Implementing the Ministry of Truth: the "fake news" scare

[SKL]

He described the thinking like this: “There’s no way for me to know what is objectively true, so we’ll stick to our guns and our own evidence. We’ll ignore the facts because nobody knows what’s really true anyway.â€

 

Right, this is because of irresponsible journalism by the people who get paid the big bucks.  What do people expect?

 

I'd love it if I could do my own investigating rather than have to figure out who is least likely to feed me BS today.  But that's not a possibility.

 

If I were a journalist, I'd be very sad that people feel unable to get the news despite so many active and highly paid journalists out working every day.

 

Honestly, do you think they collude to not expose each other's poor practices?  I mean if MSNBC commits bad journalism on an important news story, you would think CNN would see an opportunity, point it out, and report the truth.  I don't see that happening.  Sometimes the stories are not identical, but I never see them saying "what was reported over there is inaccurate."  Even when it would be important for Americans to know.

[TranquilMind]

THANK. YOU.

 

Fake news has been a thing since forever. (National Enquirer, anyone?) I'm gobsmacked by the recent attempts to advocate censorship and curtail the First Amendment. Is this still the United States of America, or not?

 

Laughing at the remembrance of the headlines on the National Enquirer in the 70's, while standing in line at the grocery store.  We had more faith in people in those days and knew they could generally discern truth from craziness. 

Now, in a nanny state, we don't.  That's a huge loss. 

[SKL]

There was talk of Trump bringing it back.

 

Obama has not said that.

 

I had heard that Clinton would have tried to bring it back if she got elected.

 

I don't know whether Obama has said that or not, but I know he often puts down certain information outlets by name.  And I'm not talking about Veritas.

[redsquirrel]

I had heard that Clinton would have tried to bring it back if she got elected.

 

I don't know whether Obama has said that or not, but I know he often puts down certain information outlets by name.  And I'm not talking about Veritas.

 

"had heard' where? By who? Do you have a quote of her saying this? That is just too vague to take seriously. Again, being specific is necessary. 

 

[SKL]

Could I respectfully suggest something?  For those on the left, instead of just pronouncing that a news source is fake or Russian controlled, could we examine some individually with references to good sources.  The tone of condescension and impatience isn't helpful for any of us.  I'd like to see a break down on Zero Hedge and Project Veritas if possible as I am not familiar with them.  On the flip side, Vida Winter, what is it about these sites that make you trust them. Does it go beyond them saying only what you want to hear. I am assuming it does.

 

Maybe we should all be talking about what a good news source looks like.  I've done this with my kids for years and what I taught them was based on what I learned as a journalism undergraduate and then on staff at an alternative newsweekly.  We are shredding the mainstream media and lambasting individual journalists, but I still respect those who are competent at their jobs. What I remember from J school and the paper are people who were passionate about the truth. You can roll your eyes all you want, but at that point in time, it wasn't easy to make a living let alone make it big by being a journalist. People did so because of strongly held sense of justice and a belief in the public's right to know what was happening in their communities.

.

 

Genuine comment: I would be interested to know which individual journalists you consider to be competent and reasonably reliable today.  I am sure there are many out there.

[SKL]

 

It wasn't a law. It was an FCC regulation. That is a big difference.

 

A regulation is a law.

 

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

No. Being batshit is why some dude did that.

Yes but IMHO there are a lot of normal folks who believe fake news. :sad:

Edited December 7, 2016 by NoPlaceLikeHome

[TranquilMind]

It's only a bizarre and senseless thing to do if you understand there are no children in the non-existent basement. If you are convinced they are there by various people whose aim is to mislead you, then your actions become heroic and self-sacrificing and not the least bit bizarre.

 

You are mistaken.  There IS a basement.  Alefantis, the Pizza place owner, said so in two separate interviews prior, while discussing purchasing tomatoes and where he stores the sauce.

 

Just correcting that misunderstanding. 

 

Edited December 7, 2016 by TranquilMind

[Tanaqui]

The media is powerful and they have abused that power. The vast majority pushed agendas during the election when they should have simply been reporting. There is no more trust. Now we each need to decide who to believe or not to believe.

 

Citation needed.

 

[TranquilMind]

I never agreed to that.

 

Lying is not illegal.

 

Slander is.

Libel is.

Incite to riot is. (For example, we can't scream fire in a theatre or bomb in a plane without getting in deep doodoo for it.)

