A Thought On News - Making Every Problem Your Problem (1 Viewer)

[IvanKaramazov]

We have essentially gone back to the days of Yellow Journalism. The United States ended up fighting the Spanish-American War, in large part because of the media sensationalizing and exaggerating stories about Spain, Cuba and the USS Maine. They riled up the populace and more or less, forced the hand of President McKinley to do something about the situation in Cuba.

It was all to sell more newspapers. How do you sell more newspapers? Have the "best" (interesting/exciting/titillating) stories. William Randolph Hearst wanted to make more money, so he made up stories, as did Joseph Pulitzer.

Today, there is so much money to be made in media and there are so many ways to distribute the news, (TV/Radio/NewsPaper/Blogs/YouTube/Social Media) that essentially anybody can become a media mogul. The more willing you are to delve into the "Yellow Journalism" space, the more money you will likely make. They don't care if they lie, cheat, steal or cause division as long as that next big paycheck shows up in their account. They're sitting at a bar in the Caribbean sipping a drink, while we sit in our houses, worried that someone is going to come take our guns or that our kids might read a book at school that mentions that gay people exist.

This stuff applies to media outlets from every single part of the political spectrum. There are no "good guys" here. Even when they tell the truth, they make it "sexier" than they need to, so you watch, click or read.

A few Summers ago, I took a trip with my Mom to NY and Boston. We went to Yankee Stadium, Central Park, Times Square, Fenway Park, Boston Garden. All the typical touristy stuff, as well as more "off-the-beaten path" things that I had researched. She loved it, and was -shocked- that NY in-particular was not a city-wide cess pool of druggies and murderers.

Now more than ever, as we sit inside and look at our screens, and consume media on a nearly 24/7 basis it is vitally important to get out and see things for ourselves. Travel. Talk to people. Experience things that you don't normally experience. People aren't the monsters they're made out to be, whether they fly the flag you agree with or not.

That's interesting.

What changed for journalism for it to steer back toward accuracy and away from the Yellow Journalism as the main stream? For sure, some outlets have always been wild like that. And I know it's naive to think there hasn't always been spin. But it seemed during the Walter Kronkite years I remember as boy, there was more seriousness put on factual news.

I don't think that there was really one thing that curtailed it, but probably a mixture of the following:

1) Citizens got sick of it, and it became less profitable for the newspapers to print dishonest stories.

2) The courts started cracking down on intrusions into the private lives of public figures. The media were constantly poking their heads into people's private lives and the courts tended to side with the people instead of the media outlets. Some people think that our idea of a Constitutional right to privacy, is actually based on irresponsible reporters, going too far during the golden age of Yellow Journalism.

3) The media developed a code of ethics that it held itself to.

In today's world, I'm not sure any of those things are possible. Even #1, seems like a place that we have collectively arrived at, but if that were true, then the sensationalized "news" shows, wouldn't continue to see high ratings and profits.

I've heard the argument that it was the post-WW2 period we recently exited that was the true historical anomaly, and that some form of "yellow journalism" has been far more of the norm for most of the history of the printed press. Think of Colonial America, when Hamilton et al were publishing anonymous broadsides against their enemies in partisan publications.

What happened in the postwar period was that the rise of mass advertising shifted the business model of newspapers (and later, TV stations) to chase after the broadest possible audience, which gave them an incentive to be less partisan and more consensus driven. There were problems with that model, too (yes, Walter Cronkite was great, but if he had a blind spot, then most of America would have the same blind spot) but it was highly successful until the Internet democratized information and destroyed the local advertising monopolies enjoyed by regional papers. Now media businesses dependent on advertising use sensationalism to reach the broadest possible audience, or they ditch advertising altogether and use partisan messaging to get the die-hards to pay subscription fees directly to the media outlet

There's a lot of truth to this, but the decline in ad revenues can't explain the fall of NPR.

These legacy institutions -- media, academia, government -- are all failing for the same reason. They've spent the last 10 years hiring people based on ideology instead of competence. You can get away with that for a little while. Eventually people take notice, usually after some spectacular failures. Of which we've had several recently.

 

[Long Ball Larry]

We have essentially gone back to the days of Yellow Journalism. The United States ended up fighting the Spanish-American War, in large part because of the media sensationalizing and exaggerating stories about Spain, Cuba and the USS Maine. They riled up the populace and more or less, forced the hand of President McKinley to do something about the situation in Cuba.

It was all to sell more newspapers. How do you sell more newspapers? Have the "best" (interesting/exciting/titillating) stories. William Randolph Hearst wanted to make more money, so he made up stories, as did Joseph Pulitzer.

Today, there is so much money to be made in media and there are so many ways to distribute the news, (TV/Radio/NewsPaper/Blogs/YouTube/Social Media) that essentially anybody can become a media mogul. The more willing you are to delve into the "Yellow Journalism" space, the more money you will likely make. They don't care if they lie, cheat, steal or cause division as long as that next big paycheck shows up in their account. They're sitting at a bar in the Caribbean sipping a drink, while we sit in our houses, worried that someone is going to come take our guns or that our kids might read a book at school that mentions that gay people exist.

This stuff applies to media outlets from every single part of the political spectrum. There are no "good guys" here. Even when they tell the truth, they make it "sexier" than they need to, so you watch, click or read.

A few Summers ago, I took a trip with my Mom to NY and Boston. We went to Yankee Stadium, Central Park, Times Square, Fenway Park, Boston Garden. All the typical touristy stuff, as well as more "off-the-beaten path" things that I had researched. She loved it, and was -shocked- that NY in-particular was not a city-wide cess pool of druggies and murderers.

Now more than ever, as we sit inside and look at our screens, and consume media on a nearly 24/7 basis it is vitally important to get out and see things for ourselves. Travel. Talk to people. Experience things that you don't normally experience. People aren't the monsters they're made out to be, whether they fly the flag you agree with or not.

That's interesting.

What changed for journalism for it to steer back toward accuracy and away from the Yellow Journalism as the main stream? For sure, some outlets have always been wild like that. And I know it's naive to think there hasn't always been spin. But it seemed during the Walter Kronkite years I remember as boy, there was more seriousness put on factual news.

I don't think that there was really one thing that curtailed it, but probably a mixture of the following:

1) Citizens got sick of it, and it became less profitable for the newspapers to print dishonest stories.

2) The courts started cracking down on intrusions into the private lives of public figures. The media were constantly poking their heads into people's private lives and the courts tended to side with the people instead of the media outlets. Some people think that our idea of a Constitutional right to privacy, is actually based on irresponsible reporters, going too far during the golden age of Yellow Journalism.

3) The media developed a code of ethics that it held itself to.

In today's world, I'm not sure any of those things are possible. Even #1, seems like a place that we have collectively arrived at, but if that were true, then the sensationalized "news" shows, wouldn't continue to see high ratings and profits.

I've heard the argument that it was the post-WW2 period we recently exited that was the true historical anomaly, and that some form of "yellow journalism" has been far more of the norm for most of the history of the printed press. Think of Colonial America, when Hamilton et al were publishing anonymous broadsides against their enemies in partisan publications.

What happened in the postwar period was that the rise of mass advertising shifted the business model of newspapers (and later, TV stations) to chase after the broadest possible audience, which gave them an incentive to be less partisan and more consensus driven. There were problems with that model, too (yes, Walter Cronkite was great, but if he had a blind spot, then most of America would have the same blind spot) but it was highly successful until the Internet democratized information and destroyed the local advertising monopolies enjoyed by regional papers. Now media businesses dependent on advertising use sensationalism to reach the broadest possible audience, or they ditch advertising altogether and use partisan messaging to get the die-hards to pay subscription fees directly to the media outlet

I agree with a lot of what you are saying, but I don't know if it's true that media businesses now are trying to reach the broadest audience possible. I think that they are targeting much more narrow and specified audiences and trying to give them exactly what they want. It is easier to determine this through data now. As a result, people get more news that specifically reinforces their own points of view. That leads to the fragmentation of our collective reality as a society. Somewhat relatedly, if you can get like 10,000 subscribers to your podcast or substack or whatever, and keep them, you can be pretty profitable. I think news organizations basically are doing this on a somewhat larger scale.

 

[Gally]

As a result, people get more news that specifically reinforces their own points of view. That leads to the fragmentation of our collective reality as a society.

