The Correspondent: How We Fix The News (1 Viewer)

[TobiasFunke]

Sounds better than what we currently have.  I'm just glad that some are acknowledging that true journalism isn't realistic anymore.  Stories will always be driven by personal biases and will only appeal to one side of the aisle or the other.  I'm glad that we are being honest about it. 

Cronkite and Murrow were before my time, but my understanding is that they were pretty unbiased and just reported the news without their opinion driving a slant.  I'm sure it was fairly dull, but that was back when there wasn't much competition for views or clicks.  I don't think that's possible anymore.

Cronkite and Murrow were far more "biased" than most news coverage you see these days on the over-the-air networks or from the Washington Post or NY Times. Cronkite was a consistent critic of the Vietnam War, which may seem like common sense 50 years later but was obviously partisan at the time.  Same thing goes for Murrow and McCarthyism. If anything I'd say media does a better job than ever in removing bias from its news coverage, and perhaps even sometimes being overly cautious resulting in bias in favor of those in power. I suspect most regular readers of major American newspapers would agree. 

What has changed IMO is (1) one American political party is actively working to undermine faith in news media because their policies and practices are just as obviously bad as Vietnam and McCarthyism so they have to undermine the coverage to survive, and (2) many Americans get their news from 24 hour cable news networks that blur the lines between news, opinion and entertainment and this has skewed their understanding of all news media.

 

[munga30]

You really believe we had an honest and unbias media for the first 500 years before Fox news showed up?  Media has been heavily influenced and slanted from day 1.  In the beginning we had the rulers and churches use their power to limit viewpoints.  And more recently Nazi's and Communists (yes even those liberal left-wingers) using their iron fist to make sure only their propaganda was seen.  In the US we typically had numerous diverse sources, each with their own biases.  Rampant partisanship has characterized the print media throughout our history.  In the 80's it was painfully obvious the media hated Reagan while the public mostly loved him.   The media hated GWH Bush until rather recently.  

Journalism was far more diverse when it was working class trade instead of the professional status it has become in recent decades.  Now all reporters have college degrees and are largely programed that it is their duty not only to report news but shape opinion.  The idea that there ain't a liberal view is laughable. Of course in this cesspool of liberalthank, the mob is oblivious says believes otherwise.  That is fine, I can tolerate differing opinions.  No one here can't. 

By threatening to slap people?

 

[psychobillies]

Cronkite and Murrow were far more "biased" than most news coverage you see these days on the over-the-air networks or from the Washington Post or NY Times. Cronkite was a consistent critic of the Vietnam War, which may seem like common sense 50 years later but was obviously partisan at the time.  Same thing goes for Murrow and McCarthyism. If anything I'd say media does a better job than ever in removing bias from its news coverage. I suspect most regular readers of major American newspaper would agree. 

What has changed IMO is (1) one American political party is actively working to undermine faith in news media because their policies and practices are just as obviously bad as Vietnam and McCarthyism so they have to undermine the coverage to survive, and (2) many Americans get their news from 24 hour cable news networks that blur the lines between news, opinion and entertainment and this has skewed their understanding of all news media.

Thanks for the input on Cronkite/Murrow.

As far as (1), I have a hard time accepting that since there are very obvious and clear biases in the nightly news.  Remember when NBC got caught flipping over SUVs?  Anchormen getting fired for lying in order to push an agenda?  It's out there and it usually pushes a leftist agenda.  To just say it's good people pushing the only possible narrative, or that the Republicans are just making it up in order to provide cover for bad policy is wrong.  There's a reason that  the left is OK with it and the right is not.  

And to (2), I couldn't agree more.  Fox and MSNBC are revolting and I believe that much like the politicians on both sides, are profiting from the division in the country.  They are creating it.  Truth is, Americans don't hate each other near as much as we're made to believe or are told we're supposed to.

 

[Henry Ford]

Thanks for the input on Cronkite/Murrow.

As far as (1), I have a hard time accepting that since there are very obvious and clear biases in the nightly news.  Remember when NBC got caught flipping over SUVs?  Anchormen getting fired for lying in order to push an agenda?  It's out there and it usually pushes a leftist agenda.  To just say it's good people pushing the only possible narrative, or that the Republicans are just making it up in order to provide cover for bad policy is wrong.  There's a reason that  the left is OK with it and the right is not.  

