keep up with EVERYTHING without relying on other journalists. If you want to believe that all journalists, even at reputable media outlets are not bothering or purposefully refusing to fact check stories, then put that out as your opinion. Don't say that's what I meant and that you understood me. It's not what I meant or said.

 

ETA: My point was really the opposite. That many journalists do a good job. That we need them to do so. And that impugning the entire profession of journalism isn't useful. There is a problem with fake news. There is a problem with lazy journalism - and sometimes with underfunded journalism that is simply reporting what someone else said (relying on news releases, as someone said above - just saying, this company or government agency said they did this - without following up because they don't have the time or inclination). But I believe there are many sources that do fact check and do a good job. And that's the other end of the equation - don't read fake news, know how to evaluate bias... AND have sources you generally trust.

Edited by Farrar
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm. I'm not sure I can think of any source I particuliarly trust, which is not the same as thinking all of them are fake either.

 

Otherwise I think we are talking in circles around each other.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if I agree about getting what we pay for.

 

People have never had to pay for prime channel news on their tv. Such as the ABC, PBS, CBS, Fox, NBC channel on rabbit ears. Are you (General you) saying that people who watch the 10 o'clock news deserve faux news or pseudo news? Though people aren't usually paying for those channels, those channels/websites get lots of funding via other means.

 

They didn't have to pay for them before the Internet either.

 

 

Even for rabbit-ear advertising-sustained TV, the business models have morphed considerably since the days when I was a kid, prior to the invention of the clicker, when we had to actually sit through the commercials if we wanted to watch Murder She Wrote or the Love Boat or whatever.  And to your point (I think?), advertising-sustained models have always had their own associated issues.

 

 

But my larger concern is how changes in technology and business models have driven a consumer mindset that news should be free... and when quality journalism isn't free to produce (which it isn't), that will shift the distribution side of the legitimate news market toward clicks-and-bytes and the content side toward ever more, vastly cheaper, "sources" like politician call-ins, Tweets as press releases, and endless talking head regurgitations and ruminations of the above.  That kind of stuff -- which all the stations are increasingly reliant on -- isn't really news, it's just rehash of what public figures themselves originate for free.  

 

And it certainly isn't the quality investigative journalism that *I* would like to see... thus my newfound evangelism, lol, to exhort friends and family to reward the type of journalism we want to see, with our subscription dollars.  I do believe that in a more or less free market, with more or less free speech, what we reward with our dollars and clicks and eyeballs is what we should reasonably expect to see.  That's what I meant by we get what we pay for.

 

 

 

Not to mention how outright fabrication of wholly fake news has taken off as a highly profitable con job business as per the linked articles above.  I absolutely believe we all (general we) deserve better than that, though it's mighty hard to work out how to reduce the size of those sorts of con jobs without treading into very thin First Amendment ice.

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree about how we get what we pay for. And it's not just about what literally comes out of someone's pocket. It used to be that people watched the news and that advertising during the news was effective - and that's true with both the newspaper and television news. Now, viewership is so low. People find ways to skip the ads. So the budget goes down. And we are just as willing to click on, subscribe to, and watch "entertainment news" as we are to the real thing. Or even more so. So even when we're not moving our literal dollars, we're moving where the money goes. By not making a market for good news, for investigative journalism, by refusing to trust the journalists and sources who *are* trying, we're making the problem worse.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there is anyone else out there having conversations with your kids (or parents, spouses, neighbors, friends) about figuring out what is fake news, the link provides a very informative and user friendly guide from Indiana State University's Library on checking your news sources. 

 

I  :001_wub: librarians. 

 

Help! My News is Fake!

 

HTH

 

Well, with "Fake News Appeals to Emotion" and "Look for Bias" you might as well remove most of the mainstream media. 

 

Bias and Emotion are their stock in trade today.   I do agree you need to be able to find it in other sources, though.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I said that there were some specific incidents were a MSM outlet reported either unsubstatiated rumors or someone at the news site was fooled into thinking something like the Onion was a real news site.  