I think this is a huge problem and what is the root cause of everyone pulling apart. When you don't ever get the "other side" of a discussion you get further and further away from each other. This is a problem.

 

[jvdesigns2002]

As a result, people get more news that specifically reinforces their own points of view. That leads to the fragmentation of our collective reality as a society.

I think this is a huge problem and what is the root cause of everyone pulling apart. When you don't ever get the "other side" of a discussion you get further and further away from each other. This is a problem.

Correct—echo chambers bring like minded people closer together—and it makes people with opposing points of views grow further apart. It creates factions. On top of that, when topics are not allowed or discouraged to be spoken about (I’m not making any references to Joe’s decision about the PSF—his forum his choices and rules—I’m speaking about our society in general) —or when topics (such as religion and politics) are treated as being radioactive topics to converse about—these echo chambers grow more and more powerful. People just isolate, insulate, and embed themselves quietly with people that share only their own views so much so that they feel like anybody who doesn’t exactly agree with those views is immediately an idiot or a threat to them.

 

[uwillbsoon]

We have essentially gone back to the days of Yellow Journalism. The United States ended up fighting the Spanish-American War, in large part because of the media sensationalizing and exaggerating stories about Spain, Cuba and the USS Maine. They riled up the populace and more or less, forced the hand of President McKinley to do something about the situation in Cuba.

It was all to sell more newspapers. How do you sell more newspapers? Have the "best" (interesting/exciting/titillating) stories. William Randolph Hearst wanted to make more money, so he made up stories, as did Joseph Pulitzer.

Today, there is so much money to be made in media and there are so many ways to distribute the news, (TV/Radio/NewsPaper/Blogs/YouTube/Social Media) that essentially anybody can become a media mogul. The more willing you are to delve into the "Yellow Journalism" space, the more money you will likely make. They don't care if they lie, cheat, steal or cause division as long as that next big paycheck shows up in their account. They're sitting at a bar in the Caribbean sipping a drink, while we sit in our houses, worried that someone is going to come take our guns or that our kids might read a book at school that mentions that gay people exist.

This stuff applies to media outlets from every single part of the political spectrum. There are no "good guys" here. Even when they tell the truth, they make it "sexier" than they need to, so you watch, click or read.

A few Summers ago, I took a trip with my Mom to NY and Boston. We went to Yankee Stadium, Central Park, Times Square, Fenway Park, Boston Garden. All the typical touristy stuff, as well as more "off-the-beaten path" things that I had researched. She loved it, and was -shocked- that NY in-particular was not a city-wide cess pool of druggies and murderers.

Now more than ever, as we sit inside and look at our screens, and consume media on a nearly 24/7 basis it is vitally important to get out and see things for ourselves. Travel. Talk to people. Experience things that you don't normally experience. People aren't the monsters they're made out to be, whether they fly the flag you agree with or not.

That's interesting.

What changed for journalism for it to steer back toward accuracy and away from the Yellow Journalism as the main stream? For sure, some outlets have always been wild like that. And I know it's naive to think there hasn't always been spin. But it seemed during the Walter Kronkite years I remember as boy, there was more seriousness put on factual news.

I don't think that there was really one thing that curtailed it, but probably a mixture of the following:

1) Citizens got sick of it, and it became less profitable for the newspapers to print dishonest stories.

2) The courts started cracking down on intrusions into the private lives of public figures. The media were constantly poking their heads into people's private lives and the courts tended to side with the people instead of the media outlets. Some people think that our idea of a Constitutional right to privacy, is actually based on irresponsible reporters, going too far during the golden age of Yellow Journalism.

3) The media developed a code of ethics that it held itself to.

In today's world, I'm not sure any of those things are possible. Even #1, seems like a place that we have collectively arrived at, but if that were true, then the sensationalized "news" shows, wouldn't continue to see high ratings and profits.

I've heard the argument that it was the post-WW2 period we recently exited that was the true historical anomaly, and that some form of "yellow journalism" has been far more of the norm for most of the history of the printed press. Think of Colonial America, when Hamilton et al were publishing anonymous broadsides against their enemies in partisan publications.

What happened in the postwar period was that the rise of mass advertising shifted the business model of newspapers (and later, TV stations) to chase after the broadest possible audience, which gave them an incentive to be less partisan and more consensus driven. There were problems with that model, too (yes, Walter Cronkite was great, but if he had a blind spot, then most of America would have the same blind spot) but it was highly successful until the Internet democratized information and destroyed the local advertising monopolies enjoyed by regional papers. Now media businesses dependent on advertising use sensationalism to reach the broadest possible audience, or they ditch advertising altogether and use partisan messaging to get the die-hards to pay subscription fees directly to the media outlet

There's a lot of truth to this, but the decline in ad revenues can't explain the fall of NPR.

These legacy institutions -- media, academia, government -- are all failing for the same reason. They've spent the last 10 years hiring people based on ideology instead of competence. You can get away with that for a little while. Eventually people take notice, usually after some spectacular failures. Of which we've had several recently.

Yeah, that's not true of newspapers. If anything it's been:

1. National consolidation: see Gannett buying up local newspapers and squeezing out what made them local to increase profits. They created a poor reader experience by trimming local content for national news - increasing profits short term, but killing subscription growth long term
2. Loss of local ad revenue to the Internet

I worked at a newspaper that had DEI-type rules and leadership in the 90s. I can tell you that had very little to do with their newsroom shrinking from like 50 people then to literally 1 now. It was the two items above. Corporate short term greed and an inability to change the revenue model fast enough when ads started going to Craigslist and then Google.

If they had only hired who you call competent, they'd still be where they are largely because of the two items above.

 

[Peggy]

No question. I love how NBC Nightly News now incorporates some type of "Breaking News" weather report every single night. And always, they love to scream how "40 million Americans are under threat."

For rain.

Used to be reserved for hurricanes and tornadoes and floods. Not anymore.

So true.
It's the lead story when there isn't something else breaking. The east coast is getting clobbered with rain!!!!!

 

[IvanKaramazov]

We have essentially gone back to the days of Yellow Journalism. The United States ended up fighting the Spanish-American War, in large part because of the media sensationalizing and exaggerating stories about Spain, Cuba and the USS Maine. They riled up the populace and more or less, forced the hand of President McKinley to do something about the situation in Cuba.

It was all to sell more newspapers. How do you sell more newspapers? Have the "best" (interesting/exciting/titillating) stories. William Randolph Hearst wanted to make more money, so he made up stories, as did Joseph Pulitzer.

Today, there is so much money to be made in media and there are so many ways to distribute the news, (TV/Radio/NewsPaper/Blogs/YouTube/Social Media) that essentially anybody can become a media mogul. The more willing you are to delve into the "Yellow Journalism" space, the more money you will likely make. They don't care if they lie, cheat, steal or cause division as long as that next big paycheck shows up in their account. They're sitting at a bar in the Caribbean sipping a drink, while we sit in our houses, worried that someone is going to come take our guns or that our kids might read a book at school that mentions that gay people exist.

This stuff applies to media outlets from every single part of the political spectrum. There are no "good guys" here. Even when they tell the truth, they make it "sexier" than they need to, so you watch, click or read.

A few Summers ago, I took a trip with my Mom to NY and Boston. We went to Yankee Stadium, Central Park, Times Square, Fenway Park, Boston Garden. All the typical touristy stuff, as well as more "off-the-beaten path" things that I had researched. She loved it, and was -shocked- that NY in-particular was not a city-wide cess pool of druggies and murderers.

Now more than ever, as we sit inside and look at our screens, and consume media on a nearly 24/7 basis it is vitally important to get out and see things for ourselves. Travel. Talk to people. Experience things that you don't normally experience. People aren't the monsters they're made out to be, whether they fly the flag you agree with or not.

That's interesting.

What changed for journalism for it to steer back toward accuracy and away from the Yellow Journalism as the main stream? For sure, some outlets have always been wild like that. And I know it's naive to think there hasn't always been spin. But it seemed during the Walter Kronkite years I remember as boy, there was more seriousness put on factual news.

I don't think that there was really one thing that curtailed it, but probably a mixture of the following:

1) Citizens got sick of it, and it became less profitable for the newspapers to print dishonest stories.

