Anywhere you look the mass media has gotten abysmally low ratings across the board, for years, from everyone but Democrats. At a certain point the numbers speak for themselves, the mass media speaks to the democrats in the American public, and nobody else, and the rest of us can see that.
If that echo chamber is where you reside normally, it's probably fine and you don't even notice it. But if you don't, it's glaringly obvious.
I just, honestly, don't see how it is up for debate at this point.
"More than 3-in-4 of 803 American respondents, or 77 percent, said they believe that major traditional television and newspaper media outlets report “fake news,” according to a Monmouth University poll released Monday, marking a sharp increase in distrust of those news organizations from a year ago, when 63 percent registered concerns about the spread of misinformation."
"Americans perceive inaccurate news to be intentional — either because the reporter is misrepresenting the facts (54%) or making them up entirely (28%)."
There's an important piece of omitted context in this argument. Americans may largely agree there's a prevalence of fake news within the news media industry, but they disagree enormously over which media conglomerates are outputting that fake news.
Other missing pieces of context is that the GOP has been punching at the media for decades (literally). It's a core piece of American Conservative ideology to be super skeptical of all media. Unfortunately - that means it isnt any kind of "cold, hard rationality" that drives media skepticism from many Conservatives - but the ideological box they're self-sorted into.
So while you see it clear as day, there are many of us that just see another part of Conservative ideology at work.
If you scroll down to the chart of % who trust each source, under the conservative row is Hannity (48) and Limbaugh (38), who don’t report the news but their opinion on the news and if their opinion is ‘don’t trust what these guys are saying’ then those listeners aren’t going to trust them.
I get the view of news sources not being trustworthy. We live in a clickbait world where the story that gets the most views generates the most money, so scandalous headlines are more appealing but also less credible as they are harder to prove outright.
It is usually left to the reader to decide if what they read was true or not. Take Trump calling soldiers ‘losers’ and ‘suckers.’ It’s an anonymous source against a pathological liars. Some people will believe it outright, some will think it is fake news and a political attack against the president during an election. Both could be true at the same time as well.
When it is left to the reader to decide, it enters opinion territory, that allows others to write about it and generate more clicks, and more revenue. People will probably only read the opinions that they agree with and never see the other side of the debate, and when they do hear a different opinion, it’s fake news or propaganda.
Anywhere you look the mass media has gotten abysmally low ratings across the board, for years, from everyone but Democrats. At a certain point the numbers speak for themselves, the mass media speaks to the democrats in the American public, and nobody else, and the rest of us can see that.
If that echo chamber is where you reside normally, it's probably fine and you don't even notice it. But if you don't, it's glaringly obvious.
I just, honestly, don't see how it is up for debate at this point.
"More than 3-in-4 of 803 American respondents, or 77 percent, said they believe that major traditional television and newspaper media outlets report “fake news,” according to a Monmouth University poll released Monday, marking a sharp increase in distrust of those news organizations from a year ago, when 63 percent registered concerns about the spread of misinformation."
"Americans perceive inaccurate news to be intentional — either because the reporter is misrepresenting the facts (54%) or making them up entirely (28%)."
There's an important piece of omitted context in this argument. Americans may largely agree there's a prevalence of fake news within the news media industry, but they disagree enormously over which media conglomerates are outputting that fake news.
Other missing pieces of context is that the GOP has been punching at the media for decades (literally). It's a core piece of American Conservative ideology to be super skeptical of all media. Unfortunately - that means it isnt any kind of "cold, hard rationality" that drives media skepticism from many Conservatives - but the ideological box they're self-sorted into.
So while you see it clear as day, there are many of us that just see another part of Conservative ideology at work.
The problem isn't that the "main-stream media" disagrees with some conservative ideology though. They pretty much reject all of it. Even the ideas that work are explained away as outliers or 'other variables' at work. They're also just as bad as the AM radio buffoons in demonizing the people they disagree with. When it's no longer people debating the merits of ideas, but becomes a Holy War between 'Good' and 'Evil', the shit inevitably hits the fan...