 

My last post was about the two articles that Hornblower provided a link to which one fake news poster described himself as a Democrat and the other one described himself as anti Trump though it wasn't clear whether he is a liberal or libertarian.  I am NOT saying that all liberals or libertarians post fake news.  I am merely pointing out that the idea that either Russia or the Trump organization itself put out these stories that were seen as anti Clinton seems not to be supported by these two articles which actually found the fake posters for some of the most popular fake political posts.  Obviously these guys were not putting out these posts for political reasons, even if the subject matter was politics.  They were and probably are putting out fake news for commercial reasons.  They make money on these posts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, the Washington Post apologized for saying that the future National Security Advisor tweeted out the pizzagate story.  It wasn't him.  It was his son.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One issue that the fake news proliferation has really driven home for me, is how changing business models within the media, combined with technology platforms, have created the circumstances for fake news to flourish... and how I have myself inadvertently fed those dynamics with my own behavior.

 

When I was just out of college and had a whole lot less disposable income than I do today, I bought a morning paper on my way to work and an evening paper on the way home; and subscribed to a handful of print magazines.  I spent more in absolute terms (let alone as a % of income) on news than I do today.

 

When news is obtainable online for free, it seems quite natural to expect it for free, and to balk at paywalls etc on the part of longstanding Pulitzer-winning news providers.  

 

Yet over the long haul we get what we pay for, with news just like anything else.  Investigative journalism costs; FOIA requests cost, reporters in the field cost.  The increasingly wide expectation that news should be free drives the whole sector toward call-in talking-head punditry over actual investigative work (on the cable side) and over to outright fabrication for clicks-for-pay (on the social media side, as per the linked articles above).

 

Which is why I'm asking for, and giving, paid subscriptions to a variety of quality sources, all points on the political spectrum, as gifts throughout the year ahead.

 

Oh, wow, that is a great idea.  My mom is so hard to buy for, I am going to see if there is something she would like along those lines.

 

I agree the paying for news thing is huge

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like it if the mainstream news sites adopted a low charge per story.  LIke a few cents.  I tend to read stories from a large variety of sources and would like to read even more but I am limited to number of stories per month.  I don't want to subscribe to so many news sources since I only read maybe a story from them every few days if I could.  I do subscribe to my newspaper but that is it in terms of current events. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if I agree about getting what we pay for.

 

People have never had to pay for prime channel news on their tv. Such as the ABC, PBS, CBS, Fox, NBC channel on rabbit ears. Are you (General you) saying that people who watch the 10 o'clock news deserve faux news or pseudo news? Though people aren't usually paying for those channels, those channels/websites get lots of funding via other means.

 

They didn't have to pay for them before the Internet either.

 

We paid for this stuff indirectly.

 

But even apart from that, TV news has never been considered quite "real" journalism in the same way as print or radio.  My jounalist grandfather (the old kind of journalist) despised tv news, and wen I was a student at a college with a journalism program, it was pretty much taken as obvious that tv news was where the dumb good-looking people went (unless you were doing war coverage.  But even then, it was considered less reliable in terms of bias and context.)

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I said that there were some specific incidents were a MSM outlet reported either unsubstatiated rumors or someone at the news site was fooled into thinking something like the Onion was a real news site.  

 

My last post was about the two articles that Hornblower provided a link to which one fake news poster described himself as a Democrat and the other one described himself as anti Trump though it wasn't clear whether he is a liberal or libertarian.  I am NOT saying that all liberals or libertarians post fake news.  I am merely pointing out that the idea that either Russia or the Trump organization itself put out these stories that were seen as anti Clinton seems not to be supported by these two articles which actually found the fake posters for some of the most popular fake political posts.  Obviously these guys were not putting out these posts for political reasons, even if the subject matter was politics.  They were and probably are putting out fake news for commercial reasons.  They make money on these posts.

 

Regarding Russia, they did have a part in it.  This article was interesting:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/02/politics/russia-fake-news-reality/

 

Watts says that, during the election campaign, three main groups traded in fake news: passionate Trump supporters; people out to make money by driving followers to their websites with "click bait" stories; and the Russian propaganda apparatus.

 

There is reference to a study done by this person investigating how Russia interfered.  The man is very reputable:

Watts, a fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute and senior fellow at the Center for Cyber and Homeland Security at George Washington University co-authored the study alongside two other researchers, Andrew Weisburd and J.M. Berger.