2) The courts started cracking down on intrusions into the private lives of public figures. The media were constantly poking their heads into people's private lives and the courts tended to side with the people instead of the media outlets. Some people think that our idea of a Constitutional right to privacy, is actually based on irresponsible reporters, going too far during the golden age of Yellow Journalism.

3) The media developed a code of ethics that it held itself to.

In today's world, I'm not sure any of those things are possible. Even #1, seems like a place that we have collectively arrived at, but if that were true, then the sensationalized "news" shows, wouldn't continue to see high ratings and profits.

I've heard the argument that it was the post-WW2 period we recently exited that was the true historical anomaly, and that some form of "yellow journalism" has been far more of the norm for most of the history of the printed press. Think of Colonial America, when Hamilton et al were publishing anonymous broadsides against their enemies in partisan publications.

What happened in the postwar period was that the rise of mass advertising shifted the business model of newspapers (and later, TV stations) to chase after the broadest possible audience, which gave them an incentive to be less partisan and more consensus driven. There were problems with that model, too (yes, Walter Cronkite was great, but if he had a blind spot, then most of America would have the same blind spot) but it was highly successful until the Internet democratized information and destroyed the local advertising monopolies enjoyed by regional papers. Now media businesses dependent on advertising use sensationalism to reach the broadest possible audience, or they ditch advertising altogether and use partisan messaging to get the die-hards to pay subscription fees directly to the media outlet

There's a lot of truth to this, but the decline in ad revenues can't explain the fall of NPR.

These legacy institutions -- media, academia, government -- are all failing for the same reason. They've spent the last 10 years hiring people based on ideology instead of competence. You can get away with that for a little while. Eventually people take notice, usually after some spectacular failures. Of which we've had several recently.

Yeah, that's not true of newspapers. If anything it's been:

1. National consolidation: see Gannett buying up local newspapers and squeezing out what made them local to increase profits. They created a poor reader experience by trimming local content for national news - increasing profits short term, but killing subscription growth long term
2. Loss of local ad revenue to the Internet

I worked at a newspaper that had DEI-type rules and leadership in the 90s. I can tell you that had very little to do with their newsroom shrinking from like 50 people then to literally 1 now. It was the two items above. Corporate short term greed and an inability to change the revenue model fast enough when ads started going to Craigslist and then Google.

If they had only hired who you call competent, they'd still be where they are largely because of the two items above.

I'm not talking about your local small-town paper that closed. I'm talking about NPR, NYT, WashPo, CNN, etc.

 

[massraider]

These legacy institutions -- media, academia, government -- are all failing for the same reason. They've spent the last 10 years hiring people based on ideology instead of competence

You really think there's only one reason, and that's it?

 

[uwillbsoon]

We have essentially gone back to the days of Yellow Journalism. The United States ended up fighting the Spanish-American War, in large part because of the media sensationalizing and exaggerating stories about Spain, Cuba and the USS Maine. They riled up the populace and more or less, forced the hand of President McKinley to do something about the situation in Cuba.

It was all to sell more newspapers. How do you sell more newspapers? Have the "best" (interesting/exciting/titillating) stories. William Randolph Hearst wanted to make more money, so he made up stories, as did Joseph Pulitzer.

Today, there is so much money to be made in media and there are so many ways to distribute the news, (TV/Radio/NewsPaper/Blogs/YouTube/Social Media) that essentially anybody can become a media mogul. The more willing you are to delve into the "Yellow Journalism" space, the more money you will likely make. They don't care if they lie, cheat, steal or cause division as long as that next big paycheck shows up in their account. They're sitting at a bar in the Caribbean sipping a drink, while we sit in our houses, worried that someone is going to come take our guns or that our kids might read a book at school that mentions that gay people exist.

This stuff applies to media outlets from every single part of the political spectrum. There are no "good guys" here. Even when they tell the truth, they make it "sexier" than they need to, so you watch, click or read.

A few Summers ago, I took a trip with my Mom to NY and Boston. We went to Yankee Stadium, Central Park, Times Square, Fenway Park, Boston Garden. All the typical touristy stuff, as well as more "off-the-beaten path" things that I had researched. She loved it, and was -shocked- that NY in-particular was not a city-wide cess pool of druggies and murderers.

Now more than ever, as we sit inside and look at our screens, and consume media on a nearly 24/7 basis it is vitally important to get out and see things for ourselves. Travel. Talk to people. Experience things that you don't normally experience. People aren't the monsters they're made out to be, whether they fly the flag you agree with or not.

That's interesting.

What changed for journalism for it to steer back toward accuracy and away from the Yellow Journalism as the main stream? For sure, some outlets have always been wild like that. And I know it's naive to think there hasn't always been spin. But it seemed during the Walter Kronkite years I remember as boy, there was more seriousness put on factual news.

I don't think that there was really one thing that curtailed it, but probably a mixture of the following:

1) Citizens got sick of it, and it became less profitable for the newspapers to print dishonest stories.

2) The courts started cracking down on intrusions into the private lives of public figures. The media were constantly poking their heads into people's private lives and the courts tended to side with the people instead of the media outlets. Some people think that our idea of a Constitutional right to privacy, is actually based on irresponsible reporters, going too far during the golden age of Yellow Journalism.

3) The media developed a code of ethics that it held itself to.

In today's world, I'm not sure any of those things are possible. Even #1, seems like a place that we have collectively arrived at, but if that were true, then the sensationalized "news" shows, wouldn't continue to see high ratings and profits.

I've heard the argument that it was the post-WW2 period we recently exited that was the true historical anomaly, and that some form of "yellow journalism" has been far more of the norm for most of the history of the printed press. Think of Colonial America, when Hamilton et al were publishing anonymous broadsides against their enemies in partisan publications.

What happened in the postwar period was that the rise of mass advertising shifted the business model of newspapers (and later, TV stations) to chase after the broadest possible audience, which gave them an incentive to be less partisan and more consensus driven. There were problems with that model, too (yes, Walter Cronkite was great, but if he had a blind spot, then most of America would have the same blind spot) but it was highly successful until the Internet democratized information and destroyed the local advertising monopolies enjoyed by regional papers. Now media businesses dependent on advertising use sensationalism to reach the broadest possible audience, or they ditch advertising altogether and use partisan messaging to get the die-hards to pay subscription fees directly to the media outlet

There's a lot of truth to this, but the decline in ad revenues can't explain the fall of NPR.

These legacy institutions -- media, academia, government -- are all failing for the same reason. They've spent the last 10 years hiring people based on ideology instead of competence. You can get away with that for a little while. Eventually people take notice, usually after some spectacular failures. Of which we've had several recently.

Yeah, that's not true of newspapers. If anything it's been:

1. National consolidation: see Gannett buying up local newspapers and squeezing out what made them local to increase profits. They created a poor reader experience by trimming local content for national news - increasing profits short term, but killing subscription growth long term
2. Loss of local ad revenue to the Internet

I worked at a newspaper that had DEI-type rules and leadership in the 90s. I can tell you that had very little to do with their newsroom shrinking from like 50 people then to literally 1 now. It was the two items above. Corporate short term greed and an inability to change the revenue model fast enough when ads started going to Craigslist and then Google.

If they had only hired who you call competent, they'd still be where they are largely because of the two items above.

I'm not talking about your local small-town paper that closed. I'm talking about NPR, NYT, WashPo, CNN, etc.

I figured as much. But that's not what you said. You said "legacy media." Didn't know that you excluded non-national brands from that definition.

Funny thing is, those folks you mentioned are doing markedly better than small and mid sized newspapers. Maybe they should have followed the nationals' lead and hired based on ideology .

 

[IvanKaramazov]

These legacy institutions -- media, academia, government -- are all failing for the same reason. They've spent the last 10 years hiring people based on ideology instead of competence

You really think there's only one reason, and that's it?

I think it's the main reason, to the point that it's kind of silly even to talk about other stuff. I see it everyday in my line of work, and there's a story about NPR* making the rounds right now along the same lines. It's about the people at these institutions. Not external factors. The people.

* The NPR story is too political, so I'm not going to link to it, but it would be easy to find.

Edit: Long story short, discrimination is bad, and echo chambers are bad. These institutions engaged in a couple of decades worth of discrimination for the purposes of creating echo chambers, and the results are exactly what any of us would have predicted if we had been asked to make a prediction 20 years ago.

 

[uwillbsoon]

These legacy institutions -- media, academia, government -- are all failing for the same reason. They've spent the last 10 years hiring people based on ideology instead of competence

You really think there's only one reason, and that's it?