And to (2), I couldn't agree more.  Fox and MSNBC are revolting and I believe that much like the politicians on both sides, are profiting from the division in the country.  They are creating it.  Truth is, Americans don't hate each other near as much as we're made to believe or are told we're supposed to.

Yeah, to a great extent it's just the Network problem - they're all selling ad space, and the more sensational the better.  News orgs know if they have a scoop (even if they have to make it up) they get viewers/clicks/whatever that increase revenue and increase job security and salary for whoever generates them.

Cronkite and Murrow weren't unbiased, but they were not sensationalists.  Because they were the only game in town.  You want national news you either watch them or wait for the paper.  

Everyone has a viewpoint.  It just isn't usually offensive or a big problem unless it gets added to the other insanity of current news, which amplifies it like crazy.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Thanks for the input on Cronkite/Murrow.

As far as (1), I have a hard time accepting that since there are very obvious and clear biases in the nightly news.  Remember when NBC got caught flipping over SUVs?  Anchormen getting fired for lying in order to push an agenda?  It's out there and it usually pushes a leftist agenda.  To just say it's good people pushing the only possible narrative, or that the Republicans are just making it up in order to provide cover for bad policy is wrong.  There's a reason that  the left is OK with it and the right is not.  

I didn't say the networks were perfect.  Obviously they're not. Nobody is. What I said was that perspective on them (and their mistakes) is skewed by one of the two major American political parties undermining their coverage.  Surely you agree that the GOP is working overtime to undermine the credibility of the mainstream news media, yes?  I think it's fair to assume that effort has been at least somewhat successful.

As far as left/right bias: the news media is biased against those in power.  That's a good thing- their main job in a democracy like ours is to hold those in power accountable to the people. So when one political party has most of the power obviously the coverage is going to appear to be more critical of that party than the other party.  If you looked back to when the Dems held the White House, the Senate and the House in 2009-10 you'd find a similar lean even without the obvious disparity in policy mistakes and corruption (or the state-level domination by one party over the other that we had until recently).

Also if you think "the left" is OK with the current state of news media you are very mistaken. Progressives in particular are very critical of news media these days. Three big criticisms you hear a lot in left-leaning circles: (1) attacks on "access journalism," which accuse reporters trading tone and accountability for access, particularly to the Trump White House; (2) claiming news media' social media practices fail to properly frame stories (for example tweeting out clearly wrong things that Trump says without explaining that he's clearly wrong, which allows his lies to spread unchecked unless people read the linked story); and (3) absolute hatred of the NY Times for the relative attention it paid the Clinton email scandal vs Trump's many more serious scandals, and bc of its genuinely terrible op-ed page.  I suspect most right-leaning people would be very surprised if they found out what most progressives think of the Times these days.

 

[psychobillies]

I didn't say the networks were perfect.  Obviously they're not. Nobody is. What I said was that perspective on them (and their mistakes) is skewed by one of the two major American political parties undermining their coverage.  Surely you agree that the GOP is working overtime to undermine the credibility of the mainstream news media, yes?  I think it's fair to assume that effort has been at least somewhat successful.

As far as left/right bias: the news media is biased against those in power.  That's a good thing- their main job in a democracy like ours is to hold those in power accountable to the people. So when one political party has most of the power obviously the coverage is going to appear to be more critical of that party than the other party.  If you looked back to when the Dems held the White House, the Senate and the House in 2009-10 you'd find a similar lean even without the obvious disparity in policy mistakes and corruption (or the state-level domination by one party over the other that we had until recently).

Also if you think "the left" is OK with the current state of news media you are very mistaken. Progressives in particular are very critical of news media these days. Three big criticisms you hear a lot in left-leaning circles: (1) attacks on "access journalism," which accuse reporters trading tone and accountability for access, particularly to the Trump White House; (2) claiming news media' social media practices fail to properly frame stories (for example tweeting out clearly wrong things that Trump says without explaining that he's clearly wrong, which allows his lies to spread unchecked unless people read the linked story); and (3) absolute hatred of the NY Times for the relative attention it paid the Clinton email scandal vs Trump's many more serious scandals, and bc of its genuinely terrible op-ed page.  I suspect most right-leaning people would be very surprised if they found out what most progressives think of the Times these days.