 

The people *producing* the fake news may have been commercial, but the group primarily forwarding and perpetuating (at least during this last election season) were the right wing.  Most of the fake news during this time was anti-Hillary or anti-Democrat because that is where they made the money.  

 

If we (societal we) want to stop this at all, more people have to start fact-checking their sources before blowing these things up virally.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, wow, that is a great idea.  My mom is so hard to buy for, I am going to see if there is something she would like along those lines.

 

I agree the paying for news thing is huge

 

NYT and WaPo have both seen a nice bump in subscription rates since the election. And ProPublica, which does amazing work, has gotten a huge landslide of donations. I think people especially need to subscribe to decent local papers in mid-market areas. So, like the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel or the Raleigh News and Observer or the Baltimore Sun, etc. etc. Lots of mid-market papers are trying to do good work and they're suffering even more than the LA Times or the NYT or the Chicago Tribune or some of the biggest name papers.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NYT and WaPo have both seen a nice bump in subscription rates since the election. And ProPublica, which does amazing work, has gotten a huge landslide of donations. I think people especially need to subscribe to decent local papers in mid-market areas. So, like the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel or the Raleigh News and Observer or the Baltimore Sun, etc. etc. Lots of mid-market papers are trying to do good work and they're suffering even more than the LA Times or the NYT or the Chicago Tribune or some of the biggest name papers.

 

I'm thinking something Canadian and independant.  I'm not sure if I can find anything local, but that would be nice.

 

OUr local paper is in a huge labour dispute now, and my parents actually canceled it and subscribe to the website the employees set up.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm thinking something Canadian and independant.  I'm not sure if I can find anything local, but that would be nice.

 

OUr local paper is in a huge labour dispute now, and my parents actually canceled it and subscribe to the website the employees set up.

 

 

Wow.  The employees set up a website distinct from the content of the paper?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We paid for this stuff indirectly.

 

But even apart from that, TV news has never been considered quite "real" journalism in the same way as print or radio. My jounalist grandfather (the old kind of journalist) despised tv news, and wen I was a student at a college with a journalism program, it was pretty much taken as obvious that tv news was where the dumb good-looking people went (unless you were doing war coverage. But even then, it was considered less reliable in terms of bias and context.)

Dan Rather and Cronkite were dumb good-looking not real journalist?

 

Print and radio were not really more reliable so much as more in depth bc they weren't as time restricted.

 

War of the Worlds was on radio and caused some panic bc people thought it was real news.

 

And it's not news that journalists ego trip that they are better or more "real" journalists other forms of journalism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow.  The employees set up a website distinct from the content of the paper?

Yup.  They were locked out, and the managers have been running the paper alone for over a year now.  A while ago the employees set up a website for their own news content.  It's a lot better than what the paper was producing, even before the lock-out.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the site:

 

I was referring to category three. If the story is accurate, using an alarmist title does not suddenly change it to "fake".

Although, thinking about is some more, if you see an article with a sensational headline, it does seem obvious to do a little research to verify it is valid.

 

An aside about those click-bait sites, which are not in any way limited to news. 

 

I HATE those and always hit "see less from" those sites.

If you have one sentence to say and you think I am going to click through 20 pages of ads to get there, you are nuts.    There is this one site, "little things" or something that that  that is a major offender.  I literally clicked though and counted and the video it linked to was on page 11.

 

One of my personal pet peeves.  Talk about your false advertising. If it looks like you are going to see a video here, and you don't see it for 11 pages, the site should be shut down. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like it if the mainstream news sites adopted a low charge per story.  LIke a few cents.  I tend to read stories from a large variety of sources and would like to read even more but I am limited to number of stories per month.  I don't want to subscribe to so many news sources since I only read maybe a story from them every few days if I could.  I do subscribe to my newspaper but that is it in terms of current events. 

 

Wow, really?  You want to limit the news to only people who have and are willing to link their credit cards everywhere?

 

That would reduce the number of lower income people who have access to news.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dan Rather and Cronkite were dumb good-looking not real journalist?

 

Print and radio were not really more reliable so much as more in depth bc they weren't as time restricted.

 

War of the Worlds was on radio and caused some panic bc people thought it was real news.

 

And it's not news that journalists ego trip that they are better or more "real" journalists other forms of journalism.