I think it's the main reason, to the point that it's kind of silly even to talk about other stuff. I see it everyday in my line of work, and there's a story about NPR* making the rounds right now along the same lines. It's about the people at these institutions. Not external factors. The people.

* The NPR story is too political, so I'm not going to link to it, but it would be easy to find.

Edit: Long story short, discrimination is bad, and echo chambers are bad. These institutions engaged in a couple of decades worth of discrimination for the purposes of creating echo chambers, and the results are exactly what any of us would have predicted if we had been asked to make

These legacy institutions -- media, academia, government -- are all failing for the same reason. They've spent the last 10 years hiring people based on ideology instead of competence

You really think there's only one reason, and that's it?

I think it's the main reason, to the point that it's kind of silly even to talk about other stuff. I see it everyday in my line of work, and there's a story about NPR* making the rounds right now along the same lines. It's about the people at these institutions. Not external factors. The people.

* The NPR story is too political, so I'm not going to link to it, but it would be easy to find.

Edit: Long story short, discrimination is bad, and echo chambers are bad. These institutions engaged in a couple of decades worth of discrimination for the purposes of creating echo chambers, and the results are exactly what any of us would have predicted if we had been asked to make a prediction 20 years ago.

So the massive business disruption brought by the Internet that fragmented viewer/readership pales in comparison and shouldn't be discussed?

I guess we'll agree to disagree on that one.

 

[massraider]

Edit: Long story short, discrimination is bad, and echo chambers are bad. These institutions engaged in a couple of decades worth of discrimination for the purposes of creating echo chambers, and the results are exactly what any of us would have predicted if we had been asked to make a prediction 20 years ago

I think these echo chambers were created when news became big business, and TV ratings, advertising, and eyeballs became the goal, rather than informing the public.

I don't think the news orgs were playing some long game for their own ulterior motives to drive the country in a certain direction.

Money. That's the answer, like it usually is.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

These legacy institutions -- media, academia, government -- are all failing for the same reason. They've spent the last 10 years hiring people based on ideology instead of competence

You really think there's only one reason, and that's it?

I think it's the main reason, to the point that it's kind of silly even to talk about other stuff. I see it everyday in my line of work, and there's a story about NPR* making the rounds right now along the same lines. It's about the people at these institutions. Not external factors. The people.

* The NPR story is too political, so I'm not going to link to it, but it would be easy to find.

Edit: Long story short, discrimination is bad, and echo chambers are bad. These institutions engaged in a couple of decades worth of discrimination for the purposes of creating echo chambers, and the results are exactly what any of us would have predicted if we had been asked to make

These legacy institutions -- media, academia, government -- are all failing for the same reason. They've spent the last 10 years hiring people based on ideology instead of competence

You really think there's only one reason, and that's it?

I think it's the main reason, to the point that it's kind of silly even to talk about other stuff. I see it everyday in my line of work, and there's a story about NPR* making the rounds right now along the same lines. It's about the people at these institutions. Not external factors. The people.

* The NPR story is too political, so I'm not going to link to it, but it would be easy to find.

Edit: Long story short, discrimination is bad, and echo chambers are bad. These institutions engaged in a couple of decades worth of discrimination for the purposes of creating echo chambers, and the results are exactly what any of us would have predicted if we had been asked to make a prediction 20 years ago.

So the massive business disruption brought by the Internet that fragmented viewer/readership pales in comparison and shouldn't be discussed?

I guess we'll agree to disagree on that one.

No, I agree with you on local newspapers. Your story of what happened there is pretty much spot-on IMO. That just wasn't what I was referring to. Not disagreeing, just clarifying my own remarks.

 

[rockaction]

I worked at a newspaper that had DEI-type rules and leadership in the 90s.

Totally off of the point on my end, but I’ve been stunned that people are surprised by DEI and the triumvirate of identity politics (race, gender, class). This was my experience at school from 1991-1997 (boarding school and college). I’m surprised people just got hip to all this now. But I’ve always had trouble substituting others’ experiences for mine. I’m guilty of that.

This didn’t hit mainstream America until about ‘16. And we’ve seen the blowback now. It’s a big electoral platform plank for one side. So it definitely is just getting going (the debate about it).

I think both you and IK are correct, BTW. Corporate takeover of family-owned publications has been a disaster for the news and the consolidation has to be responsible for a lot. The death of the independent weeklies because the Chicago Trib (?) owned them all is awful.

But even though legacy media’s initiatives might have been in place since the nineties, those policies also had to have an effect on readership. I know it did for me in about ‘97. I began to ignore WaPo and NYT. It takes a while for people to leave an institution, and to dismiss the content aspect of it seems short-sighted. Tons of readers left because of that stuff.

And that’s my two cents.

 

[Sand]

There's a lot of truth to this, but the decline in ad revenues can't explain the fall of NPR.

These legacy institutions -- media, academia, government -- are all failing for the same reason. They've spent the last 10 years hiring people based on ideology instead of competence. You can get away with that for a little while. Eventually people take notice, usually after some spectacular failures. Of which we've had several recently.

Speaking of NPR - there was a good article today by an NPR editor about how NPR lost the trust of the American people. It's worth the read.

Not to wade too deep into these waters, but I find myself watching Breaking Points on Youtube a good bit. It's pretty balanced with heaps of skepticism. IMO, better than big media fare.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

I have to assume that when referring to "NPR" above we are talking about their politics coverage (online/print)

Is that correct?

 

[rockaction]

I have to assume that when referring to "NPR" above we are talking about their politics coverage (online/print)

Is that correct?

I’d read the revelations today. I don’t think it is limited to one dept. at all. Their music section was littered with that sort of stuff.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

I have to assume that when referring to "NPR" above we are talking about their politics coverage (online/print)

Is that correct?

I’d read the revelations today. I don’t think it is limited to one dept. at all. Their music section was littered with that sort of stuff.

What are the revelations? There are thousands of outlets and many do their own thing on over half their day's lineup. There is a ton of great content as a result, but there are also segments/areas that obviuosly struggle. Being a little more specific would be helpful as the gross generalization isnt.

There is absoultely no question that NPR fell into the clickbait trap on their site with the rise of trump though.

 

[rockaction]

What are the revelations? There are thousands of outlets and many do their own thing on over half their day's lineup. There is a ton of great content as a result, but there are also segments/areas that obviuosly struggle. Being a little more specific would be helpful as the gross generalization isnt.

There is absoultely no question that NPR fell into the clickbait trap on their site with the rise of trump though.

The revelations are a Google search away, my friend. If you read them and are still confused, then I’m not sure what to tell you because it’s a political topic. Look up NPR and DEI and you’ll find the issue. If you still think that’s a normal news organization or okay for objective news then that’s fine—and you might be saying that—but here isn’t the place to debate it. Sorry, man.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

We're not going to be able to do DEI here, guys. Admittedly, I kind of started this.

 

[rockaction]

We're not going to be able to do DEI here, guys. Admittedly, I kind of started this.

No. Agreed. Just giving a search term. I shut off debate before it can even get going.

eta* Whoops. Looks like I also talked about it upthread. My bad.

 

[uwillbsoon]

Can we talk DEI without it being political? Like, I'm not arguing for or against. Just stating my experience: At that newsroom in the 90s there were quotas for stories/photos of people of color. Part of employee reviews included how diverse stories were. As far as I know, that was a Gannett corporate mandate.

NPR was late to the game if they didn't start that until Trump took office.

Feel free to delete if this is political.

 

[rockaction]

st. Just stating my experience: At that newsroom in the 90s there were quotas for stories/photos of people of color. Part of employee reviews included how diverse stories were. As far as I know, that was a Gannett corporate mandate.

NPR was every story. I think that might be the point here. Quotas are not the same as framing every story with an eye that at least addresses identity intersectionality. It was in every story. Definitely different than nineties quotas regarding diversity.

The nineties are quaint in comparison. When each story has two paragraphs about the intersectionality chart, the stories are wildly different than what the nineties were.

 

[rockaction]

And my first introduction to intersectionality was taking a women’s lit course where I read Audre Lorde, who is generally considered its first popularizer. This was in ‘92, and I’ve looked for it ever since. It left quite the impression on me.

