Why the News In Not the Truth
I am not an american, but the way media/news work down here is basically the same. Also, despite the age of the article, feels like nothing really changed, other than adding other ways to deliver news (internet/social media).
Opinions? Ideas?
These days, any news channel that reports actual facts rather than "alternative facts" is "left wing". Saying Trump's crowd size wasn't bigger than Obama's, or that the 2020 election wasn't rigged, or anything else that is objectively true as opposed to pandering to some fantasy that Trump tweeted that morning is "left wing" nowadays.
These days, any news channel that reports actual facts rather than "alternative facts" is "left wing".
Man joke as much as you want but a BALANCED medium would have half of the employees who care about politics (which is most people in media) root for the right.
That would be balanced lol. Half actively trying to have the right win
Man joke as much as you want but a BALANCED medium would have half of the employees who care about politics (which is most people in media) root for the right.
That would be balanced lol. Half actively trying to have the right win
No, that's not what balanced means when supporting the right means you have to support Trump and defend his lies (or even worse, propagate them) and behaviour. That's not what balanced means at all.
Balanced, for a journalist, means that you report facts and truth regardless of whether doing so makes "your side" look good or bad or indifferent. It means you don't let your ideology interfere with your work, outside of explicit editorialising.
No, that's not what balanced means when supporting the right means you have to support Trump and defend his lies (or even worse, propagate them) and behaviour. That's not what balanced means at all.
Balanced, for a journalist, means that you report facts and truth regardless of whether doing so makes "your side" look good or bad or indifferent. It means you don't let your ideology interfere with your work, outside of explicit editorialising.
Balanced means representing the population of the country whatever the population thinks. When giving opinions that is.
As for facts, they should always be reported exactly as they happen for all journalists no matter their political preference, that comes before balance. But you have the choice of deciding which facts to report (there are always too many to cover) which is where balance starts entering the picture.
You can be exceptionally unbalanced even if you absolutely never lie given that. And given you can interview people you choose and ask them the questions you prefer.
"explicit editorialising" is 90-99% of the job.
Take today memorial , 3 years from the day 13 american soldiers died in Afghanistan when Biden decided to leave it.
Without lying at all, you can title "Biden and Harris spit upon veterans' sacrifice and decide not to show up at soldiers' memorial".
Or "Trump cynically exploits the deaths of american soldiers at veteran memorial"
Or anything in between.
And you can be truthful while being wildly unbalanced. This is why you need half of your employees within the organization to root for one party and the other half for the other one to try to be balanced, like when you have people counting votes.
This is the game and it is played EVERY HEADLINE (video or written), every invitation you send, every question you ask anyone, every time you decide how many minutes to spend on something, every time you decide where and how to cut a video or which picture from which angle to use and so on and on
Balanced means representing the population of the country whatever the population thinks. When giving opinions that is.
As for facts, they should always be reported exactly as they happen for all journalists no matter their political preference, that comes before balance. But you have the choice of deciding which facts to report (there are always too many to cover) which is where balance starts entering the picture.
You can be exceptionally unbalanced even if you absolutely never lie given that. A
but you don't need any of that.. you could just say "remembering 13 soldiers died in afghanistan 3 years ago today." which is what news should be. not a bunch of opinion pieces passed off as news.
if we're talking ideals. just report facts. neither of those headlines you are saying contain just facts.
but you don't need any of that.. you could just say "remembering 13 soldiers died in afghanistan 3 years ago today." which is what news should be. not a bunch of opinion pieces passed off as news.
you could and it would be somewhat balanced.
But i wrote examples of extreme partisanship which don't require you to lie, as d2 mistakenly described being balanced as being truthful
My wife goes into random patient homes every day. A substantial number of them have Fox News on all day, every day. They are generally the ones that immediately start a conversation about politics and trump with her.
She almost never goes into a home with cnn on.
if we're talking ideals. just report facts. neither of those headlines you are saying contain just facts.