If you scroll down to the chart of % who trust each source, under the conservative row is Hannity (48) and Limbaugh (38), who don’t report the news but their opinion on the news and if their opinion is ‘don’t trust what these guys are saying’ then those listeners aren’t going to trust them.
I get the view of news sources not being trustworthy. We live in a clickbait world where the story that gets the most views generates the most money, so scandalous headlines are more appealing but also less credible as they are harder to prove outright.
It is usually left to the reader to decide if what they read was true or not. Take Trump calling soldiers ‘losers’ and ‘suckers.’ It’s an anonymous source against a pathological liars. Some people will believe it outright, some will think it is fake news and a political attack against the president during an election. Both could be true at the same time as well.
When it is left to the reader to decide, it enters opinion territory, that allows others to write about it and generate more clicks, and more revenue. People will probably only read the opinions that they agree with and never see the other side of the debate, and when they do hear a different opinion, it’s fake news or propaganda.
I agree with this. Unfortunately - I feel like people have taken to painting with a very broad brush on the matter of journalism. Take your example about Trump: Several different news rooms have all sourced the same information and reported it. That means editorial staffs, career journalists and the like were all put on the spot to evaluate a claim and decided they felt it was true.
There's an absolute world between that and Hannity or Limbaugh, who arent journalists, and dont have news room editorial staffs at their disposal to ensure they they're being ethical/fair/honest.
The problem is - they get lumped together. So when Hannity says "I dont think he said that", and several news rooms say "We have reporting that he said that", they cancel each other out. - or worse, the consumer of media uses their ideological priors and just agrees with the source they prefer.
I'm reasonably certain the reason why they considered "distrusting the news" to be an "authoritarian" thing is because every authoritarian government in existence is opposed to an independent press, from Hitler railing against the "lying press" to the Chinese Communist Party denouncing anything that paints them in a bad light as foreign propaganda.
The notion that authoritarians don't like the news is based on decades of history across the entire world. Whether it's the Soviet Union or the Third Reich or the DPRK or the CCP, all of them view journalists as their enemies.
Meanwhile, every advanced democracy in the world allows and defends an independent press, whether it's an age-old democracy like the U.K. or a relatively new democracy like Japan.
Yes, distaste for the free press is a classic mark of authoritarianism. We've known that for 90 years.
I'm reasonably certain the reason why they considered "distrusting the news" to be an "authoritarian" thing is because every authoritarian government in existence is opposed to an independent press, from Hitler railing against the "lying press" to the Chinese Communist Party denouncing anything that paints them in a bad light as foreign propaganda.
The notion that authoritarians don't like the news is based on decades of history across the entire world. Whether it's the Soviet Union or the Third Reich or the DPRK or the CCP, all of them view journalists as their enemies.
Meanwhile, every advanced democracy in the world allows and defends an independent press, whether it's an age-old democracy like the U.K. or a relatively new democracy like Japan.
Yes, distaste for the free press is a classic mark of authoritarianism. We've known that for 90 years.
You ever listen to Rush Limbaugh when he plays his 'Mainstream News Parrot' segments? I'm going to guess not. Several times a week he'll pull out some news story that was first reported in AP and then play back a bunch of segments from various news outlets later that day. The news outlets inevitably parrot the AP story right down to each and every buzzword. It's sickening that that's what journalism has devolved to in this day and age. Parroting a bunch of bullet points and buzzwords. That's not an 'independent' media at all. Just a bunch of plagiarists paid to look good on TV...
Edit: The same can be said of the AM doofuses and Fox News parroting them, so I'm an equal opportunity eye-candy plagiarist spotter.
To expand a bit further on what I was saying previously, it's worth looking at how even the critics of the press feel about the press. To quote from the Gallup/Knight writeup:
"The vast majority of Americans (84%) say that, in general, the news media is “critical” (49%) or “very important” (35%) to democracy.
