Who is fooled by the media anymore?

I do have one recommendation. Newspapers are now mouthpieces for the establishment. But it is dangerous to reject all that is "establishment":

What is the role of intellectuals in society?

iknow.jpg


http://www.weforum.org/agenda/2013/03/what-is-the-role-of-intellectuals-in-society/
 
nitro said:
So, you don't think the internet is replacing newspapers, and people are taking back their opinions back from people telling them what to think, has anything to do with newspapers going to zero?

I realize that this is a connect the dots theory, but I think it is very plausible.
More...
If anything, the Internet is often more guilty of telling people what to think. Consider the dubious sources that some of the people here refer to in support of their arguments. While the Internet has many virtues, including some check and balances, it has in many cases lowered the standard of journalism. And, as you have observed here at ET, some people will eat anything.
 
Frederick Foresight said:
If anything, the Internet is often more guilty of telling people what to think. Consider the dubious sources that some of the people here refer to in support of their arguments. While the Internet has many virtues, including some check and balances, it has in many cases lowered the standard of journalism. And, as you have observed here at ET, some people will eat anything.
More...
Agreed, but did the internet cause their beliefs, or are they looking to the internet to support their beliefs?

If the latter, it explains the demise of newspapers.
 
When I was young, journalists attempted to be journalists and not propaganda pieces. I could read the Post or the Times even though I new I had different political opinions because they providing information with a journalistic ethos. In the 90s that changed. As good journalists and editors retired they were replaced with morons who looked good on T.V., liberal provocateurs and propagandists.


It took a decade but eventually all of us who wanted to read pieces written by journalists had to sift through 90% propaganda pieces. When the great papers lost interest in providing good journalism, they were no longer worth reading.
 
jem said:
no one thinking person would claim the political operatives and opinionists on the night time shows for
More...
Do try to keep up and refer to the actual post. I was commenting on your reference to "provocateurs and propagandists." Feel better now?
 
Frederick Foresight said:
I guess you guys didn't much like the balancing out.

Below are the Republican and Democrat’s endorsements as a percentage of the total endorsements given out that cycle.

fivethirtyeight-1025-newsendorse_percent-blog480.png


Were you guys complaining when the numbers were notably skewed in your favor? Not so much.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytime...l-newspaper-endorsements-history-and-outcome/
More...

That's an interesting chart that is very misleading. It is based on the number of newspapers endorsing a party. It therefore treats the East Buttcrack Journal as equivalent to the NYT or WashPo. The changes do not reflect any major shift of opinion by the major liberal rags, just the fact that most newspapers have gone bellyup.

I have the misfortune of being subjected to the WashPost every day. It has been comically biased as long as I have been reading it, but for much of its existence it took obvious pride in producing a quality albeit flawed product. No longer. Now it is hard to distinguish "news" articles from editorial pieces. All the experienced editors are gone, so it reads like a high school paper, with embarrassing grammatical errors commonplace. Its main mission these days is to push the gay, BLM and AGW agendas, with facts, logic and journalistic integrity taking a back seat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top