 

But even so, there's nothing stopping people from committing those acts. They just have to risk facing their day in court and the possible results of that day. They can't close down your business because yesterday you said or wrote something someone else thinks is slander or libel or a lie.

 

Where is the due process to this suppression? What qualifies as worthy of being suppressed out if hand without that due process? What other forms of expression shall we decide might as well be included in that proactive suppression? And who decides what and who should be suppressed?

Back to the only relevant question:  Who decides? 

 

[redsquirrel]

A regulation is a law.

 

 

 A regulation doesn't have to go through the same process as a bill.  Federal agencies are largely unregulated and can make regulations with very few, if any, checks.  I would describe agencies as having vast unchecked powers. Regulations are not the same as laws. If you are concerned about government intrusion and overstepping, agencies and regulation is usually the more concerning.

[Charlie]

The media is powerful and they have abused that power. The vast majority pushed agendas during the election when they should have simply been reporting. There is no more trust. Now we each need to decide who to believe or not to believe.

 

While I sympathize with you here, I'm not sure I would go so far as to say the media has abused their power. See, here's how I think of it. The media functions to make a profit. Most media made a profit by accurately and reliably reporting local and national events - news. Some made a profit by making up ridiculous stuff. We could easily recognize those on the newsstand, and called them "tabloids." I feel like media no more abused power than Walmart abused power by becoming more successful than mom and pop shops. They did what they were designed to do, and they did it so well their competitors had a hard time keeping up. Some, like Target, offered an alternative and did so successfully. Same thing happened with journalism, I'm guessing. The method that makes the best profit is most attractive to those looking for profit. Next thing you know, just like Walmarts and Targets are popping up everywhere, conspiracy theory and fake news and sloppy news sources are popping up. They make a good profit. They're building a better mousetrap, right?

 

But I'm struggling with the concept of abusing power. If anything, I think the take-home message is "Buyer beware," and sadly, the buyers who are more readily emotionally manipulated don't know they're in danger of being taken advantage of. People find "comfort" in the same source that alerted them to this unknown danger in the first place, and now with the internet, that information is a fingertip away. This isn't about power, imo, it's about critical thinking skills, knowing the difference between fact and opinion, recognizing logical fallacies, personal biases (our own included), when claims are based on evidence vs. when they are accepted as true regardless of the lack of evidence, and indeed what really counts as "evidence" in the first place. In short, we need to be aware as consumers of information. There are ways of doing that, but often our human nature fights against it. We are by nature superstitious thinkers, ready to respond to emotional cues first, which is why I'm guessing scary stories like the OP's sells best.

Edited December 7, 2016 by Charlie

[TranquilMind]

Sigh. Because it's okay for a bakery to not sell wedding cakes if they don't want to. It's not okay for them to pick and choose who they sell the wedding cakes to. 

 

That was never about "who".  It was only about "for what purpose".

 

Same reasoning that would allow one to decline baked goods with inappropriate images or slogans. 

 

[Tanaqui]

Oh, well, here we go again. Allow me to sum up the next 20 pages on this topic:

 

One Side - "We're right and here's the same three tired old arguments to prove it!"

The other side - "No, you're wrong, and our vastly superior arguments prove it!"

First Side - "Nuh-uh!"

Second Side - "Uh-huh! Also, you smell!"

First Side - "I'm rubber and you're glue!"

 

Moderators: Okay, let's lock this thread because you can't play nicely.

 

There, now that I've neatly summed up The Cake Wars, maybe we can skip this round. It is soooooo boring, guys. Can we please not go there for a change? Pretty please with a cherry on top?

[Serenade]

That's why I read more than one. I have a degree in journalism.

So do I. UNC grad. :-)

[Tanaqui]

On the original topic, some people upthread were talking about how ridiculous that Fox News tries to position itself as an alternative to "mainstream media".

 

(For the record, Media Bias Fact Check lists Fox News as having a right wing bias. This puts them at about the same level of bias as Huffington Post, and you can view the methodology used to determine this here. That does not mean that every single news story each of them puts out is inaccurate! It does mean you want to check with another source before you take their news - and especially their opinion pieces - as accurate.)