Americans are more likely today to say the media’s role in democracy is “critical,” up five percentage points since 2017.
Large majorities say it is “critical” or “very important” for the news media to provide accurate and fair news reports (92%), ensure Americans are informed about public affairs (91%) and hold leaders accountable for their actions (85%).
More Americans say the media is performing poorly rather than well in accomplishing these goals than did in 2017."
"2. HOWEVER, AMERICANS SEE INCREASING LEVELS OF BIAS IN THE NEWS MEDIA; MAJORITIES SEE BIAS IN THE NEWS SOURCE THEY RELY ON MOST.
A majority of Americans currently see “a great deal” (49%) or “a fair amount” (37%) of political bias in news coverage. The percentage seeing a great deal of bias is up from 45% in 2017.
Most Americans see bias in their go-to news source; 20% see “a great deal” and another 36% see “a fair amount” of bias in the news source they rely on most often.
Given the choice, however, more Americans say they are concerned about bias in the news other people are getting (69%) than say they worry about their own news being biased (29%).
Nearly three-quarters of Americans say they see too much bias in the reporting of news that is supposed to be objective as “a major problem” (73%), up from 65% in the 2017 study."
It is pretty clear that the vast majority of those who criticize the press are *concerned* with democracy and the medias failing role in preserving it, and are not actively hostile to a functioning and fair media by any stretch of the imagination.
You wouldn't know that, since the media itself uses this attitude as proof of "authoritarian leanings" in people. A perfect microcosm of how out of touch and ideological they are, really.
I'm reasonably certain the reason why they considered "distrusting the news" to be an "authoritarian" thing is because every authoritarian government in existence is opposed to an independent press, from Hitler railing against the "lying press" to the Chinese Communist Party denouncing anything that paints them in a bad light as foreign propaganda.
The notion that authoritarians don't like the news is based on decades of history across the entire world. Whether it's the Soviet Union or the Third Reich or the DPRK or the CCP, all of them view journalists as their enemies.
Meanwhile, every advanced democracy in the world allows and defends an independent press, whether it's an age-old democracy like the U.K. or a relatively new democracy like Japan.
Yes, distaste for the free press is a classic mark of authoritarianism. We've known that for 90 years.
You ever listen to Rush Limbaugh when he plays his 'Mainstream News Parrot' segments? I'm going to guess not. Several times a week he'll pull out some news story that was first reported in AP and then play back a bunch of segments from various news outlets later that day. The news outlets inevitably parrot the AP story right down to each and every buzzword. It's sickening that that's what journalism has devolved to in this day and age. Parroting a bunch of bullet points and buzzwords. That's not an 'independent' media at all. Just a bunch of plagiarists paid to look good on TV...
Edit: The same can be said of the AM doofuses and Fox News parroting them, so I'm an equal opportunity eye-candy plagiarist spotter.
Yes and that’s the point. You should not expect your local television/ radio/ newspaper station to have national news correspondent covering or investigative journalism. There is no budget for that. Local level, sure but national, hell to the no. Even local radio won’t have local journalist but will rely on interviewing or bringing in print journalist to rehash any give their opinions on any breaking story.
Instead they pay to be part of news wires, companies that allow them to rehash their stories. They are still delivering the news that has been vetted.
Someone like Limbaugh knows this is how it works and subscribed to the same wires.
I'm reasonably certain the reason why they considered "distrusting the news" to be an "authoritarian" thing is because every authoritarian government in existence is opposed to an independent press, from Hitler railing against the "lying press" to the Chinese Communist Party denouncing anything that paints them in a bad light as foreign propaganda.
The notion that authoritarians don't like the news is based on decades of history across the entire world. Whether it's the Soviet Union or the Third Reich or the DPRK or the CCP, all of them view journalists as their enemies.
