The News Thread

[zabu of nΩd]

I edited my post to include an example of systemic liberal media bias dating back to 1986. If the conservative bias you mention above is really just a response to liberal bias that predates it (which, chronologically speaking, could be the case for all your examples), I don't see how it's fair to call it a "response to facts that made republicans look bad".

 

[Dak]

I would be fine if the complaints about Trump were evenkeeled and applied consistent, principled opposition to his more problematic propositions. But that simply hasn't been and is not currently the situation in the overwhelming majority of media. I will say that although I no longer lean on Mises.org for anything, what I have seen is always consistently principled and of a rational tone, even if I don't agree with it. CNN headlines are all

NATION ON THE BRINK DUE TO LATEST TRUMP CRISIS
210% OF THE WORLD CONCERNED BY TRUMP LIES
IS TRUMP GASLIGHTING THE WORLD???

Give me a fucking break.

 

[Einherjar86]

I edited my post to include an example of systemic liberal media bias dating back to 1986. If the conservative bias you mention above is really just a response to liberal bias that predates it (which, chronologically speaking, could be the case for all your examples), I don't see how it's fair to call it a "response to facts that made republicans look bad".

Sorry, I think this misses the point. You're focusing on isolated incidents, which, sure--they certainly happened. But the article is suggesting that even despite liberal bias (which most certainly occurs), there are systems in place in order to keep the reporting of information accurate, regardless of bias.

The problem with the right-wing reaction to liberal bias, wherever/whenever it occurs, is that it aims to take down the entire system of informational checks and balances, meaning that people like Trump can say "Obama tapped my phones" and get away with it. It's no longer of importance.

The article is saying that, now that we've entered a period in which this ideological rejection of informational reporting has actually been elected to the White House, how are we to entertain the possibility of journalistic neutrality? It's logically untenable.

I would be fine if the complaints about Trump were evenkeeled and applied consistent, principled opposition to his more problematic propositions. But that simply hasn't been and is not currently the situation in the overwhelming majority of media. I will say that although I no longer lean on Mises.org for anything, what I have seen is always consistently principled and of a rational tone, even if I don't agree with it. CNN headlines are all

NATION ON THE BRINK DUE TO LATEST TRUMP CRISIS
210% OF THE WORLD CONCERNED BY TRUMP LIES
IS TRUMP GASLIGHTING THE WORLD???

Give me a fucking break.

I mean, this is fine--the reactions since Trump's election have been massively overblown at times. That doesn't really challenge the underlying structure of the Vox argument.

 

[CiG]

The media generally has been discrediting itself for years and years by now, Obama pointed it out several times with FOX. Now that the media generally has had the gaze of the people turned on it from every direction, all the way up to the Whitehouse what does the media do? Try to rebuild their degraded credibility? No, they double down and play the victim.

This is all compounded by the fact that online media sources are becoming more and more popular and a good chunk of that is alternative media. It's fantastic.

 

[Dak]

@Einherjar86 The problem with Trump's claims is usually there's usually a kernel of truth. It appears Trump/the admin was tapped, just not directly. But the result is the same, and the rhetoric is inflammatory. Of course, no less inflammatory than the headlines from everywhere else. Trump is just playing the same game as the media (clickbait) and they are butthurt about it. You're giving too much credence to institutions which have destroyed the credence built up in a different era and with different modes of operation.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

I'm not in a position to evaluate the informational checks and balances that exist in liberal news organizations, but I do suspect there's been a conservative movement to undermine journalistic standards in the name of "balance", and that this movement probably made Trump's election possible.

 

[CiG]

I wouldn't say it's a movement, just that journalism has become tribalistic and with tribalism comes the team sport mentality.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

@Einherjar86 The problem with Trump's claims is usually there's usually a kernel of truth. It appears Trump/the admin was tapped, just not directly. But the result is the same, and the rhetoric is inflammatory. Of course, no less inflammatory than the headlines from everywhere else. Trump is just playing the same game as the media (clickbait) and they are butthurt about it. You're giving too much credence to institutions which have destroyed the credence built up in a different era and with different modes of operation.

No. Trump, as our most powerful government official, is by definition not "playing the same game as the media". Part of his job, as the Presidential oath implies, is to protect the Constitution (including the First Amendment), and Trump's hostility to the press shows he has little interest in protecting the First Amendment.

 

[Einherjar86]

@Einherjar86 The problem with Trump's claims is usually there's usually a kernel of truth. It appears Trump/the admin was tapped, just not directly. But the result is the same, and the rhetoric is inflammatory. Of course, no less inflammatory than the headlines from everywhere else. Trump is just playing the same game as the media (clickbait) and they are butthurt about it. You're giving too much credence to institutions which have destroyed the credence built up in a different era and with different modes of operation.