 

Here is an interesting article on about that same topic: Faking a Mandate The Republican Creation of a Majority That Does Not Exist

 

Now, yes, that definitely is an opinion piece from a more progressive point of view. However, even if you're on the complete other side of the fence you might want to read it because the historical information is really interesting. I'll quote a portion:

 

In 1903 the Marxist Russian Social Democratic Labor Party broke into two competing factions, as often happens with such movements. This was a bit confusing for everyone, so in an effort to delineate between the two factions people starting calling one the “hard†faction and the other the “soft†faction. Vladimir Ilyich Lenin didn’t find that very useful however, particularly since he was leading the faction being called hard. So in a ballsy propaganda move he told everyone to refer to his own faction as the “Bolsheviks,†from the Russian word for majority. In essence, Lenin was telling people to call his faction the “majoritarians.†And while he was at it he named the other faction “Mensheviks,†which of course means “minoritarians.† As you may have already guessed Lenin’s faction was not really the majority. The “Mensheviks†were actually the majority as often as not, and pretty much everyone knew it. Lenin didn’t consider that a problem however. On the contrary, it was exactly the reason he came up with the names. And it worked, because people quickly began to use his new names. Astonishingly, even the “Mensheviks†used the new names!

 

I'm sure you've heard in the past about the "Big Lie" technique. If you repeat something often enough, people start to believe it. Even trying to debunk the lie gives it more credibility - "where there's smoke, there's fire!"

 

If Fox News keeps positioning itself as the bold alternative to mainstream media, the message their watchers are absorbing is this:  There's something wrong with mainstream media. They're the ones who are being better informed. They're smart enough to see through the lies.

 

None of this has to be true to influence their thinking.

[SKL]

 A regulation doesn't have to go through the same process as a bill.  Federal agencies are largely unregulated and can make regulations with very few, if any, checks.  I would describe agencies as having vast unchecked powers. Regulations are not the same as laws. If you are concerned about government intrusion and overstepping, agencies and regulation is usually the more concerning.

 

It's the same thing as far as constitutionality is concerned.

 

Law includes the Constitution, legislated laws, regulations, court decisions, and probably other stuff too.

 

Think of how the religion part of the First Amendment is invoked when a school allows a kid to say a prayer at a graduation.  Somehow that is treated as "Congress making a law establishing a religion."  If you think the first amendment only applies to laws voted in by Congress, think again.

Edited December 7, 2016 by SKL

[redsquirrel]

where in the constitution are federal agencies and their regulations mentioned?

 

This is only important because, as I mentioned upthread, a regulation doesn't have the same scrutiny as a bill. Therefor, if someone is "talking about" bringing something back via the FCC it is important to be able to verify that it is actually going to happen

Edited December 7, 2016 by redsquirrel

[ktgrok]

For the person asking about Veritas, several citations were already given. 

[hornblower]

Quote

I won’t jump the gun and assume something nefarious is happening. But I will say that IF it is happening, I would regard it as treason. If one political party can use the machinery of social networks to reduce free speech, that is an attack on American values at the deepest level. As a patriot, I would feel obligated to help kill Twitter. (And you wouldn’t want to bet against me.)

 

 

That isn't remotely rational.

Slartibartfast - who made that comment that you quoted?  It stripped the name & I can't trace back to the original post...

[Charlie]

 

Quote

 

Slartibartfast - who made that comment that you quoted?  It stripped the name & I can't trace back to the original post...

 

 

Scott Adams

[swimmermom3]

Conservatives have been complaining about dishonesty in journalism for a long time, but it's more of a quality complaint than a suggestion for censorship.  We wouldn't mind if some of the networks died due to loss of popularity, but we're not trying to curtail their freedom of speech.  The fact is that all consumers of news need to be skeptical; that's just the way things are.  Skepticism is a life skill.  Not just in this context but in many others.  There is no need to "protect" people from BS news on the internet.

 

Many of us who are increasingly disappointed with the "journalistic" options out there are hopeful that some new players will arise, offering more integrity and more relevance.  I am doubtful they can do this if there is a movement to effectively shut down anyone who isn't an established outlet AKA mainstream media.  We can't very well reject MSM if that's all there is.  But that is not satisfactory to a democracy.

 

I would ask, who is behind this movement?  Who is funding it?  What are the real motivations?

 

To the first point in bold, this is definitely a valid concern if the "dishonesty" is truly a documented misrepresentation of facts on a repeated basis versus the information offered doesn't conform with one's worldview.

 

Ideally, a "good," balanced source isn't always going to jive with all of your viewpoints. If it does, you are in the echo chamber and it's not a balanced source.

 

SKL, it would be fantastic if there were some new players that offered more integrity (real integrity, not just saying what we all want to hear) and more relevance.  It takes a lot of money to do quality journalism. Do you think you could get someone new with those kinds of resources that wouldn't have an agenda?  Even if you could, do you think we the American people would read it?  This is my worry.