This is the truth, by the way. I wrote my big senior paper on her and Judy Grahn’s poetry, wherein I ripped Lorde’s poetry as simple politicking. I got a “B” because I began to get in a personal argument with my teacher, who had singled me out for ridicule all semester. I used the paper to completely rip her and the class. My “B”was really generous considering what I wrote.

Completely changed my very liberal outlook on life. I was changed forever. Five years later an ardent liberal who had once attended Jello Biafra talks and was known to say “no blood for oil” as a senior in high school was in D.C. working at a right-wing think tank that basically brought you the second Iraq War. (Not proud of that.)

“I am a black lesbian mother warrior poet” - Audre Lorde

We were then invited to talk about intersectionality in our critique. Good times!

Eta* Wow. I just typed my life out there. Looks stark and drastic. That class took every illiberal impulse on the left that we see in 2024 and shoved it down our young throats in ‘92. I recoiled and here we are!

 

[massraider]

Really unsurprising trends in headlines

They gave us the news that we want.

" If it bleeds, it leads" and Don Henley singing Dirty Laundry was decades ago. We are getting more of what we ask for.

 

[uwillbsoon]

st. Just stating my experience: At that newsroom in the 90s there were quotas for stories/photos of people of color. Part of employee reviews included how diverse stories were. As far as I know, that was a Gannett corporate mandate.

NPR was every story. I think that might be the point here. Quotas are not the same as framing every story with an eye that at least addresses identity intersectionality. It was in every story. Definitely different than nineties quotas regarding diversity.

The nineties are quaint in comparison. When each story has two paragraphs about the intersectionality chart, the stories are wildly different than what the nineties were.

I don't read NPR, but every story? So you're saying every story was through an identity lens?

I'm not really buying it.

But we might be veering into politics here. I feel I'm enabling other folks' political views, so I'll drop it.

 

[bigbottom]

I believe everyone would be happier if they didn’t watch the news or visit news websites. Yes, you would be less informed, but happier.

Yeah, I’ve come to the conclusion that being well-informed is vastly overrated.

 

[rockaction]

I don't read NPR, but every story? So you're saying every story was through an identity lens?

Ever read their music section? I have. It was done with a heavy emphasis on poptimism and identity.

I actually don’t think you agree with the guy’s own story about NPR and it is betraying your own.l politics. I say that as inoffensively as possible.

Just so you know, my own politics have changed dramatically again, but I can see where people won’t adjust priors or conclusions. But to sort of pooh-pooh an expose that seems pretty detailed and earnest and not contravened yet seems odd.

DEI and intersectionality are much different than nineties’ notions of diversity in the newsroom. It’s plain as day, actually. It was all over NPR’s coverage of nearly everything relevant. These sort of things often are manifest in arts and culture sections where cultural shibboleths are easily shoehorned into discussions, especially those that are diverse to begin with (such as music). To be sure, this was not just NPR. Other music outlets like Stereogum and Pitchfork underwent the same poptimist/identity thing in about 2012. The Onion’s AV Club was even earlier. Todd Van Der Werff, its lead television critic, declared himself Emily in around 2019 and then threatened Matt Yglesias when Yglesias signed the Harper’s speech petition back last decade, leading Yglesias to sell Vox. So this has been going on a long time.

 

[uwillbsoon]

We have essentially gone back to the days of Yellow Journalism. The United States ended up fighting the Spanish-American War, in large part because of the media sensationalizing and exaggerating stories about Spain, Cuba and the USS Maine. They riled up the populace and more or less, forced the hand of President McKinley to do something about the situation in Cuba.

It was all to sell more newspapers. How do you sell more newspapers? Have the "best" (interesting/exciting/titillating) stories. William Randolph Hearst wanted to make more money, so he made up stories, as did Joseph Pulitzer.

Today, there is so much money to be made in media and there are so many ways to distribute the news, (TV/Radio/NewsPaper/Blogs/YouTube/Social Media) that essentially anybody can become a media mogul. The more willing you are to delve into the "Yellow Journalism" space, the more money you will likely make. They don't care if they lie, cheat, steal or cause division as long as that next big paycheck shows up in their account. They're sitting at a bar in the Caribbean sipping a drink, while we sit in our houses, worried that someone is going to come take our guns or that our kids might read a book at school that mentions that gay people exist.

This stuff applies to media outlets from every single part of the political spectrum. There are no "good guys" here. Even when they tell the truth, they make it "sexier" than they need to, so you watch, click or read.

A few Summers ago, I took a trip with my Mom to NY and Boston. We went to Yankee Stadium, Central Park, Times Square, Fenway Park, Boston Garden. All the typical touristy stuff, as well as more "off-the-beaten path" things that I had researched. She loved it, and was -shocked- that NY in-particular was not a city-wide cess pool of druggies and murderers.

Now more than ever, as we sit inside and look at our screens, and consume media on a nearly 24/7 basis it is vitally important to get out and see things for ourselves. Travel. Talk to people. Experience things that you don't normally experience. People aren't the monsters they're made out to be, whether they fly the flag you agree with or not.

That's interesting.

What changed for journalism for it to steer back toward accuracy and away from the Yellow Journalism as the main stream? For sure, some outlets have always been wild like that. And I know it's naive to think there hasn't always been spin. But it seemed during the Walter Kronkite years I remember as boy, there was more seriousness put on factual news.

I don't think that there was really one thing that curtailed it, but probably a mixture of the following:

1) Citizens got sick of it, and it became less profitable for the newspapers to print dishonest stories.

2) The courts started cracking down on intrusions into the private lives of public figures. The media were constantly poking their heads into people's private lives and the courts tended to side with the people instead of the media outlets. Some people think that our idea of a Constitutional right to privacy, is actually based on irresponsible reporters, going too far during the golden age of Yellow Journalism.

3) The media developed a code of ethics that it held itself to.

In today's world, I'm not sure any of those things are possible. Even #1, seems like a place that we have collectively arrived at, but if that were true, then the sensationalized "news" shows, wouldn't continue to see high ratings and profits.

I've heard the argument that it was the post-WW2 period we recently exited that was the true historical anomaly, and that some form of "yellow journalism" has been far more of the norm for most of the history of the printed press. Think of Colonial America, when Hamilton et al were publishing anonymous broadsides against their enemies in partisan publications.

What happened in the postwar period was that the rise of mass advertising shifted the business model of newspapers (and later, TV stations) to chase after the broadest possible audience, which gave them an incentive to be less partisan and more consensus driven. There were problems with that model, too (yes, Walter Cronkite was great, but if he had a blind spot, then most of America would have the same blind spot) but it was highly successful until the Internet democratized information and destroyed the local advertising monopolies enjoyed by regional papers. Now media businesses dependent on advertising use sensationalism to reach the broadest possible audience, or they ditch advertising altogether and use partisan messaging to get the die-hards to pay subscription fees directly to the media outlet

There's a lot of truth to this, but the decline in ad revenues can't explain the fall of NPR.

These legacy institutions -- media, academia, government -- are all failing for the same reason. They've spent the last 10 years hiring people based on ideology instead of competence. You can get away with that for a little while. Eventually people take notice, usually after some spectacular failures. Of which we've had several recently.

Yeah, that's not true of newspapers. If anything it's been:

1. National consolidation: see Gannett buying up local newspapers and squeezing out what made them local to increase profits. They created a poor reader experience by trimming local content for national news - increasing profits short term, but killing subscription growth long term
2. Loss of local ad revenue to the Internet

I worked at a newspaper that had DEI-type rules and leadership in the 90s. I can tell you that had very little to do with their newsroom shrinking from like 50 people then to literally 1 now. It was the two items above. Corporate short term greed and an inability to change the revenue model fast enough when ads started going to Craigslist and then Google.

If they had only hired who you call competent, they'd still be where they are largely because of the two items above.

I'm not talking about your local small-town paper that closed. I'm talking about NPR, NYT, WashPo, CNN, etc.

st. Just stating my experience: At that newsroom in the 90s there were quotas for stories/photos of people of color. Part of employee reviews included how diverse stories were. As far as I know, that was a Gannett corporate mandate.

NPR was every story. I think that might be the point here. Quotas are not the same as framing every story with an eye that at least addresses identity intersectionality. It was in every story. Definitely different than nineties quotas regarding diversity.

The nineties are quaint in comparison. When each story has two paragraphs about the intersectionality chart, the stories are wildly different than what the nineties were.