Even with EXCLUSIVELY facts, you could underline Biden and Harris absence of not for example.
Or another example, a somewhat not very credible yet not completly implausible accusation of misbehaviour arise against candidate X (or ehm a SCOTUS judge say).
Should it be reported? how many minutes spent on it?
Or another example, police tells the purported ethnicity of the suspect of an heinous crime (A FACT). Should you report it ? in the headline? or down the article/video?
There is no "just facts".
Or, economic data comes out, unemployment a bit higher but wages higher as well. In which order do you report the 2 things? why?
There is no "just facts"
My wife goes into random patient homes every day. A substantial number of them have Fox News on all day, every day. They are generally the ones that immediately start a conversation about politics and trump with her.
She almost never goes into a home with cnn on.
You live in Florida. Country-wide, both CNN and Fox have very high median age of viewership. Ultra-leftist MSNBC is even worse.
//
Yet the demographic claim that the cable news’ aged audience will die off goes only so far. As Los Angeles Times reporter Stephen Battaglio recently wrote, the median age of the CNN, Fox and MSNBC audiences is, respectively, 67, 68 and 71
Balanced means representing the population of the country whatever the population thinks. When giving opinions that is.
As for facts, they should always be reported exactly as they happen for all journalists no matter their political preference, that comes before balance. But you have the choice of deciding which facts to report (there are always too many to cover) which is where balance starts entering the picture.
You can be exceptionally unbalanced even if you absolutely never lie given that. A
Fine, I accept that. It still doesn't change the fact that CNN reports facts and Fox makes up lies, so there is no #bothsides as far as comparing those two specific organisations.
Fine, I accept that. It still doesn't change the fact that CNN reports facts and Fox makes up lies, so there is no #bothsides as far as comparing those two specific organisations.
Cnn is the most moderate of democratic party media organizations so they exist exactly for you to be able to claim this.
Fox is alone vs all the rest of the media so it needs to include both the moderate (still repugnantly unbalanced, like CNN) coverage and the crazy stuff.
Anyway CNN as well, surgically, has spread fake news.
Cnn is the most moderate of democratic party media organizations so they exist exactly for you to be able to claim this.
Fox is alone vs all the rest of the media so it needs to include both the moderate (still repugnantly unbalanced, like CNN) coverage and the crazy stuff.
Anyway CNN as well, surgically, has spread fake news.
Fox is not alone, there are even worse ones out there like Newsmax and OANN.
Do you have an example of CNN spreading fake news?
Fox is not alone, there are even worse ones out there like Newsmax and OANN.
Do you have an example of CNN spreading fake news?
They kept claiming the Russia collusion was basically already proven and it was just a matter of time for years.
They claimed the coventry high school guy with the MAGA hat attacked the native with racial slurs (they then had to settle for millions for that)
They went for like 2 years after it was debunked claiming the Steele dossier was proven.
They claimed ivermectin was strictly only a "horse dewormer" before Rogan threatened to sue them and they had an expert on TV claiming that no, actually, it has uses for humans.
They promoted the Smollett insane made up racist attack bullshit without any corroboration other than "Smollett said that and other leftist media reports that"
Should i go on?
They kept claiming the Russia collusion was basically already proven and it was just a matter of time for years.
They claimed the coventry high school guy with the MAGA hat attacked the native with racial slurs (they then had to settle for millions for that)
They went for like 2 years after it was debunked claiming the Steele dossier was proven.
They claimed ivermectin was strictly only a "horse dewormer" before Rogan threatened to sue them and they had an expert on TV claiming that no, actually, i
I'm familiar with these stories, and with the exception of the Steele dossier, calling them "fake news" on par with the sort of fake news we see on Fox regularly is questionable at best (and a fair bit of the stuff in there Steele dossier turned out to be accurate, just not all of it). But I don't want to get into an in-depth debate on each story here.
They kept claiming the Russia collusion was basically already proven and it was just a matter of time for years.