 

Instead of sitting down and watching the evening news delivered in measured tones and civility, we are addicted to adrenaline-pumping sound bites that have us in a perpetual state of rage or terror.  We love the rush.

 

[Bluegoat]

I do understand what you're saying & I do share your concern. 

 

I think this is a HUGE problem. 

 

But the fact is that private companies already make rules - when it comes to search & how search engines work.

 

Search engine algorithms are not natural, kwim?  They're not bound by laws of nature. They're manufactured. They're coded to certain parameters. Some team of coders decided that this is how a search engine should work, this is what results it should give. 

 

What those parameters are, and  how they're being exploited by people for their own ends is the issue. 

 

 

I think we (citizens of western democracies) urgently need a crash course on search engines, data & information. Many people still don't know that their search history influences their search results. They're 'in a bubble' because they stay signed in, never clear their cookies or cache & when they search, their engines just give them more of what they had before. If you like looking at natural health remedies when you search for a symptom, you'll get increasingly more natural health sites. 

 

That's one huge issue with search engines.  Do you want search engines to tailor their results, to give you customized 'relevant' results? Or should they give the same results to everyone? 

 

 

And again, the bigger issue now is not that we as individuals are getting targetted results. It's that large computer programs are running to try to out manipulate the existing google parameters and get certain pages or sites to be returned on the main page when people search for certain terms.  

 

Should google take steps to prevent such manipulation of its algorithms? 

 

 

 

:iagree: 

 

This is so important.

 

Google is not like a researcher or a library or a database that keeps track of things, purposefully, in an organized topical kind of way.

 

It's intended to give people the kind of results they are looking for, within more information than could ever be catalogued properly.  That is why people like it better than tools that would give them more unbiased results.  It is meant to give you what you are probably looking for - sometimes even what you really want vs what you think you want.

 

This is not a bad thing, it can be really useful.  When I use google now, it weighs things for results on the east coast of Canada, whereas I used to have to filter that specifically.  It makes life easy.

 

But if I think it will expose me to an unbiased selection of information, I am barking up the wrong tree.

 

Google has always been under pressure to try and weed out junk sites.  If I am looking for info on the moon landing, I probably don't want junk conspiracy sites. 

 

It's a major part of understanding how to evaluate information.  And it goes to show, I think, that more information doesn't always mean more knowledge.

[SKL]

where in the constitution are federal agencies and their regulations mentioned?

 

If you do not believe they are included in the "Congress shall make no law," then you should study up on Constitutional Law.

 

With respect to regulations, generally Congress creates the regulatory entity and basic laws, and gives the entity powers to create regulations to carry out its purpose.  For example, in tax law, the Code is enacted by Congress.  The much more voluminous Regulations are not enacted by Congress, but they are still Law.  If Congress does not like the Regulations, Congress has powers to change them by enacting or repealing legislation (within the limits of the Constitution of course).

[redsquirrel]

If you do not believe they are included in the "Congress shall make no law," then you should study up on Constitutional Law.

 

With respect to regulations, generally Congress creates the regulatory entity and basic laws, and gives the entity powers to create regulations to carry out its purpose.  For example, in tax law, the Code is enacted by Congress.  The much more voluminous Regulations are not enacted by Congress, but they are still Law.  If Congress does not like the Regulations, Congress has powers to change them by enacting or repealing legislation (within the limits of the Constitution of course).

 

I actually know and understand all of that.  I promise. I'm just more naturally suspicious of regulations than a law that goes through the normal process.  I'm not thinking the legislative process is all sweetness and light either, don't get me wrong. I just see the regulatory process as having much less transparency. And congress can instruct the agency to get rid of the regulation (as with the fair use doctrine) but the agency can take it's own sweet time in doing so.

 

[SKL]

Yeah, I don't know about you, but "saying what I want to hear" is not what I want from a serious news organization.  I am fine with people chatting laughing and inevitably getting excited and defensive about "my side," but that is not the appropriate role of the serious news outlets IMO.  That said, as long as that is the role they've chosen, many views need to be represented in order to have some hope of hearing the truth.

[Bluegoat]

You seem to be using a rather idiosyncratic definition of "crazy". Unless I'm the only one who considers "crazy" and "severely mentally ill" to be synonyms.