 

No, not all tv news people are in fact stupid.  Students can be a little unforgiving, at times.  But it is true that the majority of those really interested in producing serious in depth content tended to avoid tv, or combine it with other media.  And you don't see a lot of ugly people in television, the Rex Murphys of the world notwithstanding.

 

The time constraint is a big thing, but it creates issues with reliability, or coverage - the news can't be as good not only because each peice isn't as in depth, but because as many stories can't be covered (who chooses which) and because it is so picture driven.  All together, it's much easier to get biased and one-sided news, because that is the effect of a surface treatment of a few topics chosen for their freshness and how well they play, and look, in a short news clip.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding Russia, they did have a part in it.  This article was interesting:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/02/politics/russia-fake-news-reality/

 

Watts says that, during the election campaign, three main groups traded in fake news: passionate Trump supporters; people out to make money by driving followers to their websites with "click bait" stories; and the Russian propaganda apparatus.

 

There is reference to a study done by this person investigating how Russia interfered.  The man is very reputable:

Watts, a fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute and senior fellow at the Center for Cyber and Homeland Security at George Washington University co-authored the study alongside two other researchers, Andrew Weisburd and J.M. Berger.

 

The people *producing* the fake news may have been commercial, but the group primarily forwarding and perpetuating (at least during this last election season) were the right wing.  Most of the fake news during this time was anti-Hillary or anti-Democrat because that is where they made the money.  

 

If we (societal we) want to stop this at all, more people have to start fact-checking their sources before blowing these things up virally.  

 

I read that CNN story.  It cites the IMO discredited PropOrNot study which is anonymous, and you can't tell who is spreading that news.  I am supposed to trust anonymous sources?  

The second study was conducted by an anonymous, self-described "non-partisan collection of researchers with foreign policy, military and technology backgrounds" who call themselves PropOrNot.
THat is the one that was reported in the Washington Post and has had such a strong backblow.   One named newsite is suing.  It seemed to name any website that ever had any link from anti government viewpoint.  Lots of people are mad at the government including libertarians, conservatives, liberals, and green party activists.  Just about everybody thinks that something the government is doing is wrong. 
Then as I earlier posted, Washington Post reported the fake news that Gen, Michael Ryan spread the pizzagate story.  Then they had to apologize because he never did that.  He had posted a story about Anthony Weiner investigation which is NOT a fake story. The FBI is investigating him on possible charges of sexual misconduct with a minor over the internet.
 
As to who spread these stories- I have seen them on one news site where people post but they were removed fairly promptly.  I think maybe one of my friends shared a story or two but she is already known to share fake medical news, fake agricultural news, etc,.  Then the most common way I saw them was on facebook with suggested posts.  I never shared them.  I tend not to share political stuff- I share cool bird pictures and beautiful pictures of the ocean.  I share astronomy news or occasional medical news about immunology (from a reputable site).  I sometimes share something funny (and can't help it if someone believes it is true).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, really? You want to limit the news to only people who have and are willing to link their credit cards everywhere?

 

That would reduce the number of lower income people who have access to news.

Not to mention most news isn't worth even a few cents...

 

And if I'm paying for it? I better not see even one ad or click bait or whatever.

 

As it is, I wish even the free sites would comprehend that their choice and quantity of advertisers is bad for them. I hide more site sources for their crappy ads and pop ups all over the page regardless of news content. And it's a problem on all news sources as far as I can tell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, really?  You want to limit the news to only people who have and are willing to link their credit cards everywhere?

 

That would reduce the number of lower income people who have access to news.

 

Many news sites already limit who can see their content.  Only subscribers currently can see more than x articles per month or week.  Some limit all content.  I am talking about an alternative to annual or monthly subscription.  Pay per article.  I would not mind doing that for the extra articles I want to read.  TV news sites don't limit the amount you can see or read.  Someone with out a credit card can go to those sites.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many news sites already limit who can see their content. Only subscribers currently can see more than x articles per month or week. Some limit all content. I am talking about an alternative to annual or monthly subscription. Pay per article. I would not mind doing that for the extra articles I want to read. TV news sites don't limit the amount you can see or read. Someone with out a credit card can go to those sites.