I don't read NPR, but every story? So you're saying every story was through an identity lens?

Ever read their music section? I have. It was done with a heavy emphasis on poptimism and identity.

Nope, never read it. Just so I'm understanding - You're saying the music section is through an identity lens? But not NPR as a whole? Or both?

We're talking album reviews? That kind of thing?

I guess I'm not surprised. I mean, that's opinion, not news.

Because I never read it, I googled NPR Music and went to the first article.

Way more straightforward than I would expect. What's the complaint?

https://www.npr.org/2024/04/09/1243499491/8-tracks-dirty-three-chappell-roan-pedal-steel-noah

 

[Sparky Polastri]

What are the revelations? There are thousands of outlets and many do their own thing on over half their day's lineup. There is a ton of great content as a result, but there are also segments/areas that obviuosly struggle. Being a little more specific would be helpful as the gross generalization isnt.

There is absoultely no question that NPR fell into the clickbait trap on their site with the rise of trump though.

The revelations are a Google search away, my friend. If you read them and are still confused, then I’m not sure what to tell you because it’s a political topic. Look up NPR and DEI and you’ll find the issue. If you still think that’s a normal news organization or okay for objective news then that’s fine—and you might be saying that—but here isn’t the place to debate it. Sorry, man.

I did and based on that search I made this comment:

I have to assume that when referring to "NPR" above we are talking about their politics coverage (online/print)

Is that correct?

Then you suggested it was much bigger than that, so I asked for more, because everything there is around the political lens of all things NPR which I acknowledged fell into the clickbait trap like others in the online space. They definitely weren't immune.

 

[rockaction]

We have essentially gone back to the days of Yellow Journalism. The United States ended up fighting the Spanish-American War, in large part because of the media sensationalizing and exaggerating stories about Spain, Cuba and the USS Maine. They riled up the populace and more or less, forced the hand of President McKinley to do something about the situation in Cuba.

It was all to sell more newspapers. How do you sell more newspapers? Have the "best" (interesting/exciting/titillating) stories. William Randolph Hearst wanted to make more money, so he made up stories, as did Joseph Pulitzer.

Today, there is so much money to be made in media and there are so many ways to distribute the news, (TV/Radio/NewsPaper/Blogs/YouTube/Social Media) that essentially anybody can become a media mogul. The more willing you are to delve into the "Yellow Journalism" space, the more money you will likely make. They don't care if they lie, cheat, steal or cause division as long as that next big paycheck shows up in their account. They're sitting at a bar in the Caribbean sipping a drink, while we sit in our houses, worried that someone is going to come take our guns or that our kids might read a book at school that mentions that gay people exist.

This stuff applies to media outlets from every single part of the political spectrum. There are no "good guys" here. Even when they tell the truth, they make it "sexier" than they need to, so you watch, click or read.

A few Summers ago, I took a trip with my Mom to NY and Boston. We went to Yankee Stadium, Central Park, Times Square, Fenway Park, Boston Garden. All the typical touristy stuff, as well as more "off-the-beaten path" things that I had researched. She loved it, and was -shocked- that NY in-particular was not a city-wide cess pool of druggies and murderers.

Now more than ever, as we sit inside and look at our screens, and consume media on a nearly 24/7 basis it is vitally important to get out and see things for ourselves. Travel. Talk to people. Experience things that you don't normally experience. People aren't the monsters they're made out to be, whether they fly the flag you agree with or not.

That's interesting.

What changed for journalism for it to steer back toward accuracy and away from the Yellow Journalism as the main stream? For sure, some outlets have always been wild like that. And I know it's naive to think there hasn't always been spin. But it seemed during the Walter Kronkite years I remember as boy, there was more seriousness put on factual news.

I don't think that there was really one thing that curtailed it, but probably a mixture of the following:

1) Citizens got sick of it, and it became less profitable for the newspapers to print dishonest stories.

2) The courts started cracking down on intrusions into the private lives of public figures. The media were constantly poking their heads into people's private lives and the courts tended to side with the people instead of the media outlets. Some people think that our idea of a Constitutional right to privacy, is actually based on irresponsible reporters, going too far during the golden age of Yellow Journalism.

3) The media developed a code of ethics that it held itself to.

In today's world, I'm not sure any of those things are possible. Even #1, seems like a place that we have collectively arrived at, but if that were true, then the sensationalized "news" shows, wouldn't continue to see high ratings and profits.

I've heard the argument that it was the post-WW2 period we recently exited that was the true historical anomaly, and that some form of "yellow journalism" has been far more of the norm for most of the history of the printed press. Think of Colonial America, when Hamilton et al were publishing anonymous broadsides against their enemies in partisan publications.

What happened in the postwar period was that the rise of mass advertising shifted the business model of newspapers (and later, TV stations) to chase after the broadest possible audience, which gave them an incentive to be less partisan and more consensus driven. There were problems with that model, too (yes, Walter Cronkite was great, but if he had a blind spot, then most of America would have the same blind spot) but it was highly successful until the Internet democratized information and destroyed the local advertising monopolies enjoyed by regional papers. Now media businesses dependent on advertising use sensationalism to reach the broadest possible audience, or they ditch advertising altogether and use partisan messaging to get the die-hards to pay subscription fees directly to the media outlet

There's a lot of truth to this, but the decline in ad revenues can't explain the fall of NPR.

These legacy institutions -- media, academia, government -- are all failing for the same reason. They've spent the last 10 years hiring people based on ideology instead of competence. You can get away with that for a little while. Eventually people take notice, usually after some spectacular failures. Of which we've had several recently.

Yeah, that's not true of newspapers. If anything it's been:

1. National consolidation: see Gannett buying up local newspapers and squeezing out what made them local to increase profits. They created a poor reader experience by trimming local content for national news - increasing profits short term, but killing subscription growth long term
2. Loss of local ad revenue to the Internet

I worked at a newspaper that had DEI-type rules and leadership in the 90s. I can tell you that had very little to do with their newsroom shrinking from like 50 people then to literally 1 now. It was the two items above. Corporate short term greed and an inability to change the revenue model fast enough when ads started going to Craigslist and then Google.

If they had only hired who you call competent, they'd still be where they are largely because of the two items above.

I'm not talking about your local small-town paper that closed. I'm talking about NPR, NYT, WashPo, CNN, etc.

st. Just stating my experience: At that newsroom in the 90s there were quotas for stories/photos of people of color. Part of employee reviews included how diverse stories were. As far as I know, that was a Gannett corporate mandate.

NPR was every story. I think that might be the point here. Quotas are not the same as framing every story with an eye that at least addresses identity intersectionality. It was in every story. Definitely different than nineties quotas regarding diversity.

The nineties are quaint in comparison. When each story has two paragraphs about the intersectionality chart, the stories are wildly different than what the nineties were.

I don't read NPR, but every story? So you're saying every story was through an identity lens?

Ever read their music section? I have. It was done with a heavy emphasis on poptimism and identity.

Nope, never read it. Just so I'm understanding - You're saying the music section is through an identity lens? But not NPR as a whole? Or both?

We're talking album reviews? That kind of thing?

I guess I'm not surprised. I mean, that's opinion, not news.

Because I never read it, I googled NPR Music and went to the first article.

Way more straightforward than I would expect. What's the complaint?

https://www.npr.org/2024/04/09/1243499491/8-tracks-dirty-three-chappell-roan-pedal-steel-noah

Yeah dude, nothing about intersectionality in the first article after the review.

“Early into her debut album, Att., Young Mikosays what so many men in reggaeton have basically said before: "Vente conmigo, your boy ain't s***."

But those words hit different coming from the 25-year-old Puerto Rican rapper, whose girly, Y2K aesthetic and low, throaty bars have upended norms in Latin pop. On Att. — the abbreviation for the formal letter sign-off, atentamente — Young Miko's gaze is fully formed, subverting the macho bravado that often dominates reggaeton and Latin trap into a weed-fueled celebration of lesbian love and sex.”

Yeah, can’t see anything like that.

Dude, here’s the thing. You posted an anecdotal evidentiary type thing. Try reading the whole section for a while and try thinking about what I’m saying as a reader. You sound like you have a conclusion to cling tightly to and prove. That took me a whopping second to find an identity-based article. Sorry, it took me two seconds. Maybe you can try reading instead of contravening points. Best to you, bro. Keep an open mind.