 

Nah, I'd use crazy that way.  I have a great aunt, for example, who comes up with and believes a lot of crazy stuff.  She isn't severly mentally ill.  She's probably done some weird things to her brain with years of Dristan and Valium. 

 

But the main characteristic that makes her say and believe and do crazy things is that she has, for some reason, accepted several incorrect premises about the world.  And once you plug them into her thinking, all kind of weird results follow.  It can spiral right down into a sea of unreality pretty quickly. 

 

I think this is common with people who seem to be what I would describe as crazy.

 

One reason people end up with these bizarre premises about reality can be serious mental illness.  But there seem to be other reasons people come up with them too.

[swimmermom3]

I think there needs to be a distinction in this thread between fake news and sloppy/too fast/inaccurate reporting. Fake news is simply making up facts, or picking a few facts and making up a story that has no basis in reality. "Bad" news or journalism is when information is our forward without fact-checking, researching, challenging, and digging.

 

There was recently a tornado near where I live. There were adults and children who died in tornado. Initial reports, which were picked up nationally, stated that children died in an all-night childcare center. In fact, the people who died in the childcare center had fled their mobile homes and were seeking shelter in the building, which was thought to be safer than a mobile home. 

 

While the story was eventually corrected, most people I've spoken with only heard the initial (incorrect) version. That is bad journalism. Not fake news. 

 

The examples given of the Ohio campus shooter and Weapons of Mass Destruction were bad journalism. Not fake news.

 

"Bad journalism" these days is often a result of trying to beat the bloggers and tweeters to the mark.  Bloggers and tweeters don't have to verify facts. Responsible journalists do.  That takes time that they no longer have.  Most mainstream media have very clear policies in place with regards to fact-checking, but the Internet makes some of that irrelevant or incredibly difficult to do.

 

The other problem is the public's expectations. We've grown accustomed to receiving "immediate" news even if it's wrong.  For example, with the Sandy Hook shootings,  Ryan Lanza (Adam's brother) was initially identified as the shooter.  I tried to look for mainstream media confirmation of this and could only find tweet after tweet saying the same thing.  The first formal media acknowledgment was basically the tweet all over again.  It often takes law enforcement time correctly to identify an alleged perpetrator. If I remember correctly Adam Lanza may have had his brother's ID on him. 

 

We need to decide if we want bad information immediately or if we can wait a bit for verified information.

 

[SKL]

I actually know and understand all of that.  I promise. I'm just more naturally suspicious of regulations than a law that goes through the normal process.  I'm not thinking the legislative process is all sweetness and light either, don't get me wrong. I just see the regulatory process as having much less transparency. And congress can instruct the agency to get rid of the regulation (as with the fair use doctrine) but the agency can take it's own sweet time in doing so.

 

 

I'm not sure if we're agreeing or disagreeing here.

 

Regulations are subject to the First Amendment.  The Supreme Court can find them unconstitutional, if it gets to that point.  That said, it would be better if free-press-infringing laws were not written in the first place.

 

[SKL]

"Bad journalism" these days is often a result of trying to beat the bloggers and tweeters to the mark.  Bloggers and tweeters don't have to verify facts. Responsible journalists do.  That takes time that they no longer have.  Most mainstream media have very clear policies in place with regards to fact-checking, but the Internet makes some of that irrelevant or incredibly difficult to do.

hat

The other problem is the public's expectations. We've grown accustomed to receiving "immediate" news even if it's wrong.  For example, with the Sandy Hook shootings,  Ryan Lanza (Adam's brother) was initially identified as the shooter.  I tried to look for mainstream media confirmation of this and could only find tweet after tweet saying the same thing.  The first formal media acknowledgment was basically the tweet all over again.  It often takes law enforcement time correctly to identify an alleged perpetrator. If I remember correctly Adam Lanza may have had his brother's ID on him. 

 

We need to decide if we want bad information immediately or if we can wait a bit for verified information.

 

 

I'd rather be informed immediately that "there is an incident under investigation" and then wait for the facts.

 

I don't actually mind if they report "unverified information" as long as they clearly name it as such.

 

In the Ohio State incident, it was several hours between the time I first heard that the perp didn't have a gun, and the time the media changed their headlines to remove the statement that the perp was a shooter.  This is just one example.

[Frances]

People citing Project Veritas as more legitimate sources of info than CNN terrifies me.

 

But more than that, what really has me scared is the idea that limiting media to the truth is inherently biased. Which was stated by someone (not you) in this thread.

 

Fake news and fiction does not deserve equal time from the media.

