Media Reform:

#51
#51
"News" outlets found out it is more profitable to peddle outrage and clickbait because of our (the audience) weaknesses and our propensity to have stronger engagement when we are agitated. The only reform will come when our confidence in these "news" outlets becomes so low that we're no longer being manipulated by the clickbait.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77 and SpaceCoastVol
#52
#52
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

I was a journalist for almost a decade before becoming a marketing and communications executive. My husband spent more than two decades as a newspaper publisher. There are many, many good journalists doing their job every day. It is up to the reader to discern between a credible news outlet (the Associated Press, for instance), a political commentator (Don Lemon or Tucker Carlson, for instance) and conspiracy theorists (many to be found on Twitter).

Someone mentioned a governing code of ethics. Credible journalists are members of the Society of Professional Journaliats, which has a code of ethics: SPJ Code of Ethics - Society of Professional Journalists

I’m very proud of the years I spent as a journalist. And I’m proud of the journalists who continue to report the news in a credible way today.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RavinDave, bpalmer28, McDad and 1 other person
#56
#56
ohhbother said:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

I was a journalist for almost a decade before becoming a marketing and communications executive. My husband spent more than two decades as a newspaper publisher. There are many, many good journalists doing their job every day. It is up to the reader to discern between a credible news outlet (the Associated Press, for instance), a political commentator (Don Lemon or Tucker Carlson, for instance) and conspiracy theorists (many to be found on Twitter).

Someone mentioned a governing code of ethics. Credible journalists are members of the Society of Professional Journaliats, which has a code of ethics: SPJ Code of Ethics - Society of Professional Journalists

I’m very proud of the years I spent as a journalist. And I’m proud of the journalists who continue to report the news in a credible way today.
Click to expand...

Who are these journalists that continue to report the news in a credible way?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 82_VOL_83, SpaceCoastVol and GSD82
#57
#57
hog88 said:
Who are these journalists that continue to report the news in a credible way?
Click to expand...

Associated Press. Reuters. The Guardian. Wall Street Journal. Local newspapers around the country. Look at the town where you live. Who tells you about the actions of your county commission, of your board of education? That would be journalists - most of them working for peanuts.

When I started out as a journalist, I made $7 an hour. With a college degree. I did the work from a sense of purpose and a belief that a free press is essential to our nation. Those journalists reporting in your community will never get rich. They’ll never be household names. But they are providing a Constitutionally protected service to your community.

Journalism is not defined by what CNN and Fox News do. Talking heads throwing red meat to the base is different than journalism.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RavinDave, DJimgo, bpalmer28 and 1 other person
#58
#58
MontyPython said:
You make good points.

Here's the crux of the problem IMO: Who is the ultimate arbitrator of the "Truth"?

Media biggie WaPO says Trump has lied over 20,000 times since taking office. Trump would probably throw the exact same allegation right back at WaPO. Who's right? Who would decide this for a governing body of media outlets which, btw, are by and large liberal bastions to begin with?
Click to expand...

Isn't this what "politifact" or some such is attempting? They attempt to sift through the claims and present a scale on truth.
 
#59
#59
Vol_from_86 said:
Me either. But how do we discern misinformation from what’s real? It’s becoming increasingly difficult to identify B.S.
Click to expand...
Good news is it is easier today than it has ever been. We are able to pull up via the internet actual video/audio of people, transcripts of speeches, and can research the history.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bpalmer28
#61
#61
Vol_from_86 said:
Have a system for licensing reporters and certifying reports similar to what we have for doctors, lawyers, and engineers. Form a governing body of reporters to serve a role similar to that which the Bar Association and Board of Engineers & Surveyors serves for lawyers and engineers, respectively. Make it easy to identify licensed reporters by giving them some credentials to tag onto their name similar to doctors and engineers using M.D. or P.E... Have the governing body work with legislature to for licensing requirements, continuing education requirements, and code of regulations. If it's found that a reporter is working with corrupt politicians or extremist organizations to sow misinformation, fine them and suspend their license. Hold them accountable. Make them think twice before a story out there. Make them get serious about screening sources for dependability.

Bloggers, opinion writers, and journalist can still do their thing. People like Freak can still do their thing... but in today's world we've got to take the fight against misinformation seriously. We need to separate legitimate reporting from activists posing as journalists. We've got to put a stop to extremists creating a website and masquerading as news bearers and fact checkers. We've got to put a stop to Twitter and Facebook having the authority to decide what is considered misinformation. If they flag something as misinformation that isn't misinformation, they should be fined.

