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

[Max E.]

The entire media industry needs to be scrapped and rebuilt from the ground up. That pretty much goes for the whole f'n country at this point.

I dont even think the media CAN be rebuilt at this point, the internet broke everything, hyper partisans dug in on both sides, these days, your either on the intelligent side,(side you agree with) or you are the idiot.(side you dont agree with)

There is no one out there anymore who makes money being "bipartisan" the money model has proven the point, and unfortunately its now going to shape our society for the forseeable future.

Hyperpartisanship is here to stay, all people who disagree with you are nazi's/communists/fascists/racists/queers...... welcome to the utopia the internet has created.

 

[Tsing Tao]

I did mention that, didn't I. Does not of course negate the fact that these particular organizations, on a relative basis, have impeccable records. Which is what I said, isn't it? (I did not check my post, because I wanted to give you a fair chance at gotcha. )

You're missing the point and reading what you want (again). They had impeccable records. It's an exercise in statistics. If you take the NYT's 166 year history, and then look at how many solid reporting articles it has had in relation to the shoddy ones, I'd agree with you. But if you did the same exercise over the last 10 years, I would absolutely disagree. Because as partisan politics has continued to get worse, the NYT and many other outlets have decided that it is more important to pick a side instead of remaining totally unbiased. They gave up solid reporting for propaganda and agenda pushing. Hence, their fall into oblivion and irrelevancy.

 

[Tsing Tao]

My problem isnt necessarily with the 89% negative coverage of Trump, its the diference between the 89% positive coverage a Bufoon like Obama got for 8 years, and the shift that everyone in the world can see where they went from coddling Obama to actively working to take Trump down.

.

Precisely. The 4th Estate should do everything in it's power to question and challenge. But when they only do that to one side of the aisle, but then forgive and justify the exact same actions on the other side of the aisle, they are no longer impartial and worthy of the title "journalists".

 

[piezoe]

I dont even think the media CAN be rebuilt at this point, the internet broke everything, hyper partisans dug in on both sides, these days, your either on the intelligent side,(side you agree with) or you are the idiot.(side you dont agree with)

There is no one out there anymore who makes money being "bipartisan" the money model has proven the point, and unfortunately its now going to shape our society for the forseeable future.

Hyperpartisanship is here to stay, all people who disagree with you are nazi's/communists/fascists/racists/queers...... welcome to the utopia the internet has created.

This a a scary appraisal of our current situation, and I hope it is an exaggeration, but fear it is not.

I'm thinking the present bipartisan atmosphere among the general population, not necessarily among our politicians, is based on a false premise. But even if I were correct, I haven't a clue how I, or anyone, could convince people the premise is false.

 

[piezoe]

You're ... reading what you want

I'm bad about that. Your point is well taken. Not sure it can be very easily supported however.

 

[Frederick Foresight]

Precisely. The 4th Estate should do everything in it's power to question and challenge. But when they only do that to one side of the aisle, but then forgive and justify the exact same actions on the other side of the aisle, they are no longer impartial and worthy of the title "journalists".

Examples with links, please.

 

[Max E.]

This a a scary appraisal of our current situation, and I hope it is an exaggeration, but fear it is not.

I'm thinking the present bipartisan atmosphere among the general population, not necessarily among our politicians, is based on a false premise. But even if I were correct, I haven't a clue how I, or anyone, could convince people the premise is false.

Sorry i read and re read this trying to figure it out, but dont understand, are you saying the general population is bipartisan?

 

[Tom B]

Wouldn't it be unreasonable for us to expect a lunatic in the oval office, one with a serious personality disorder, one who regularly changes his mind from day to day, to get positive press coverage? And we don't want to be unreasonable, do we?

You are describing Obama.

 

[Tsing Tao]

I'm bad about that. Your point is well taken. Not sure it can be very easily supported however.

I think most of us here consider it obvious. Those who wish to not see it, of course, won't.

 

[Tsing Tao]

Examples with links, please.

Though I know this is just going to result in you arguing every single example I provide you as "not the same", because you're going to pick out subtle differences...sure. I'll waste some time. Just off the top of my head, I'm sure others here can provide many examples I miss.

First, the so-called "Muslim ban". Trump's plan to ban refugees from a source of countries is really not all that different from when Obama did it in 2011. The media, of course, attacked Trump and called him a racist. Back then, not a peep from the media about Obama. I won't provide links to the attacks on Trump because if you haven't seen them yet, you're not a member of the same planet.

Media elites attacked Trump for singling out CNN, but never said a damned thing for Obama going after Fox News repeatedly.

Media goes after every gaffe Trump makes (and there are quite a few) like the electoral college one, or the Nazi one Spicer made, but not a peep about the Obama 57 states comment, or when Obama said the tornado in Kansas killed 10,000 people, when it only killed 12...stupid crap I remember. Simple mistakes but one sided coverage.

Or how about the big one where Trump's audio tape is a feeding frenzy, but no stories on women coming forward on sexual assault claims/harassment from the Clintons, etc.?

After Mr. Trump won the nomination, press coverage turned sharply negative, with 61 percent of the stories generated on him being oppositional, according to a recent Harvard University study.

Comparatively, seventy-one percent of the coverage of Mr. Obama during the 2008 campaign was positive or neutral, with only 29 percent negative, according to a Pew Research Center study. The same study found six in 10 negative news stories for his opponent, Arizona Sen. John McCain.​

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/sep/29/media-double-standard-revealed-in-trump-16-vs-obam/

Now, I know you're going to try to argue each one of these points. I'm not going to engage with you on them because you're always going to see it the same way and there's nothing I'm going to do to convince you otherwise. That's OK. But when you guys (Piezoe in this case) wonder why the media outlets you consider rock solid and cherish as truthful are looked at with such loathing, it's not hard to see why.