Is the mainstream media becoming less worthy of trust?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Thread Starter

Pca

Joined Feb 10, 2020
17
How much do you trust the media to tell you the truth?

Is the internet now just a way to reinforce our own biases.

How do you stay informed and how do you know what is true...
or is truth now relative or worse just competing narratives.
 
Last edited:

Alec_t

Joined Sep 17, 2013
11,628
For at least a century(?) journalists have had a reputation for inventing news stories if no factual news is available. So fake news is not ..... new.
 

strantor

Joined Oct 3, 2010
5,329
The mainstream media, on all sides, not just one or the other, is untrustworthy. They have served their purpose in the past but we don't need them anymore. They are doing more harm than good. We are the media now. We have the resources to propagate our own news. And We The Media have the resources (and responsibility) to fact check it before propagating it, and really should have the good sense to fact check what we let take up residence in our minds even if we have no intention of sharing it.
 

Berzerker

Joined Jul 29, 2018
621
I don't think you can trust any of them. They leave parts out when it fits there narrative, Flat out lie when they don't like you, promote hatred between the different races, print/air classified information and I could go on.
Bias is not news. When you don't tell your audience the truth or facts how can they ascertain the judgement to make correct choices.
Brzrkr
 

OBW0549

Joined Mar 2, 2015
3,545
How much do you trust the media to tell you the truth?
Not much. Not that I assume the media is always dishonest, but rather that journalists are, after all, human and therefore subject to the normal human frailties. Also, journalists generally haven't received much education about anything but journalism. Especially anything to do with science or engineering, about which most of them are dumber than a box of wet hair.

Over the years I've developed sort of a checklist to use when evaluating news stories and the people who report them. The bottom line is, be skeptical of EVERYTHING:

1. Don't ever, EVER watch news on TV or listen to it on the radio. Read, don't listen.

2. Know your reporters and news outlets, and be familiar with articles they've written in the past:
  • ALL news outlets are partisan to some extent. How partisan is this reporter/outlet?
  • How has this outlet or author reported similar events in the past, when the other political party was involved?
  • How differently does this author or outlet generally treat the political parties? Does he/it consistently favor one over the other(s)?
  • Does the author/publisher issue corrections promptly and prominently when they get things wrong?
  • What stories are being ignored by this particular news outlet, but are being reported elsewhere? What stories is it flogging to death?
  • Watch out for "herd thinking" (or even collusion): do you see this outlet and other outlets resorting to the same phrases/language to describe something?
3. Read all articles critically and with great skepticism:
  • Does the article use "scare quotes" meant to suggest skepticism or ridicule?
  • Apply the 24-hour Rule (or 48-hour, or 72-hour). Has new information emerged that significantly alters the story or refutes it?
  • Are interviews presented honestly, or is clever editing employed to alter the meaning of an interviewee's statements by removing important context?
  • What inconvenient but well known facts are being omitted from a story, but which are being covered elsewhere?
  • How much does a story stick to the facts and how much is gratuitous characterization?
  • How much is the article telling you what to think, rather than just reporting the facts?
  • To what extent does the article present opinion as if it were fact?
  • To what extent does the article employ straw-man arguments?
  • To what extent does the article try to dispute general truths with cherry-picked counter examples?
  • What does the article take for granted? What does the author want YOU to take for granted?
  • To what degree does the article rely on unnamed or obscure "experts" to support its assertions?
  • Most journalists know zilch about science or engineering. Be wary of their claims and choice of scientists.
  • Does the author appear to think you're an idiot, or ignorant?
  • Does the author use sensationalistic, overblown rhetoric?
  • Ask, "What is the REAL reason for this article?"
  • How intelligent and knowledgable is the author? Most aren't terribly bright, and some are profoundly stupid and/or ignorant.
  • For news stories based on a leak or leaks, who benefits? What was the motivation for the leak? Be suspicious.
I've found it helpful to refer to this list when confronted with news I'm unsure whether, or how much, to believe.
 

Berzerker

Joined Jul 29, 2018
621
They hide under "Freedom of the press". I don't understand why the FCC ( Federal Communications Commission) or the Supreme Court doesn't place rules on them. We have "Freedom of Speech" but you aren't allowed to slander others under it.
Why can't they just report the facts and allow you and I to make up our own minds.

Reminds me of people that use God as a shield and a sword.
Attack you with him and defend themselves against you with him while sounding like hypocrite the whole time. I hate those people.
Now just replace God with "Freedom of the press".
Brzrkr
 

BobTPH

Joined Jun 5, 2013
2,533
If
They hide under "Freedom of the press". I don't understand why the FCC ( Federal Communications Commission) or the Supreme Court doesn't place rules on them. We have "Freedom of Speech" but you aren't allowed to slander others under it.
There is a name for governments that control what the press is allowed to print. It is called dictatorship. Is this really what you want? You can move to North Korea if so.

Also, we do have laws against libel and slander. Look up the definitions, then apply them to what the mainstream press (not Breitbart or Alex Jones) says, and compare to what our president says.

Bob
 

Papabravo

Joined Feb 24, 2006
14,382
The critical issue is not trust in the media. It is trust in the government. We know that the governments of Russia and China cannot be trusted. Sadly we cannot trust our government either. That problem defies an effective solution. The current public health crisis may define who is right, and who is DEAD.
 

Berzerker

Joined Jul 29, 2018
621
BobTPH said:
There is a name for governments that control what the press is allowed to print. It is called dictatorship. Is this really what you want? You can move to North Korea if so.
We all can't dive into this too deep because of the "No Politics" rule.
I didn't say tell them what to say, only how they present it. As I said allow the people to make up their own minds. When you hide facts you skew a persons perception of things. You can make them think something is good is totally bad for them.
How about "Fact check" ? When presenting breaking news or an opinion piece they must show you the evidence that backs what they say..... Not just spit something out and call it the truth because it's what they want you to believe.
They would have you think because I'm from Alabama I'm an "Angry, radical, racist, old white male"
Nothing could be further from the truth.
I said I hate people that use God as a shield and a sword. That's not exactly right! I hate no one personally just how they do things.
I could have added a few more adjectives in there but it would cause this post to get deleted.
Brzrkr
 

atferrari

Joined Jan 6, 2004
4,088
The mainstream media, on all sides, not just one or the other, is untrustworthy. They have served their purpose in the past but we don't need them anymore. They are doing more harm than good. We are the media now. We have the resources to propagate our own news. And We The Media have the resources (and responsibility) to fact check it before propagating it, and really should have the good sense to fact check what we let take up residence in our minds even if we have no intention of sharing it.
Hola strantor
We the media sounds impressive but most of us around the globe, hardly could give valid testimony of relevant events other than a car crash or an idiot trying to steel money at the grocery. And, even then, the majority starts making for poor witnesses two days after the event.

Worth to note that with the very few exceptions applied to what we had to live, all what we learnt in any historic context reached you through your first-line relatives, few friends, laboral environment or otherwise the press in its many forms.
History books, to me, formal as they use to appear, are close to a dignified variety of press basically with a different tempo (and agenda).
 

BobTPH

Joined Jun 5, 2013
2,533
When presenting breaking news or an opinion piece they must show you the evidence that backs what they say..... Not just spit something out and call it the truth because it's what they want you to believe.
Show me an example from the NY Times, Washington Post, or Wall Street Journal where they have done this. In my experience, it is not the journalists who are making thongs up, it is the people on all sides who scream “fake news” about everything, fact or opinion, that they don’t like.

Bob
 

SamR

Joined Mar 19, 2019
2,529
In my experience, the educational level of an area is reflected by its socioeconomic condition. Poor areas have uneducated populations.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top