 

[rockaction]

What are the revelations? There are thousands of outlets and many do their own thing on over half their day's lineup. There is a ton of great content as a result, but there are also segments/areas that obviuosly struggle. Being a little more specific would be helpful as the gross generalization isnt.

There is absoultely no question that NPR fell into the clickbait trap on their site with the rise of trump though.

The revelations are a Google search away, my friend. If you read them and are still confused, then I’m not sure what to tell you because it’s a political topic. Look up NPR and DEI and you’ll find the issue. If you still think that’s a normal news organization or okay for objective news then that’s fine—and you might be saying that—but here isn’t the place to debate it. Sorry, man.

I did and based on that search I made this comment:

I have to assume that when referring to "NPR" above we are talking about their politics coverage (online/print)

Is that correct?

Then you suggested it was much bigger than that, so I asked for more, because everything there is around the political lens of all things NPR which I acknowledged fell into the clickbait trap like others in the online space. They definitely weren't immune.

Mmm. Yeah, you know what? You both seem new and if you can’t figure it out, ask somebody else. I’m sensing some real bad faith on both your parts. I could be very wrong. I’ll gladly see you around if you’re both on the up and up. Until then, this topic is closed on my end. Peace!

Eta* You know what? I am so sorry. Not everyone lives in my world. Google “NPR, Free Press” and go from there. My apologies again. Peace!

 

[rockaction]

Please accept my apologies. You both seem like you’re just curious. I’m just sensitive about bad faith stuff. Don’t let this be a reflection of the people around here. It’s just me.

Peace, fellas.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

I have googled all the things suggested and they all lead to a main focus on things political from Hunter Biden, to COVID, to the whistleblower, to how other political stories were covered. As I said before, there are thousands of facets to the contributions that make up "NPR". Literally. So when someone says "all" or "every" or whatever broad brush term they want to use, it sets off a warning bell at least for me. Things like This American Life, Radio Lab, Science Friday, Hidden Brain, Think (could go on and on) don't really fit the generalization. Of course, as with anything, if we're looking for something we're going to find it. That speaks mostly to our internal/personal biases more than it does to the content we are reacting to though. This is why I asked about the specifics before and it seems like that's exactly what you guys were talking about. I don't know why you'd immediately flip to the "you're talking in bad faith" narrative. Because I disagree with the overly broad generalization? Ok I guess. You aren't the only one I've noticed doing that sort of thing around here. I don't get it but whatever.

If we step back and think about DEI at a 10,000 foot level, we realize it's the grown-up version of "everybody gets a trophy" which has been around since dirt. I think the fuel on that bonfire that caused everyone in the business to lose their collective **** was this "alternate facts" stuff that came from it. Everyone's OPINION had to be valued the same even if they were not rooted in equal footing. And when people pushed back on the foundational basis for some of the nonsense and showed that the facts suggest that no, not everyone's OPINION had the same sort of legitimacy those that didn't like it started trying to change what facts are/were and they started conflating opinion with fact. There was a massive pendulum swing as a result where people became over sensitive to topics and wanted to SHOW they were different producing results like all those articles suggest.

 

[uwillbsoon]

Please accept my apologies. You both seem like you’re just curious. I’m just sensitive about bad faith stuff. Don’t let this be a reflection of the people around here. It’s just me.

Peace, fellas.

Yup, understood. I was genuinely being curious. I'll stop now ( I should have last time I said I'd stop ). My bad.

 

[Gatorade]

The media backlash is and has been taking place for several years. If Americans want "now-your problem" news in our capitalistic society, there will be an entrepreneur ready to capture that....to some extent that's what Elon Musk is trying to do with X(not exactly)

the disturbing thing about all this free "news" is that now foreign actors like tic-toc feed you what they want you to here to influence not only politically, but personally.

 

[rockaction]

Please accept my apologies. You both seem like you’re just curious. I’m just sensitive about bad faith stuff. Don’t let this be a reflection of the people around here. It’s just me.

Peace, fellas.

Yup, understood. I was genuinely being curious. I'll stop now ( I should have last time I said I'd stop ). My bad.

You were just being curious and it’s my bad. Sorry, man.

 

[Sand]

There's a lot of truth to this, but the decline in ad revenues can't explain the fall of NPR.

These legacy institutions -- media, academia, government -- are all failing for the same reason. They've spent the last 10 years hiring people based on ideology instead of competence. You can get away with that for a little while. Eventually people take notice, usually after some spectacular failures. Of which we've had several recently.

Speaking of NPR - there was a good article today by an NPR editor about how NPR lost the trust of the American people. It's worth the read.

Not to wade too deep into these waters, but I find myself watching Breaking Points on Youtube a good bit. It's pretty balanced with heaps of skepticism. IMO, better than big media fare.

The hegemony in charge of NPR evidently didn't like this, so they suspended this author and he has just resigned (I'm sure he was told to resign). Reason #439 why most of the large media newsrooms have lost the American people.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

There's a lot of truth to this, but the decline in ad revenues can't explain the fall of NPR.

These legacy institutions -- media, academia, government -- are all failing for the same reason. They've spent the last 10 years hiring people based on ideology instead of competence. You can get away with that for a little while. Eventually people take notice, usually after some spectacular failures. Of which we've had several recently.

Speaking of NPR - there was a good article today by an NPR editor about how NPR lost the trust of the American people. It's worth the read.

Not to wade too deep into these waters, but I find myself watching Breaking Points on Youtube a good bit. It's pretty balanced with heaps of skepticism. IMO, better than big media fare.

The hegemony in charge of NPR evidently didn't like this, so they suspended this author and he has just resigned (I'm sure he was told to resign). Reason #439 why most of the large media newsrooms have lost the American people.

The new CEO has gotten some attention as well. Hard to imagine a person like that being hired to lead a news organization 20 years ago.

 

[Todem]

We have essentially gone back to the days of Yellow Journalism. The United States ended up fighting the Spanish-American War, in large part because of the media sensationalizing and exaggerating stories about Spain, Cuba and the USS Maine. They riled up the populace and more or less, forced the hand of President McKinley to do something about the situation in Cuba.

It was all to sell more newspapers. How do you sell more newspapers? Have the "best" (interesting/exciting/titillating) stories. William Randolph Hearst wanted to make more money, so he made up stories, as did Joseph Pulitzer.

Today, there is so much money to be made in media and there are so many ways to distribute the news, (TV/Radio/NewsPaper/Blogs/YouTube/Social Media) that essentially anybody can become a media mogul. The more willing you are to delve into the "Yellow Journalism" space, the more money you will likely make. They don't care if they lie, cheat, steal or cause division as long as that next big paycheck shows up in their account. They're sitting at a bar in the Caribbean sipping a drink, while we sit in our houses, worried that someone is going to come take our guns or that our kids might read a book at school that mentions that gay people exist.

This stuff applies to media outlets from every single part of the political spectrum. There are no "good guys" here. Even when they tell the truth, they make it "sexier" than they need to, so you watch, click or read.

A few Summers ago, I took a trip with my Mom to NY and Boston. We went to Yankee Stadium, Central Park, Times Square, Fenway Park, Boston Garden. All the typical touristy stuff, as well as more "off-the-beaten path" things that I had researched. She loved it, and was -shocked- that NY in-particular was not a city-wide cess pool of druggies and murderers.

Now more than ever, as we sit inside and look at our screens, and consume media on a nearly 24/7 basis it is vitally important to get out and see things for ourselves. Travel. Talk to people. Experience things that you don't normally experience. People aren't the monsters they're made out to be, whether they fly the flag you agree with or not.

I can attest Times Square is a cesspool these days lol.

But in general you make a great point.

 

[Max Power]

There's a lot of truth to this, but the decline in ad revenues can't explain the fall of NPR.

These legacy institutions -- media, academia, government -- are all failing for the same reason. They've spent the last 10 years hiring people based on ideology instead of competence. You can get away with that for a little while. Eventually people take notice, usually after some spectacular failures. Of which we've had several recently.

Speaking of NPR - there was a good article today by an NPR editor about how NPR lost the trust of the American people. It's worth the read.

Not to wade too deep into these waters, but I find myself watching Breaking Points on Youtube a good bit. It's pretty balanced with heaps of skepticism. IMO, better than big media fare.