If those are good enough news sources for the poor folks to use then why do you care what other sources offer for free or fee? And if those sites are really not any good, then why would you purposely advocate they be the only source poor folks can access?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone has to pay. Journalists are not going to work for free and nor should they. And good investigative work takes more time and money. Murphy, you do understand that in order to get better content, we have to somehow pay for it, either through advertising or directly paying. I hate that that means that it limits who can get it to some extent, but unless we're going to socialize the newspaper industry, I don't know what choice we have in the real world. And that's part of why we have institutions like libraries, and why sites give some content away.

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many news sites already limit who can see their content.  Only subscribers currently can see more than x articles per month or week.  Some limit all content.  I am talking about an alternative to annual or monthly subscription.  Pay per article.  I would not mind doing that for the extra articles I want to read.  TV news sites don't limit the amount you can see or read.  Someone with out a credit card can go to those sites.

I know they are.   It's seriously annoying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to mention most news isn't worth even a few cents...

 

And if I'm paying for it? I better not see even one ad or click bait or whatever.

 

As it is, I wish even the free sites would comprehend that their choice and quantity of advertisers is bad for them. I hide more site sources for their crappy ads and pop ups all over the page regardless of news content. And it's a problem on all news sources as far as I can tell.

 

Exactly.  They are getting paid by their freaking annoying commercials in any media.

 

There is a station which consistently runs movies in 4 or 5 hour time slots, yet when you look at the running time, it is quite normal. Last weekend, I was attempting to watch a movie that ran for 4.5 hours.  It was a good movie, but it just wasn't worth it to watch 136 minutes of content!

 

So they lost me and lost advertising to me.  I recorded it and we shall watch the last hour with the stupid commercials cut out.

 

I have a thing where I mentally note who won't let me fast forward during On Demand.  I either don't watch the show at all (because I'm paying extra for this), or I take mental note never ever to buy from that company.  Not very difficult actually, as only mostly entirely unnecessary things are advertised.  When is the last time you saw a commercial for vegetables? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many news sites already limit who can see their content.  Only subscribers currently can see more than x articles per month or week.  Some limit all content.  I am talking about an alternative to annual or monthly subscription.  Pay per article.  I would not mind doing that for the extra articles I want to read.  TV news sites don't limit the amount you can see or read.  Someone with out a credit card can go to those sites.

 

Sure, if you have a TV and can pay for cable, or can find some rabbit ears so you can get a channel or two. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Radio still exists. Thankfully. Good radio, even.

 

Radio is a good choice for when you can't subscribe to newspapers due to cost, but you don't want to rely on TV news. 

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone has to pay. Journalists are not going to work for free and nor should they. And good investigative work takes more time and money. Murphy, you do understand that in order to get better content, we have to somehow pay for it, either through advertising or directly paying. I hate that that means that it limits who can get it to some extent, but unless we're going to socialize the newspaper industry, I don't know what choice we have in the real world. And that's part of why we have institutions like libraries, and why sites give some content away.

Oh good grief.

 

I never said I expect anyone to work for free. None of them are. Rather and Cronkite didn't work for free either.

 

You can't have it both ways of

 

Oh no this free news sites are bias crap

 

And also

 

Oh those same site are good enough for the poor masses.

 

I see little evidence that making big money is any assurance of better quality news. If anything, it might be the opposite. Generating what gets heavy hits instead of reporting the news because it's news.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Radio still exists. Thankfully. Good radio, even.

 

Radio is a good choice for when you can't subscribe to newspapers due to cost, but you don't want to rely on TV news.

Do people still buy radios? I admit the only radio in my entire house is an emergency battery one and one connected to the house decades old intercom system. The only radio I ever listen to is in the van. But I'm the only person who does. Everyone else I know has satellite radio subscriptions in their cars and or listen to stuff like pandora for free wherever they are.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do people still buy radios? I admit the only radio in my entire house is an emergency battery one and one connected to the house decades old intercom system. The only radio I ever listen to is in the van. But I'm the only person who does. Everyone else I know has satellite radio subscriptions in their cars and or listen to stuff like pandora for free wherever they are.

 

Well, you can stream radio. So you don't need to listen to radio content on a transistor.

 

And yes, you can still buy radios.

 

 

 

 

Edited by StellaM
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, you can stream radio.

