Democracies risk 'losing souls' as media freedom erodes, group says

[piezoe]

The mainstream media has traditionally been vigilant about separating opinion from straight reporting. Efforts were made to keep reporting balanced so that both sides of controversial issues were reported. Opinion was relegated to the editorial pages.

With the internet came cheap ready access to an audience. Traditional broadcast and print media found it increasingly challenging to compete. Their costs were higher. They needed audience share to attract sufficient advertising dollars to keep their organizations financially afloat. They drifted toward the sensational, and away from drier topics, because that's where the audience was. In their attempt to compete with completely unaccountable purveyors of 'truthiness' occupying the internet space, they unwittingly signed on to truthiness, infomercials, and outright disinformation. Eventually we arrived at the present post-truth era, where distinction between truth and fiction is being lost.

Do we need any more convincing that we have arrived at the apotheosis of our transformation then the ascension of a post-truth television personality to the Highest Office in the Land. I can't see why we should. We need a new word to replace that obsolescent word 'reporting'. It is now something else. But what to call it?: "Spinning" perhaps, as in, "Who do you spin for?" "I spin for Infowars." Truth has morphed into truthiness and disinformation.

Fortunately we still have a few organizations that are doing their best to hang on to truth in their reporting: Pro-Publica, PBS, Politico (despite being profit driven, it's managed somehow to swim upstream) etc. Even the NY Times*, has managed, to hang on to truth. I presume this is because it is owned by a family controlled Trust. Its lifeblood is not dependent on truthiness and spin. Even so, I have to admit it's the NYT editorials and commentary I spring for. I'm a sucker for the ridiculous, the sensational, the outrageous and the titillating. I hate myself for it.

 

[Tsing Tao]

Fortunately we still have a few organizations that are doing their best to hang on to truth in their reporting: Pro-Publica, PBS, Politico (despite being profit driven, it's managed somehow to swim upstream) etc. Even the NY Times*, has managed, to hang on to truth.

LOL! Oh yeah, bastions of truth, those guys.

 

[jem]

piezoe once again giving us a course in communist propaganda techniques.
....observe the issue then twist the conclusion to serve the state.

We saw variations on that crock from the media in the year leading up to their campaign of crooked polls and hit pieces on trump and puff pieces for hillary. but wikileaks revealed podesta's emails which proved piezoe trusted media and family trusts were working with the clinton campaign...
so, we all see that comment for what it is... a piezoe of shit.

The mainstream media has traditionally been vigilant about separating opinion from straight reporting. Efforts were made to keep reporting balanced so that both sides of controversial issues were reported. Opinion was relegated to the editorial pages.

With the internet came cheap ready access to an audience. Traditional broadcast and print media found it increasingly challenging to compete. Their costs were higher. They needed audience share to attract sufficient advertising dollars to keep their organizations financially afloat. They drifted toward the sensational, and away from drier topics, because that's where the audience was. In their attempt to compete with completely unaccountable purveyors of 'truthiness' occupying the internet space, they unwittingly signed on to truthiness, infomercials, and outright disinformation. Eventually we arrived at the present post-truth era, where distinction between truth and fiction is being lost.

Do we need any more convincing that we have arrived at the apotheosis of our transformation then the ascension of a post-truth television personality to the Highest Office in the Land. I can't see why we should. We need a new word to replace that obsolescent word 'reporting'. It is now something else. But what to call it?: "Spinning" perhaps, as in, "Who do you spin for?" "I spin for Infowars." Truth has morphed into truthiness and disinformation.

Fortunately we still have a few organizations that are doing their best to hang on to truth in their reporting: Pro-Publica, PBS, Politico (despite being profit driven, it's managed somehow to swim upstream) etc. Even the NY Times*, has managed, to hang on to truth. I presume this is because it is owned by a family controlled Trust. Its lifeblood is not dependent on truthiness and spin. Even so, I have to admit it's the NYT editorials and commentary I spring for. I'm a sucker for the ridiculous, the sensational, the outrageous and the titillating. I hate myself for it.