Thoughts? Ideas? I'd like to present something reasonable to my Senator.
Click to expand...
1605036252608.jpeg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 82_VOL_83
#62
#62
ohhbother said:
Associated Press. Reuters. The Guardian. Wall Street Journal. Local newspapers around the country. Look at the town where you live. Who tells you about the actions of your county commission, of your board of education? That would be journalists - most of them working for peanuts.

When I started out as a journalist, I made $7 an hour. With a college degree. I did the work from a sense of purpose and a belief that a free press is essential to our nation. Those journalists reporting in your community will never get rich. They’ll never be household names. But they are providing a Constitutionally protected service to your community.

Journalism is not defined by what CNN and Fox News do. Talking heads throwing red meat to the base is different than journalism.
Click to expand...

People like the ones you describe are who I think should be distinguished from the crowd in some way
 
#64
#64
ohhbother said:
Associated Press. Reuters. The Guardian. Wall Street Journal. Local newspapers around the country. Look at the town where you live. Who tells you about the actions of your county commission, of your board of education? That would be journalists - most of them working for peanuts.

When I started out as a journalist, I made $7 an hour. With a college degree. I did the work from a sense of purpose and a belief that a free press is essential to our nation. Those journalists reporting in your community will never get rich. They’ll never be household names. But they are providing a Constitutionally protected service to your community.

Journalism is not defined by what CNN and Fox News do. Talking heads throwing red meat to the base is different than journalism.
Click to expand...

I appreciate your contributions to the thread. Well done.

In other disciplines (medicine, engineering, teaching), practitioners are encouraged (if not outright instructed) to throw their bias out the window. When I was in college 30 years ago, the journalism majors were encouraged to retain their bias. Is that still the recommendation?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77, ohhbother and bpalmer28
#65
#65
ohhbother said:
Associated Press. Reuters. The Guardian. Wall Street Journal. Local newspapers around the country. Look at the town where you live. Who tells you about the actions of your county commission, of your board of education? That would be journalists - most of them working for peanuts.

When I started out as a journalist, I made $7 an hour. With a college degree. I did the work from a sense of purpose and a belief that a free press is essential to our nation. Those journalists reporting in your community will never get rich. They’ll never be household names. But they are providing a Constitutionally protected service to your community.

Journalism is not defined by what CNN and Fox News do. Talking heads throwing red meat to the base is different than journalism.
Click to expand...

I was hoping you could throw a name out there so I would have a reference point. But I will say that I do not believe there aren't many journalists left since profit is now the name of the game and the way the media turns a profit is catering to their audience. Sure there are some independent and small town journalists left that have integrity but they are a dying bread gasping for breath.

I can't remember which one it was, it was either Cronkite or Murrow that warned about turning news into profit centers and whichever one it was was 100% correct.
 
#66
#66
MontyPython said:
You make good points.

Here's the crux of the problem IMO: Who is the ultimate arbitrator of the "Truth"?

Media biggie WaPO says Trump has lied over 20,000 times since taking office. Trump would probably throw the exact same allegation right back at WaPO. Who's right? Who would decide this for a governing body of media outlets which, btw, are by and large liberal bastions to begin with?
Click to expand...

Exactly. The debates I see on Twitter usually consist of two groups of people, each with their own view of reality. Each can point to things that “prove” they are right.

These debates are usually harmless, but when do we become concerned about there being 2 opposing realities? Today, for example, there are tens of millions of people who 100% believe the Democrats stole the election from Trump. Tens of millions of other people 100% believe Republicans are making up lies and falsifying evidence to keep Trump in office. Polar opposites. What happens if Trump wins? Chaos. We are so polarized by misinformation that it would rip our country apart. It wasn’t like this in 2000 when the election was challenged. We are far more divided now
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol and MontyPython
#67
#67
Vol_from_86 said:
Exactly. The debates I see on Twitter usually consist of two groups of people, each with their own view of reality. Each can point to things that “prove” they are right.

These debates are usually harmless, but when do we become concerned about there being 2 opposing realities? Today, for example, there are tens of millions of people who 100% believe the Democrats stole the election from Trump. Tens of millions of other people 100% believe Republicans are making up lies and falsifying evidence to keep Trump in office. Polar opposites. What happens if Trump wind? We are so polarized by misinformation that it would rip our country apart. It wasn’t like this in 2000 when the election was challenged. We are far more divided now
Click to expand...
I think making a conscious choice to NOT get your news from twitter, facebook, etc is a good first start when deciding where to go for actual "news". those platforms are cesspools. There is a reason one of our more partisan prolific posters almost exclusively shares twitter posts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BeecherVol, Sandman 423 and hog88
#68
#68
McDad said:
I think making a conscious choice to NOT get your news from twitter, facebook, etc is a good first start when deciding where to go for actual "news". those platforms are cesspools. There is a reason one of our more partisan prolific posters almost exclusively shares twitter posts.
Click to expand...
No doubt.
 