 

But yes, digital radios are a thing.

I wasn't even thinking digital. My house intercom radio thingy was put in when the house was built in 1980 and it works. Sorta. It can be static-y and I have to slap the wall next to it for it to come on sometimes but that's the nature of analog radio. Or electronics in general. It's amazing how often a good thump upside the device makes it work.

 

There's a difference between something still existing and something commonly used. I was wondering if there's very many people who actually use radios in general to begin with these days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't even thinking digital. My house intercom radio thingy was put in when the house was built in 1980 and it works. Sorta. It can be static-y and I have to slap the wall next to it for it to come on sometimes but that's the nature of analog radio. Or electronics in general. It's amazing how often a good thump upside the device makes it work.

 

There's a difference between something still existing and something commonly used. I was wondering if there's very many people who actually use radios in general to begin with these days.

 

Audio consumption (no matter on which device its listened to on) actually is increasing.

 

http://www.journalism.org/2016/06/15/audio-fact-sheet/

 

I think only older people are using transistors to listen (I still do).

 

It's just a third option for quality news; it gets forgotten.

Edited by StellaM
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Audio consumption (no matter on which device its listened to on) actually is increasing.

 

http://www.journalism.org/2016/06/15/audio-fact-sheet/

 

I think only older people are using transistors to listen (I still do).

 

It's just a third option for quality news; it gets forgotten.

I listen to radio news in the car. Mostly BBC international news.

 

I think most cars still have radios.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think free is the problem.

 

I think trying to use the news to shape an overall narrative is a problem. "Fake but accurate" was a term coined long before this election.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An aside about those click-bait sites, which are not in any way limited to news. 

 

I HATE those and always hit "see less from" those sites.

If you have one sentence to say and you think I am going to click through 20 pages of ads to get there, you are nuts.    There is this one site, "little things" or something that that  that is a major offender.  I literally clicked though and counted and the video it linked to was on page 11.

 

One of my personal pet peeves.  Talk about your false advertising. If it looks like you are going to see a video here, and you don't see it for 11 pages, the site should be shut down. 

 

I HATE THAT.  Even on regular websites, why is everything a slide show, or multipage for no purpose?  One website with animal stories is like that, short stories over several pages.  I keep thinking, no, I will not go there... but then, kitties.  :glare:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would gladly pay something for better researched stories.  That someone doesn't have a credit card or can't afford it or doesn't have tv or no internet or whatever lack of info they have should not mean that those who do have internet, and a way to pay can't get relatively affordable news.  I think charging small amounts per story who help fund journalism.  I bet that there are others like me who would prefer actually informative stories.  I do get these to some extent from my local paper but it has gone down in quality since I started subscribing in 2011.  But I might like to read several stories on Wall Street Journal and a few on NYT and several on the Chicago Tribune and several on Washington Post, etc, etc.  A number of those sites have pay walls.  I am suggesting pay per article versus paying for a subscription.  THe subscriptions aren't cheap and if you read many source, as I do, getting numerous subscriptions would be very expensive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wrt paying for good journalism, that strikes me as something public libraries are well designed to do. Our libraries have large banks of computers for people who may not have computer access at home & institutional subscriptions to various media. 

of course you do need a strong sense of community & civics to provide access to these resources & make them available to everyone regardless of income.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am curious what the term 'mainstream media' means to people. I keep seeing it bandied about in ways that equate almost everything out there... CNN, NPR, NYT, WaPo, etc... etc... to me those are all very different entities. What does it mean to you, whoever reads this next? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am curious what the term 'mainstream media' means to people. I keep seeing it bandied about in ways that equate almost everything out there... CNN, NPR, NYT, WaPo, etc... etc... to me those are all very different entities. What does it mean to you, whoever reads this next? :)

 

I hear Fox News use it in reference to all others. When conservatives use it, it seems to apply to anything they don't like.  Personally I think of all the media out there generally considered somewhat reliable and serious, even if biased.  I consider Fox News part of it.

 

ETA, I keep seeing that Fox is one of the most watched cable news networks.  How is that not mainstream?

Edited by goldberry
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't even thinking digital. My house intercom radio thingy was put in when the house was built in 1980 and it works. Sorta. It can be static-y and I have to slap the wall next to it for it to come on sometimes but that's the nature of analog radio. Or electronics in general. It's amazing how often a good thump upside the device makes it work.