Absolutely agree.  It's one of the main tenets of Trumpism and has made Rush Limbaugh a very wealthy man.  But it's not like everyone who agrees is just stupid.  The outrage is there because the bias exists and the credibility lacking.  People with right leaning views are more likely to see it and complain because it stands out more to them because it's contrary to the way they see things.  It's the same outrage that people on the left feel when they watch Fox or listen to Limbaugh. (maybe not the best example)  It jumps out at them, while to people on the right it isn't as shocking.

 

[JohnnyU]

And that’s the way it is December 11th, 2018.  I’m Walter Cronkite, CBS News;  good night.

 

[Henry Ford]

They’re going to make it.  Just over $70k to go with 41 hours remaining.  

 

[jonessed]

Here’s the thing about journalists - they need a story and they need a headline and they need to sell to their readership. It’s just a fact, you wake up and you need a story. Even though you just killed yourself writing one the night or week before you need to do it again. And I think that’s where the bias and sloppiness comes in. Look at Trump, he gets it. Put out a tweet, boom, journalists will write about it, even print the tweet’s punch line as a headline. I’m not entirely sure how this helps that, so I think you sort of have a point.

Being outraged is all the rage.  It sells.  I don’t see why this would be any different.

If they have any initial intention of being thoughtful and thorough it won’t last long.  They won’t survive it.

 

[Henry Ford]

Being outraged is all the rage.  It sells.  I don’t see why this would be any different.

If they have any initial intention of being thoughtful and thorough it won’t last long.  They won’t survive it.

If I were still a betting man I’d take that bet. 

 

[Henry Ford]

Here’s the thing about journalists - they need a story and they need a headline and they need to sell to their readership. It’s just a fact, you wake up and you need a story. Even though you just killed yourself writing one the night or week before you need to do it again. And I think that’s where the bias and sloppiness comes in. Look at Trump, he gets it. Put out a tweet, boom, journalists will write about it, even print the tweet’s punch line as a headline. I’m not entirely sure how this helps that, so I think you sort of have a point.

Because good actors need to sell tickets but when they get the opportunity to work in Indy movies they do it for little pay to do what they love. 

The lack of exclusivity deals will drive this. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Being outraged is all the rage.  It sells.  I don’t see why this would be any different.

If they have any initial intention of being thoughtful and thorough it won’t last long.  They won’t survive it.

Eh, see this whole discussion is taking place in an aberrant period. Trump is distorting norms of government but also journalism. It’s a difficult question always when writing an article as to whether to be just the facts or editorialize POV. Thing is readers *do want your take, they want your perspective, and they may hate it, or they may love it, but they are looking for not just knowledge but understanding. 

So I think in normal times this is a stand-alone discussion but in this era it carries import. When a writer writes a piece he or she needs to decide how much do they alert the reader as to the urgency or extraordinariness of the situation and these are very unusual times.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Because good actors need to sell tickets but when they get the opportunity to work in Indy movies they do it for little pay to do what they love. 

The lack of exclusivity deals will drive this. 

I see your point and yes I find that very appealing.

It would be good to see serious, independent reporting return to New Orkeans as well.

 

[Henry Ford]

The Correspondent is live

https://thecorrespondent.com/

 

[Man of Constant Sorrow]

The Correspondent is live

https://thecorrespondent.com/

Joined.

It is amazing how much better the layout is here than the ad heavy sites I am used to. Very relaxing.

Edit: Decided to go with the BIG font ... sans serif. Nice feature.

 

[Henry Ford]

Tales from the border: rewriting the narrative of the anonymous migrant

Every year, hundreds of people die along the US-Mexico border. Government policy is deliberately deadly, dehumanising and erasing those who try crossing. Author Jason De León joined us to discuss invisible violence, immigration policy, and unexpected humour.

 

[Henry Ford]

If a politician can say something in 280 characters, perhaps they shouldn’t say it at all