 

[piezoe]

LOL! Oh yeah, bastions of truth, those guys.

We recognize that organizations like people are fallible, you being the possible exception. But when you consider the organizations I named, their records, on a relative basis, are impeccable. I mean, consider just the Times, for example: consider how many thousands of news reports run in the Times against how many significant retractions; how many really horrible transgressions, totally fabricated reports and stories (there has been a few over the years, but damn few, that we know about, and the perpetrators were fired.) The organizations I mentioned haven't given up trying to be even handed, factual and detailed. But there are others too, of course.

Now, if you consider fhl's and jem's posts above, there you can see direct evidence of what has happened; direct evidence as it were of the post-truth era. What's happened? The false stories, the ones that quoted out of context, the ones that simply invented, or the ones that were true but made use of believable innuendo, but innuendo which no evidence supported, have become the "truth", and what was once truth is now routinely considered, at best, to be truthiness, or at worst a lie dreamed up by conspirators.

Consider if you will the recent political campaign. All candidates on both sides took occasional liberties with the truth. However one candidate built his entire campaign on outright fabrication, truthiness, and disinformation. Millions believed they were hearing truth, and millions more knew they weren't but didn't care. Truth was not important to them compared to other considerations. We are living in the post-truth era.

 

[WeToddDid2]

Sorry if factual information leans a little too "left" for you. Have you considered the possibility that your world view is skewed? That maybe you're the one lacking balance?

As for the fake news referred to in the article, we all know that the actual fake stuff came in support of Trump, and that Trump derided anything as a matter of course if it criticized him in any way, and mocked it as "fake news." I'm not aware of any past president that was quite as pathological as Trump and as contemptuous of the Fourth Estate.

It is hard to believe that you would support a leader that is utterly dismissive of facts and those who present them. On the other hand, you did get exactly what you deserve.

What!? The "fake stuff came in support of Trump". Remind me, who was it that stated that Benghazi was due to a video on youtube. Better yet, who are the retards that believed that complete bullshit. Also, who incessantly repeated that you can keep your doctor if you want to when one of the primary architects of Obamacare later omitted that Obama knew he was lying about that and also that premiums wouldn't go up. All of this has gotten to the point of Looney Tunes land. Many of the statements by Trump that dems have labeled as lies haven't been. Furthermore, even if some of the statements were lies, retarded dems are acting like it is the first time in history that any President has lied.

The entire fake news propaganda campaign was started by the democrats/liberal MSM in which they would label anything they disagreed with as fake news. Trump just outmaneuvered them politically. Trump is doing what I have been saying Repubs should do for years and that is use the Democrats tactics against them.

With respect to what is fake and not, dems/liberal MSM have completely destroyed the definition of fake. They can no longer distinguish between what is subjective and objective. They regularly submit subjective opinions as objective facts.

 

[jem]

piezoe has your brain addled to the point you believe what you write or are you that much of a compromised slime shill?

Do you realize how sick you are? I provide truth and fact to counter you fake news bullshit... and then you call that fact post truth.

you are as sick as the media itself. you have not regard for truth.
podesta hacked emails which no one ever denied the truth of... revealed how compromised your trusted sources are...

the beauty is this is from:

1. . from your approved post truth source poltico...

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/10/john-podesta-emails-wikileaks-press-214367

Those snared in Podesta’s flypaper are currently suffering an abundance of embarrassment for their shameless buttering-up and apparent cozinesss with their inside sources in Clintonworld. Reading the emails, we witness CNBC/New York Times contributor John Harwood slathering Podesta with flattery, giving him campaign advice and praising Hillary Clinton. In another email, the Washington Post’s Juliet Eilperin offers Podesta a “heads up” about a story she’s about to publish, providing a brief pre-publication synopsis. CNBC’s Becky Quick promises to “defend“ Obama appointee Sylvia Mathews Burwell.