The hegemony in charge of NPR evidently didn't like this, so they suspended this author and he has just resigned (I'm sure he was told to resign). Reason #439 why most of the large media newsrooms have lost the American people.

The new CEO has gotten some attention as well. Hard to imagine a person like that being hired to lead a news organization 20 years ago.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1780656157163712742

Interesting way of looking at it for sure.

Facts + Beliefs = your truth

 

[beer 30]

Money. That's the answer, like it usually is.

Oddly enough, most of everything wrong with the world today boils down to this very thing.

 

[Joe Bryant]

There's a lot of truth to this, but the decline in ad revenues can't explain the fall of NPR.

These legacy institutions -- media, academia, government -- are all failing for the same reason. They've spent the last 10 years hiring people based on ideology instead of competence. You can get away with that for a little while. Eventually people take notice, usually after some spectacular failures. Of which we've had several recently.

Speaking of NPR - there was a good article today by an NPR editor about how NPR lost the trust of the American people. It's worth the read.

Not to wade too deep into these waters, but I find myself watching Breaking Points on Youtube a good bit. It's pretty balanced with heaps of skepticism. IMO, better than big media fare.

Yes. I worry this is going over the edge for political but the article is excellent.

I’ve Been at NPR for 25 Years. Here’s How We Lost America’s Trust​

The podcast where Bari Weiss interviews the NPR veteran adds more depth to it. He's a long time journalist and loves NPR. He's a lifer there. To hear him talk, he sounds completely reasonable and concerned. He spoke out as he was alarmed at the changes in the organization in how they lost their objectivity. And in his opinion, that caused them to lose the trust of America.

He was also suspended for 5 days without pay after criticizing NPR. Presumably for not obtaining clearance to talk to another news outlet.

It's an important story and worth reading, as objectivity doesn't have to be political.

 

[MTskibum]

There's a lot of truth to this, but the decline in ad revenues can't explain the fall of NPR.

These legacy institutions -- media, academia, government -- are all failing for the same reason. They've spent the last 10 years hiring people based on ideology instead of competence. You can get away with that for a little while. Eventually people take notice, usually after some spectacular failures. Of which we've had several recently.

Speaking of NPR - there was a good article today by an NPR editor about how NPR lost the trust of the American people. It's worth the read.

Not to wade too deep into these waters, but I find myself watching Breaking Points on Youtube a good bit. It's pretty balanced with heaps of skepticism. IMO, better than big media fare.

My wife and I are middle of the road politcally and 10 years ago we listened to NPR as our go to radio station. We never listen to it now. I am surprised the drop off in middle of road listeners is not greater.

Back in 2011, although NPR’s audience tilted a bit to the left, it still bore a resemblance to America at large. Twenty-six percent of listeners described themselves as conservative, 23 percent as middle of the road, and 37 percent as liberal.

By 2023, the picture was completely different: only 11 percent described themselves as very or somewhat conservative, 21 percent as middle of the road, and 67 percent of listeners said they were very or somewhat liberal. We weren’t just losing conservatives; we were also losing moderates and traditional liberals.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Update. Now it looks like the NPR 25 year editor who criticized NPR is now a former NPR 25 year editor. https://www.npr.org/2024/04/17/1245283076/npr-editor-uri-berliner-resigns-ceo-katherine-maher

 

[uwillbsoon]

There's a lot of truth to this, but the decline in ad revenues can't explain the fall of NPR.

These legacy institutions -- media, academia, government -- are all failing for the same reason. They've spent the last 10 years hiring people based on ideology instead of competence. You can get away with that for a little while. Eventually people take notice, usually after some spectacular failures. Of which we've had several recently.

Speaking of NPR - there was a good article today by an NPR editor about how NPR lost the trust of the American people. It's worth the read.

Not to wade too deep into these waters, but I find myself watching Breaking Points on Youtube a good bit. It's pretty balanced with heaps of skepticism. IMO, better than big media fare.

My wife and I are middle of the road politcally and 10 years ago we listened to NPR as our go to radio station. We never listen to it now. I am surprised the drop off in middle of road listeners is not greater.

Back in 2011, although NPR’s audience tilted a bit to the left, it still bore a resemblance to America at large. Twenty-six percent of listeners described themselves as conservative, 23 percent as middle of the road, and 37 percent as liberal.

By 2023, the picture was completely different: only 11 percent described themselves as very or somewhat conservative, 21 percent as middle of the road, and 67 percent of listeners said they were very or somewhat liberal. We weren’t just losing conservatives; we were also losing moderates and traditional liberals.

What do you listen to now?

 

[uwillbsoon]

There's a lot of truth to this, but the decline in ad revenues can't explain the fall of NPR.

These legacy institutions -- media, academia, government -- are all failing for the same reason. They've spent the last 10 years hiring people based on ideology instead of competence. You can get away with that for a little while. Eventually people take notice, usually after some spectacular failures. Of which we've had several recently.

Speaking of NPR - there was a good article today by an NPR editor about how NPR lost the trust of the American people. It's worth the read.

Not to wade too deep into these waters, but I find myself watching Breaking Points on Youtube a good bit. It's pretty balanced with heaps of skepticism. IMO, better than big media fare.

Yes. I worry this is going over the edge for political but the article is excellent.

I’ve Been at NPR for 25 Years. Here’s How We Lost America’s Trust​

The podcast where Bari Weiss interviews the NPR veteran adds more depth to it. He's a long time journalist and loves NPR. He's a lifer there. To hear him talk, he sounds completely reasonable and concerned. He spoke out as he was alarmed at the changes in the organization in how they lost their objectivity. And in his opinion, that caused them to lose the trust of America.

He was also suspended for 5 days without pay after criticizing NPR. Presumably for not obtaining clearance to talk to another news outlet.

It's an important story and worth reading, as objectivity doesn't have to be political.

I don't see how this isn't political. His thesis is NPR isn't diverse politically.


Which is true.


My questions would be: Why? And also: How do you fix it?

A core issue is availability. Journalism requires a college education. Dems are increasingly college educated. And those Republicans that are, aren't going into journalism because there's an anti-journalism streak in the party.

 

[Todem]

Money. That's the answer, like it usually is.

Oddly enough, most of everything wrong with the world today boils down to this very thing.

And has since forever ago. And I know this may be a gaslighter/controversial statement:

Religion.

That coupled with money is root of mans evil unfortunately. I mean history has shown this.

 

[beer 30]

Money. That's the answer, like it usually is.

Oddly enough, most of everything wrong with the world today boils down to this very thing.

And has since forever ago. And I know this may be a gaslighter/controversial statement:

Religion.

That coupled with money is root of mans evil unfortunately. I mean history has shown this.

No lies detected

 

[Max Power]

There's a lot of truth to this, but the decline in ad revenues can't explain the fall of NPR.

These legacy institutions -- media, academia, government -- are all failing for the same reason. They've spent the last 10 years hiring people based on ideology instead of competence. You can get away with that for a little while. Eventually people take notice, usually after some spectacular failures. Of which we've had several recently.

Speaking of NPR - there was a good article today by an NPR editor about how NPR lost the trust of the American people. It's worth the read.

Not to wade too deep into these waters, but I find myself watching Breaking Points on Youtube a good bit. It's pretty balanced with heaps of skepticism. IMO, better than big media fare.

Yes. I worry this is going over the edge for political but the article is excellent.

I’ve Been at NPR for 25 Years. Here’s How We Lost America’s Trust​

The podcast where Bari Weiss interviews the NPR veteran adds more depth to it. He's a long time journalist and loves NPR. He's a lifer there. To hear him talk, he sounds completely reasonable and concerned. He spoke out as he was alarmed at the changes in the organization in how they lost their objectivity. And in his opinion, that caused them to lose the trust of America.

He was also suspended for 5 days without pay after criticizing NPR. Presumably for not obtaining clearance to talk to another news outlet.

It's an important story and worth reading, as objectivity doesn't have to be political.

I don't see how this isn't political. His thesis is NPR isn't diverse politically.


Which is true.


My questions would be: Why? And also: How do you fix it?

A core issue is availability. Journalism requires a college education. Dems are increasingly college educated. And those Republicans that are, aren't going into journalism because there's an anti-journalism streak in the party.

This is going to be an interesting ride. The new CEO believes one of the "problems" with Wikipedia is how it cites "reliable sources" using a "white male westernized construct" to determine the validity of the source.