It's also terrifying to me when people make blanket statements such as no journalists can be trusted and all media is untrustworthy. This is exactly what people who benefit from fake news, conspiracy theories, and inflammatory talk shows want us to think.

[redsquirrel]

I'd rather be informed immediately that "there is an incident under investigation" and then wait for the facts.

 

I don't actually mind if they report "unverified information" as long as they clearly name it as such.

 

In the Ohio State incident, it was several hours between the time I first heard that the perp didn't have a gun, and the time the media changed their headlines to remove the statement that the perp was a shooter.  This is just one example.

 

Occasionally, when there is a big crisis, these "media consumer awareness rules' makes the rounds. I've actually found it to be very helpful

 

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/09/20/224498227/on-the-media-presents-a-consumers-guide-to-breaking-news

[swimmermom3]

If I were a journalist, I'd be very sad that people feel unable to get the news despite so many active and highly paid journalists out working every day.

 

 

If I were a good journalist, I'd be sad to know that I had worked my ass off to uncover the truth about an issue only to see that people were much more interested in reading nonverified, but highly titillating soundbites that fell in line with their world viewpoint.

 

[SKL]

If I were a good journalist, I'd be sad to know that I had worked my ass off to uncover the truth about an issue only to see that people were much more interested in reading nonverified, but highly titillating soundbites that fell in line with their world viewpoint.

 

 

I agree - so do the good journalists push for improvements in the industry so that credibility can be salvaged?

 

[Bluegoat]

Tis business about private vs public, and censorship.

 

I think there is really a tension.  Government can censor, we've had a real problem with government controlling certain kinds of information here in Canada under the last administration.  Most people I think are aware of this possibility.

 

But private companies absolutly can create a kind of censorship too.  And government has long been involved in trying to minimize that.  It's why media monopolies have been controlled in the past. 

 

The media plays a really important public role, perhaps too important to leave it all up to the private sector, with no controls or regulation.  IN the same way there are regulations for water, or the airwaves, because they are important to everyone, and their misuse or destruction is a public problem.

 

 

[JumpyTheFrog]

Government can censor, we've had a real problem with government controlling certain kinds of information here in Canada under the last administration.

Do you mind elaborating for us non-Canadians?

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Could I respectfully suggest something? For those on the left, instead of just pronouncing that a news source is fake or Russian controlled, could we examine some individually with references to good sources. The tone of condescension and impatience isn't helpful for any of us. I'd like to see a break down on Zero Hedge and Project Veritas if possible as I am not familiar with them. On the flip side, Vida Winter, what is it about these sites that make you trust them. Does it go beyond them saying only what you want to hear. I am assuming it does.

 

Maybe we should all be talking about what a good news source looks like. I've done this with my kids for years and what I taught them was based on what I learned as a journalism undergraduate and then on staff at an alternative newsweekly. We are shredding the mainstream media and lambasting individual journalists, but I still respect those who are competent at their jobs. What I remember from J school and the paper are people who were passionate about the truth. You can roll your eyes all you want, but at that point in time, it wasn't easy to make a living let alone make it big by being a journalist. People did so because of strongly held sense of justice and a belief in the public's right to know what was happening in their communities.

I linked several artickes about Zero Hedge and Project Veritas a page or two back.

[Bluegoat]

Do you mind elaborating for us non-Canadians?

 

What's most talked about is the way they didn't allow scientists working for government to talk about their work, and destroyed quite a lot of scientific information.  (And this isn't at all controversial, there have been a number of public servants that have left and gone public, and the union actually spoke out against the policy which is really unprecedented as they are always very carefully neutral about policy issues.  Also, my dh is a government scientist.)

 

But it was wider than that - access to information requests were being poorly served, and even members of parliment who were part of the government party were not allowed to make statements without putting them through the prime ministers office first.  A lot of information was buried. 

[Jen in NY]

This may seem off topic, but bear with me...

 

I listen to the NPR politics podcast regularly. (You can see the list of other podcasts I listen to here, just for context). The podcast is where the journalists discuss their work in a slightly more casual way, but the one they published today was especially personal and about themselves. One of the women on the team is a Muslim woman, and she published an article this week that they are talking about at the start ... and they veer into their individual experiences covering the campaign. These are people that have long experience covering politics. It struck me as honest and self-reflective, and thought it might be interesting to some people participating in this thread. I am (for sure!) not arguing that all of their opinions on every topic are spot on (after all, this is not a news story, but just relating their own experiences), or that I am just accepting everything they are saying point blank... but.... they seem genuine, and I think that's something for our country to re-consider... there are journalists that are self-reflective and really trying to do the right thing, whatever their personal political leanings, or mine. 