New York Times Magazine writer Mark Leibovich (who wrote a famous book lambasting permanent Washington’s courtship rituals) asks Clinton’s press secretary, Jennifer Palmieri for permission to use portions of an off-the-record interview with the candidate. Palmieri withholds only a couple of comments and concludes her email to Leibovich, “Pleasure doing business!,” giving it a creepy, transactional vibe. POLITICO reporter Glenn Thrush sends Podesta a chunk of his story-in-progress “to make sure I’m not fucking anything up.” Beyond WikiLeaks, a January 2015 Clinton strategy document obtained by the Intercept describes reporter Maggie Haberman—then at POLITICO and now at the New York Times—as someone the campaign “has a very good relationship with,” and who had been called upon to “tee up stories for us before” and had never disappointed.

here is the excuse...

"I’m even open to the sort of sycophantic “source-greasing“ that John Harwood engaged in with Team Hillary. Harwood must have used up a couple of bars of Lava soap when the time came to remove the grime ground into his hands from writing those emails. I don’t engage in that sort of ass-kissery, but if ass-kissery fills his notebook and produces good copy, I’m willing to suspend judgment.

It was only a matter of time before journalists got netted in the email sieve like so many politicians, businessmen and academics before them. Lesson learned, maybe Washington journalists will stop over-relying on email and return to the time-honored audio burn-bag that is the telephone to court and seduce and exploit their sources. Meanwhile, over drinks, they will recover soon enough and laugh at your petty ethical concerns."

2. And don't forget Donna Brazile of CNN giving the questions to hillary.

We recognize that organizations like people are fallible, you being the possible exception. But when you consider the organizations I named, their records, on a relative basis, are impeccable. I mean, consider just the Times, for example: consider how many thousands of news reports run in the Times against how many significant retractions; how many really horrible transgressions, totally fabricated reports and stories (there has been a few over the years, but damn few, that we know about, and the perpetrators were fired.) The organizations I mentioned haven't given up trying to be even handed, factual and detailed. But there are others too, of course.

Now, if you consider fhl's and jem's posts above, there you can see direct evidence of what has happened; direct evidence as it were of the post-truth era. What's happened? The false stories, the ones that quoted out of context, the ones that simply invented, or the ones that were true but made use of believable innuendo, but innuendo which no evidence supported, have become the "truth", and what was once truth is now routinely considered, at best, to be truthiness, or at worst a lie dreamed up by conspirators.

Consider if you will the recent political campaign. All candidates on both sides took occasional liberties with the truth. However one candidate built his entire campaign on outright fabrication, truthiness, and disinformation. Millions believed they were hearing truth, and millions more knew they weren't but didn't care. Truth was not important to them compared to other considerations. We are living in the post-truth era.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

It's interesting that the group doing all the whining is the same group that had a monopoly on deciding what was news for decades. Even piezoe would have to agree that many consumers found this unsatisfactory and wanted alternative sources. Their tactic now seems to be to label any criticism of them as an attack on the First Amendment and to disparage alternative sources as "fake", a slander that has come back on them full force.

They simply are not that important anymore and it is deeply upsetting to them. The media have never supported a candidate with the unanimity and ferocity they supported Hillary, yet she carried only a handful of mainly urban counties across the country. Ordinary people hate them, and in fairness, that contempt is reciprocated. They regard most voters as bigoted morons.

 

[WeToddDid2]

piezoe has your brain addled to the point you believe what you write or are you that much of a compromised slime shill?

Do you realize how sick you are? I provide truth and fact to counter you fake news bullshit... and then you call that fact post truth.

you are as sick as the media itself. you have not regard for truth.
podesta hacked emails which no one ever denied the truth of... revealed how compromised your trusted sources are...

the beauty is this is from:

1. . from your approved post truth source poltico...