I don't agree, and I'm not denying the bias and inflammatory remarks of the contemporary media. You can't compare Trump's twitter comments to contemporary media, as the underlying structure and methods are entirely different. It's not about being butthurt, it's about being amazed at the informational blinders that a significant portion of the population wears; and now those blinders are being sanctioned by the institution that has in the past supported measures of journalistic accuracy, if not absolute neutrality (which I agree, is pretty much a myth).

It's a problem that people give Trump's tweets more credence than they do the media.

And I was ninja'd on this by Grant.

 

[CiG]

Am I the only one that likes an adversarial relationship between the press and the POTUS? God after 8 years of take a ride on Muhbama's dick how can you not?

If he starts actively suppressing them, maybe I'll agree.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Well he's been categorically excluding liberal news orgs from his press conferences, which is a form of suppression.

What he's doing is most likely legal, so there's only so far we can go in crying foul, but that doesn't make it right to use the power of his office to promote a culture of misinformation and hostility to the press that arguably sets the stage for rolling back First Amendment rights. No other modern President has done this, and it's not something people really thought could happen until now, so it begs the question of whether it should be legal.

 

[CiG]

I thought he merely didn't invite some orgs to an informal sit-down or something?

Also didn't Obama do something like that to FOX?

 

[Dak]

To claim that the media has a check/balance power/responsibility against the President is to undermine the claim that the President has a higher duty than the media. The media is completely complicit in the undermining of democratic institutions that both the media and the current administration want to pin on the opposition.

 

[Einherjar86]

To claim that the media has a check/balance power/responsibility against the President is to undermine the claim that the President has a higher duty than the media.

That is an entirely arbitrary comment, and relies on assumptions in order to masquerade as truthful. Rhetorically elegant, but logically imprecise. It could just as easily (and just as speculatively) be said that the media has the responsibility to fact-check the president because the president has a higher duty than the media.

The media is completely complicit in the undermining of democratic institutions that both the media and the current administration want to pin on the opposition.

You protest too much, and you flatten everything. This is a poorly construed equivalence.

 

[Talos of Atmora]

Honestly, if the mainstream media is doing any of what is being proposed here (and I'm not saying they aren't, believe me), the smart decision for Trump to make would be to have people grow tired of it by themselves. I think Rachel Maddow's "exposé" regarding his taxes is a pretty good example of what I'm talking about. She had this ridiculously long build-up to what essentially amounted to nothing. It's plainly obvious that it was a ploy for ratings by providing an underwhelming "development" to a previous "scandal". If similar things begin happening enough, then viewers will just get sick and tired of that kind of sensationalism in favor of covering his actual policy.

Trump going out and calling certain organizations as "fake news" and blatantly excluding them puts him at risk of looking like an authoritarian, which is a problem that has been plaguing his image since the beginning of his campaign.

 

[CiG]

The irony is, we're all witnessing the death throes of an out dated media from the superior position of the internet anyway.

 

[no country for old wainds]

@Talos of Atmora i think you're overestimating the american public tbh. his image is doing about as well as it possibly could given who he is; people have bought into the fake news stuff to the point that he can do all kinds of shitty stuff and still escape largely unscathed. there's no smarter way of protecting yourself than sullying the reputation of everyone who's in a position to air your dirty laundry, and in the current environment i don't really think more subtlety is necessary.

 

[CiG]

What sullying? They're already sullied.

 

[Einherjar86]

Trump going out and calling certain organizations as "fake news" and blatantly excluding them puts him at risk of looking like an authoritarian, which is a problem that has been plaguing his image since the beginning of his campaign.

And puts the media at risk of looking like the enemy of the United States, no? I mean, that's Trump's whole point--he wants to paint the media as the "opposition party" and pitch himself as the correction to the "fake news."

The Maddow deal was awful to watch, but it's indicative of a problem with mainstream cable news: that they're basically television shows, and they often market themselves as such (i.e. "Stay tuned for the twist!").

What sullying? They're already sullied.

What platforms are you referring to? A lot of shit gets thrown at the media on this forum, but honestly there still plenty of reputable and reliable publications, including online ones. Will you find unbiased reporting? Unlikely--but that doesn't mean you can't find informative, substantive reporting. I look at the NYT online every day. It's certainly not neutral, but it at least covers what's happening and offers decent contextualization. The key is then to compare the information I read on the NYT with how other venues are reporting it.

Trump's "sullying" has to do with the perception that the media don't report actual information, or accurate information. While I won't deny that there could very well be instances when inaccuracy happens, it's an overwhelmingly political and misleading tactic. The media isn't some backwater quagmire in which nothing is verifiable, and in that sense it's not entirely "sullied."

 

[CiG]

I have no problem with biased reporting granted they're open about it. As to which platforms? Pretty much every single mainstream media platform, I much prefer online platforms who are much more answerable to the readers.

FOX, CNN and MSNBC are the main offenders from America in my opinion. Funnily enough I quite like The Guardian.