 

It seems important in light of this thread.

Click on Covering 2016 as a Muslim when you get to the page.

Edited December 7, 2016 by Jen in NY

[Slartibartfast]

Right, this is because of irresponsible journalism by the people who get paid the big bucks.  What do people expect?

 

I'd love it if I could do my own investigating rather than have to figure out who is least likely to feed me BS today.  But that's not a possibility.

 

If I were a journalist, I'd be very sad that people feel unable to get the news despite so many active and highly paid journalists out working every day.

 

Honestly, do you think they collude to not expose each other's poor practices?  I mean if MSNBC commits bad journalism on an important news story, you would think CNN would see an opportunity, point it out, and report the truth.  I don't see that happening.  Sometimes the stories are not identical, but I never see them saying "what was reported over there is inaccurate."  Even when it would be important for Americans to know.

Several of them did repeat over and over that Obama was born in the US. People chose not to believe them.

 

Several did report that WMDs were not found, people chose not to believe them.

 

Several did report that Obama is not Muslim, people chose not to believe them.

 

They cover one another's mistakes all the time.

Edited December 7, 2016 by Slartibartfast

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

The media is powerful and they have abused that power. The vast majority pushed agendas during the election when they should have simply been reporting. There is no more trust. Now we each need to decide who to believe or not to believe.

I have not read every post yet.

 

Honestly, I don't understand it when folks say they cannot trust the mainstream media. The past 16 years I have seen the so-called liberal mainstream media frequently give softball questions at critical junctures such as to Geroge W. Bush during the lead up to the Iraqi invasion. Also, during this campaign season, these news sources gave a lot more press to Hillary's emails than to Trump's scandals according to media matters and I can attest that it seemed that way to me since I read NYT and WP daily.

 

OTOH I think that that the NYT and WP still offer  for the most part great trustworthy news stories for the most part and host an variety of opinions.

 

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/10/21/video-how-false-equivalence-ruins-trump-clinton-news-coverage/214027

 

 

Also, Megyn Kelly supports the press and expresses a lot of concern over the bashing of the press:

 

http://www.npr.org/2016/12/07/504622630/megyn-kelly-on-trump-and-the-media-were-in-a-dangerous-phase-right-now

Edited December 7, 2016 by NoPlaceLikeHome

[Slartibartfast]

I had heard that Clinton would have tried to bring it back if she got elected.

 

I don't know whether Obama has said that or not, but I know he often puts down certain information outlets by name.  And I'm not talking about Veritas.

Where did you hear that?

 

Only one of them is on video discussing it and that is Trump.

 

There is video in my links. He said it. He said it on video.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/02/donald-trump-libel-laws-219866

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/why-donald-trump-wants-to-change-libel-laws/

 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/mar/01/donald-trump/donald-trump-wrong-ny-times-cant-be-sued-story-the/

Edited December 7, 2016 by Slartibartfast

[Slartibartfast]

Quote

 

 

Slartibartfast - who made that comment that you quoted?  It stripped the name & I can't trace back to the original post...

I wasn't quoting someone from the boards, I was quoting the link. :)

 

I wouldn't have been that snotty to someone here. :lol: I am a bit worried it seemed that way. Yikes!

 

ETA: here is the link http://blog.dilbert.com/post/151981022076/is-twitter-shadowbanning-me

Edited December 7, 2016 by Slartibartfast

[swimmermom3]

.

 

Genuine comment: I would be interested to know which individual journalists you consider to be competent and reasonably reliable today.  I am sure there are many out there.

 

I respect the hell out of C.J Chivers (combat reporter) at the New York Times, although the first article of his that I read over a decade ago was not in the NYT, but in Esquire magazine which often features some amazing investigative journalism. If I am going to read about guns and war, I trust it with Chivers. Of course, I also think he writes about flyfishing. 

 

Sarah Stillman is a younger writer that I am watching who has covered human trafficking on American military bases in Iran and Afghanistan, what happens to police informants as well as more social issues like civil forfeiture. I think she's careful and thoughtful with her facts. New Yorker. I am looking forward to seeing more from her.

 

David Barstow is also one of my favorites and is a good one to look at in light of this discussion.  He won the 2009 Pulitzer for Investigative Reporting for "Message Machine: Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon's Hidden Hand." 