 

There's a difference between something still existing and something commonly used. I was wondering if there's very many people who actually use radios in general to begin with these days.

 

Me me me! I am a total radio junkie and until not too long ago had my trusty radio in the kitchen. When it died, I realized I could stream the same thing with much better sound, so now I listen to streamed radio and/or podcasts pretty much non-stop if I am doing something mindless. (Like my job, lol....)

 

Answering someone else about the cost, etc:

It could be free, for the most part, but I am a supporter of my local NPR radio station by choice. The local right leaning talk station I get for free on the radio in the car. (They have ads and don't fundraise.)

 

All of the podcasts I stream are free: The political ones in my rotation right now are Charlie Sykes, Slate's Trumpcast, a local news/political talk show, Ricochet, David Gregory, The American Interest, and NPR Politics Podcast. Just so you don't think I am nuts they aren't published daily.... most are weekly or twice a week. Charlie Sykes is daily but he talks about football and strictly Wisconsin stuff quite a bit which I can ff through, but he is retiring soon. I need another right leaning political journalism podcast, if anyone has a suggestion. (For anyone looking for free podcasts, I also enjoy Harry Potter and the Sacred Text, Tiny Desk Concerts, Star Talk Radio, and West Wing Weekly.) I also really like The DMZ on bloggingheads.tv.

 

Basically I think it's my responsibility to check around and vet my sources. If I hear a story beat to death from the right and don't hear anyone talking about it on the left or vice-versa, I start looking around to see what the heck is going on. I assume I have massive amounts of confirmation bias and do my best to combat it by really trying to listen to more than one opinion... and not just to disagree with it in my mind, either. :oD If someone is a screamer or just demonizes or blasts people they are off my list. I only have so many work hours to fill, lol.

 

Definitely going to do what other people have mentioned and am asking for 2 subscriptions for Christmas: my local paper and Digital NYT. Would love it in print for the crossword but I am out of money. Still haven't decided on a right leaning source. I am open to suggestions.

 

This got rambly..... who am I even talking to? Are you guys real or fake? :oD

Edited by Jen in NY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh good grief.

 

I never said I expect anyone to work for free. None of them are. Rather and Cronkite didn't work for free either.

 

You can't have it both ways of

 

Oh no this free news sites are bias crap

 

And also

 

Oh those same site are good enough for the poor masses.

 

I see little evidence that making big money is any assurance of better quality news. If anything, it might be the opposite. Generating what gets heavy hits instead of reporting the news because it's news.

 

It doesn't have to be big money.  But if you want journalists to do more than manage press releases, you need to be able to pay them for their time.

 

People wanting to make big money have compromized news by creating huge media monopolies, and lack or regulation is a big factor there.  I think that's been a huge factor in making people blase about the proper role of the media.  But web news being offered for free has taken that further by creating a situation where people don't even support their local media because they won't pay even a small amount for a local paper. 

 

Journalists cannot make enough to live writing web content - it just pays too little.  And it doesn't in any way offer enough for someone do do real journalism even if they wanted to - that takes time and they would be making cents for their time, and web writing won't pay expenses for that.

 

So, you get retreaded news from a new huge news conglomerations, bits cobbled together from twwets and FB and Wikipedia research.

 

If substantial journalism is going to happen, it needs someone to fund it - especially if it is going to avoid being at the mercy of large advertisers.

 

It's worthwhile to note too that most people who produce and publish blogs and web content have no commitment to observing journalistic ethics.  Things that would get someone fired lickety-split from the CBC or BBC, like profiting from one's position by accepting other business agreements, or money from sponsors, happen all the time in web news and blogs - blogging seminars even promote these as good ways to make a living blogging.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we need to clarify here. A place like CNN or whatever accidentally attributing a tweet to Michael Flynn Sr vs Michael Flynn Jr, then acknowledging the mistake publicly and correcting it is NOT fake news. 

 

Making up a story that a political candidate and her husband, a former president, are running an occult child sex slave ring out of a pizza parlor, and using said children in satanic rituals to curse the country, THAT is fake news. 

 

One is a mistake, one is outright lying. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...