#69
#69
McDad said:
I appreciate your contributions to the thread. Well done.

In other disciplines (medicine, engineering, teaching), practitioners are encouraged (if not outright instructed) to throw their bias out the window. When I was in college 30 years ago, the journalism majors were encouraged to retain their bias. Is that still the recommendation?
Click to expand...

When I was a journalism major in the late 1980s/early 1990s, we were taught to recognize our bias and account for it. We all carry bias - it’s part of being human. A journalist’s responsibility is to set that aside and report the facts.

During my years as a reporter, I had extraordinary experiences. I attended a KKK rally in Carter County, Tennessee, and witnessed a cross burning. I was the first reporter on the scene when a train hit a car with three high-school students inside. I reported on city government - I still know a lot about sewer systems. LOL. And I reported on health care - which ultimately led to me joining a health care system as a marketer. Today, I’m VP of marketing for a health care system.

Even today, as a marketer, I try very hard to hold to the ideals I learned as a journalist. It’s my job to share stories that will move and motivate people to engage in their health care.

Anyway, that’s a long way of answering your question. No journalism professor ever told me to be “unbiased.” That’s not possible. It’s like not breathing. But they all taught me to identify my bias and set it aside when I came to work.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bpalmer28, hog88 and McDad
#72
#72
McDad said:
Isn't this what "politifact" or some such is attempting? They attempt to sift through the claims and present a scale on truth.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and I think they're pretty good FWIW.

"PolitiFact is a nonpartisan fact-checking website to sort out the truth in American politics. PolitiFact was created by the Tampa Bay Times, a Florida newspaper, in 2007. In 2018, PolitiFact was acquired by the Poynter Institute, a nonprofit school for journalists.

You can view The Poynter Institute’s most-recent public financial disclosure form 990 here.

While PolitiFact relies on administrative support from the Poynter Institute, it is otherwise financially self-sustaining. It receives funding from online advertisements placed on the website. PolitiFact also receives compensation for selling its content to media publishers and companies. Organizations that contributed more than 5 percent of total PolitiFact revenues in the previous calendar year be listed here:

• The E.W. Scripps Company

• Facebook

PolitiFact also accepts grants, which are listed by calendar year below.

In 2017, PolitiFact launched a membership campaign called the Truth Squad to allow individual donations.

Accepting financial support does not mean PolitiFact endorses the products, services or opinions of its donors. Donors have no say in the ratings PolitiFact issues. PolitiFact does not give donors the right to review or edit content.

As part of PolitiFact’s mission to remain transparent and independent, PolitiFact will disclose on this page any individual donation in excess of $1,000. PolitiFact does not accept donations from anonymous sources, political parties, elected officials or candidates seeking public office, or any other source with a conflict of interest as determined by PolitiFact’s executive director."
 
#74
#74
MontyPython said:
Yeah, and I think they're pretty good FWIW.

"PolitiFact is a nonpartisan fact-checking website to sort out the truth in American politics. PolitiFact was created by the Tampa Bay Times, a Florida newspaper, in 2007. In 2018, PolitiFact was acquired by the Poynter Institute, a nonprofit school for journalists.

You can view The Poynter Institute’s most-recent public financial disclosure form 990 here.

While PolitiFact relies on administrative support from the Poynter Institute, it is otherwise financially self-sustaining. It receives funding from online advertisements placed on the website. PolitiFact also receives compensation for selling its content to media publishers and companies. Organizations that contributed more than 5 percent of total PolitiFact revenues in the previous calendar year be listed here:

• The E.W. Scripps Company

• Facebook

PolitiFact also accepts grants, which are listed by calendar year below.

In 2017, PolitiFact launched a membership campaign called the Truth Squad to allow individual donations.

Accepting financial support does not mean PolitiFact endorses the products, services or opinions of its donors. Donors have no say in the ratings PolitiFact issues. PolitiFact does not give donors the right to review or edit content.

As part of PolitiFact’s mission to remain transparent and independent, PolitiFact will disclose on this page any individual donation in excess of $1,000. PolitiFact does not accept donations from anonymous sources, political parties, elected officials or candidates seeking public office, or any other source with a conflict of interest as determined by PolitiFact’s executive director."
Click to expand...
Considering your acute bias, your endorsement of Politifact is cause for me to be skeptical of the organization.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BeecherVol, 82_VOL_83 and hog88
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top