I believe he was also a contributing author for another Pulitzer on death and injury in the American workplace.

 

The Wall Street Journal's Pulitzer winning series on "Medicare Unmasked" was brilliant and well worth reading. I say that in all seriousness even though some of you know I have a special voodoo doll for Rupert Murdoch as the destroyer of quality journalism.

 

I respect, but don't always agree with Christiane Amanpour.

 

These are just one person's opinion and I am obviously a fan of long-form journalism.

 

SKL, who do you trust and why?  I think it's good when we all ask each other that question.

 

[Slartibartfast]

I tend to be over fond of the Christian Science Monitor but that is mostly because they don't tend towards hysterics.

[Slartibartfast]

http://www.thomhartmann.com/blog/2016/03/how-do-we-democratize-our-media

 

This is by a progressive liberal who is in favor of bringing the Fairness Doctrine back. Warning-- he mentions Trump and Obama, but that is just a small part. Basically he claims that media outlets did NOT make profits off of their news shows, they presented news and let the entertainment programs make them money. When the FD was ended in 1987, corporations could turn their news shows into profit makers, thus birthing 24 hour " news" channels. Vying for ratings/profits led to polarization problems.

It's a good question-- what sells better? Just the facts, or sensationalism?

Sensationalism does, that is why there is a saying, "If it bleeds, it leads."

[SKL]

I respect the hell out of C.J Chivers (combat reporter) at the New York Times, although the first article of his that I read over a decade ago was not in the NYT, but in Esquire magazine which often features some amazing investigative journalism. If I am going to read about guns and war, I trust it with Chivers. Of course, I also think he writes about flyfishing. 

 

Sarah Stillman is a younger writer that I am watching who has covered human trafficking on American military bases in Iran and Afghanistan, what happens to police informants as well as more social issues like civil forfeiture. I think she's careful and thoughtful with her facts. New Yorker. I am looking forward to seeing more from her.

 

David Barstow is also one of my favorites and is a good one to look at in light of this discussion.  He won the 2009 Pulitzer for Investigative Reporting for "Message Machine: Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon's Hidden Hand." 

I believe he was also a contributing author for another Pulitzer on death and injury in the American workplace.

 

The Wall Street Journal's Pulitzer winning series on "Medicare Unmasked" was brilliant and well worth reading. I say that in all seriousness even though some of you know I have a special voodoo doll for Rupert Murdoch as the destroyer of quality journalism.

 

I respect, but don't always agree with Christiane Amanpour.

 

These are just one person's opinion and I am obviously a fan of long-form journalism.

 

SKL, who do you trust and why?  I think it's good when we all ask each other that question.

 

Thank you for this.

 

As for whom do I trust, nobody really.  I cross-check everything.  I read a wide variety of sources and basically look for patterns.  My 50 years and pretty good memory help. 

 

Things change over time - people who start out seeming objective gradually start using their positions to influence more than to inform.  I don't take anything for granted.

 

When I say "I have read / heard," it means exactly that.  I've read it or heard it.  It's out there.  It means I haven't verified it but I haven't debunked it either.  Over time, many of these things turn out to be true, and many false.

[swimmermom3]

And given quite a lot of us here are educating children, we'd better get our own critical thinking skills in order, so we can adequately inform our children.

 

It is disturbing to see home educators being manipulated into believing a bundle of out and out lies.

 

Perhaps we could drop these kinds of slams. They aren't really helpful to the dialogue and frankly, there are a few of us that should still be smarting from that damn Rolling Stone article. :tongue_smilie:

 

[liber]

What's most talked about is the way they didn't allow scientists working for government to talk about their work, and destroyed quite a lot of scientific information. (And this isn't at all controversial, there have been a number of public servants that have left and gone public, and the union actually spoke out against the policy which is really unprecedented as they are always very carefully neutral about policy issues. Also, my dh is a government scientist.)

 

But it was wider than that - access to information requests were being poorly served, and even members of parliment who were part of the government party were not allowed to make statements without putting them through the prime ministers office first. A lot of information was buried.

Trudeau has continued a lot of Harpers policies in regards to what scientists can publish. Sorry but I can't remember where I read it. It was a while ago.

[swimmermom3]

I agree - so do the good journalists push for improvements in the industry so that credibility can be salvaged?

 

 

Boy, that's a heck of a question. Some have been doing so. Let me do some digging and see what I come up with. I'd hope they would, but traditional journalism is under enormous market pressure.