They claimed the coventry high school guy with the MAGA hat attacked the native with racial slurs (they then had to settle for millions for that)
They went for like 2 years after it was debunked claiming the Steele dossier was proven.
They claimed ivermectin was strictly only a "horse dewormer" before Rogan threatened to sue them and they had an expert on TV claiming that no, actually, i
it is HIGHLY unlikely that CNN settled with that kid for more than 5 figures, let alone "millions".
it is HIGHLY unlikely that CNN settled with that kid for more than 5 figures, let alone "millions".
Why do you say that? Genuinely curious cause I remember the story being that the kid sued CNN for some insane number, like a quarter of a billy insane.
Why do you think 5 figures is more likely than millions?
Why do you say that? Genuinely curious cause I remember the story being that the kid sued CNN for some insane number, like a quarter of a billy insane.
Why do you think 5 figures is more likely than millions?
because it's a nuisance suit. he got paid to go away.
what are his damages? can he show any? like in dollars? you can't just say they were mean to me now i'm owed 275 million dollars.
for example in the rudy giuliani one that actually went to trial. there was evidence of death threats, the women lost their jobs, their houses and cars got vandalized, at one point the FBI had to advise the women to leave their homes, they had moving expenses, they had proof of medical expenses. and then the punitives on top were for repeated conduct and no repentance.
the covington kid had a sad feeling? here's 50-75k so we can get this out of the press today rather than it being a story for 3 more weeks..
because it's a nuisance suit. he got paid to go away.
what are his damages? can he show any? like in dollars? you can't just say they were mean to me now i'm owed 275 million dollars.
for example in the rudy giuliani one that actually went to trial. there was evidence of death threats, the women lost their jobs, their houses and cars got vandalized, at one point the FBI had to advise the women to leave their homes, they had moving expenses, they had proof of medical expenses. and then the pu
WaPo and MSNBC paid him as well. Main damage was reputational, he had just finished high school and the insane coverage can very well have given him problems getting into colleges, and you know that very well.
But anyway the topic was fake news: CNN spread fake news against a kid because it played well with the narrative that MAGA is racist. Except it was all fabricated.
because it's a nuisance suit. he got paid to go away.
what are his damages? can he show any? like in dollars? you can't just say they were mean to me now i'm owed 275 million dollars.
for example in the rudy giuliani one that actually went to trial. there was evidence of death threats, the women lost their jobs, their houses and cars got vandalized, at one point the FBI had to advise the women to leave their homes, they had moving expenses, they had proof of medical expenses. and then the pu
This seems a bit short sighted. That kid was blasted all over national and international news for weeks if not months. To pretend reputational damage isn't a thing especially for a kid trying to get into colleges and what not seems silly.
This seems a bit short sighted. That kid was blasted all over national and international news for weeks if not months. To pretend reputational damage isn't a thing especially for a kid trying to get into colleges and what not seems silly.
Many leftists were simply happy that a kid with a maga hat got destroyed, even when it came out it did nothing wrong, wearing the maga hat for many of them is more than enough to justify national networks attacking him for weeks.
That's who they are, that's why the democratic national networks... attacked him for weeks.
Many leftists were simply happy that a kid with a maga hat got destroyed, even when it came out it did nothing wrong, wearing the maga hat for many of them is more than enough to justify national networks attacking him for weeks.
That's who they are, that's why the democratic national networks... attacked him for weeks.
Yeah I guess. Just silly for people to pretend this kids reputation hasn't been destroyed. Would imagine a good lawyer could milk the **** out of this.
Many leftists were simply happy that a kid with a maga hat got destroyed, even when it came out it did nothing wrong, wearing the maga hat for many of them is more than enough to justify national networks attacking him for weeks.
That's who they are, that's why the democratic national networks... attacked him for weeks.
Seems like if he was wearing a MAGA hat, attacking him was the morally right thing to do. In fact, we have a moral impetus to attack all people with MAGA hats.
Am I doing it right?