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/10/john-podesta-emails-wikileaks-press-214367

Those snared in Podesta’s flypaper are currently suffering an abundance of embarrassment for their shameless buttering-up and apparent cozinesss with their inside sources in Clintonworld. Reading the emails, we witness CNBC/New York Times contributor John Harwood slathering Podesta with flattery, giving him campaign advice and praising Hillary Clinton. In another email, the Washington Post’s Juliet Eilperin offers Podesta a “heads up” about a story she’s about to publish, providing a brief pre-publication synopsis. CNBC’s Becky Quick promises to “defend“ Obama appointee Sylvia Mathews Burwell.


New York Times Magazine writer Mark Leibovich (who wrote a famous book lambasting permanent Washington’s courtship rituals) asks Clinton’s press secretary, Jennifer Palmieri for permission to use portions of an off-the-record interview with the candidate. Palmieri withholds only a couple of comments and concludes her email to Leibovich, “Pleasure doing business!,” giving it a creepy, transactional vibe. POLITICO reporter Glenn Thrush sends Podesta a chunk of his story-in-progress “to make sure I’m not fucking anything up.” Beyond WikiLeaks, a January 2015 Clinton strategy document obtained by the Intercept describes reporter Maggie Haberman—then at POLITICO and now at the New York Times—as someone the campaign “has a very good relationship with,” and who had been called upon to “tee up stories for us before” and had never disappointed.

here is the excuse...

"I’m even open to the sort of sycophantic “source-greasing“ that John Harwood engaged in with Team Hillary. Harwood must have used up a couple of bars of Lava soap when the time came to remove the grime ground into his hands from writing those emails. I don’t engage in that sort of ass-kissery, but if ass-kissery fills his notebook and produces good copy, I’m willing to suspend judgment.

It was only a matter of time before journalists got netted in the email sieve like so many politicians, businessmen and academics before them. Lesson learned, maybe Washington journalists will stop over-relying on email and return to the time-honored audio burn-bag that is the telephone to court and seduce and exploit their sources. Meanwhile, over drinks, they will recover soon enough and laugh at your petty ethical concerns."

2. And don't forget Donna Brazile of CNN giving the questions to hillary.

Piezoe's post are a great illustration of cognitive dissonance. It is just amazing watching Piezoe and other libtards regurgitate libtard propaganda like mindless sheep. It is a completely made up reality. Like my post above, liberals clearly cannot distinguish between subjective opinions and objective facts.

Hands up! Don't shoot!

 

[jem]

I forgot. Thank you for reminding me.
I just expect that people who write well, think clearly.
I do not understand how they can lie so easily.

I watched some chomsky vidoes... and could not believe he was so intellectually dishonest. I wondered how he could live with himself. I realize now his lie about libertarians is the least painful way for him to resolve is cognitive dissonance while still getting paid to espouse his views.

Piezoe's post are a great illustration of cognitive dissonance. It is just amazing watching Piezoe and other libtards regurgitate libtard propaganda like mindless sheep. It is a completely made up reality. Like my post above, liberals clearly cannot distinguish between subjective opinions and objective facts.

Hands up! Don't shoot!

 

[Max E.]

The biggest way that the mainstream media cheats is in choosing what they cover, these are the jokers who couldnt even find a single thing wrong with obama for 8 years, even though he had numerous scandals, and yet now they literally rip apart every single word Trump says, and make it front page news.

Id be willing to bet that if Trump made the claim that his administration was scandal free, the New York times and all the rest of the MSM would be mocking him, even though there has been nothing major so far, yet they give Obama a free pass when his administration had numerous legitimate scandals.

They have spent more time on Trumps tweet that while technically inaccurate, also exposed shady goings on inside of the NSA, and CIA. They have no interest in the NSA or CIA story, or the Obama lackies actively working to sabotage the incoming administration, but god forbid Trump makes an inaccurate tweet and its front page news for weeks/months, they have probably dedicated more page space to that then they did on the entirety of the IRS scandal under Obama, which one carries more real world implications?