Meanwhile, every advanced democracy in the world allows and defends an independent press, whether it's an age-old democracy like the U.K. or a relatively new democracy like Japan.
Yes, distaste for the free press is a classic mark of authoritarianism. We've known that for 90 years.
You ever listen to Rush Limbaugh when he plays his 'Mainstream News Parrot' segments? I'm going to guess not. Several times a week he'll pull out some news story that was first reported in AP and then play back a bunch of segments from various news outlets later that day. The news outlets inevitably parrot the AP story right down to each and every buzzword. It's sickening that that's what journalism has devolved to in this day and age. Parroting a bunch of bullet points and buzzwords. That's not an 'independent' media at all. Just a bunch of plagiarists paid to look good on TV...
Edit: The same can be said of the AM doofuses and Fox News parroting them, so I'm an equal opportunity eye-candy plagiarist spotter.
There is a huge difference between "reporters" and on-air talent. It's a uniquely American phenomena to conflate the two. I believe in most other countries they are called "news readers".
To expand a bit further on what I was saying previously, it's worth looking at how even the critics of the press feel about the press. To quote from the Gallup/Knight writeup:
"The vast majority of Americans (84%) say that, in general, the news media is “critical” (49%) or “very important” (35%) to democracy.
Americans are more likely today to say the media’s role in democracy is “critical,” up five percentage points since 2017.
Large majorities say it is “critical” or “very important” for the news media to provide accurate and fair news reports (92%), ensure Americans are informed about public affairs (91%) and hold leaders accountable for their actions (85%).
More Americans say the media is performing poorly rather than well in accomplishing these goals than did in 2017."
"2. HOWEVER, AMERICANS SEE INCREASING LEVELS OF BIAS IN THE NEWS MEDIA; MAJORITIES SEE BIAS IN THE NEWS SOURCE THEY RELY ON MOST.
A majority of Americans currently see “a great deal” (49%) or “a fair amount” (37%) of political bias in news coverage. The percentage seeing a great deal of bias is up from 45% in 2017.
Most Americans see bias in their go-to news source; 20% see “a great deal” and another 36% see “a fair amount” of bias in the news source they rely on most often.
Given the choice, however, more Americans say they are concerned about bias in the news other people are getting (69%) than say they worry about their own news being biased (29%).
Nearly three-quarters of Americans say they see too much bias in the reporting of news that is supposed to be objective as “a major problem” (73%), up from 65% in the 2017 study."
It is pretty clear that the vast majority of those who criticize the press are *concerned* with democracy and the medias failing role in preserving it, and are not actively hostile to a functioning and fair media by any stretch of the imagination.
You wouldn't know that, since the media itself uses this attitude as proof of "authoritarian leanings" in people. A perfect microcosm of how out of touch and ideological they are, really.
This random poll has a number of issues (response bias, for example). The most glaring is it requires me to believe that the sampled individuals can
A - Recognize their own bias.
B - Recognize the bias in others
C - Differentiate between the two.
That's a heavy lift. There are plenty of people I interact with daily that I dont think do these three things consistently or effectively. Truly, the only useful thing I got out of this poll is that people tend to believe their news source is less biased than other people's news source.
To expand a bit further on what I was saying previously, it's worth looking at how even the critics of the press feel about the press. To quote from the Gallup/Knight writeup:
"The vast majority of Americans (84%) say that, in general, the news media is “critical” (49%) or “very important” (35%) to democracy.
Americans are more likely today to say the media’s role in democracy is “critical,” up five percentage points since 2017.
Large majorities say it is “critical” or “very important” for the news media to provide accurate and fair news reports (92%), ensure Americans are informed about public affairs (91%) and hold leaders accountable for their actions (85%).
More Americans say the media is performing poorly rather than well in accomplishing these goals than did in 2017."
"2. HOWEVER, AMERICANS SEE INCREASING LEVELS OF BIAS IN THE NEWS MEDIA; MAJORITIES SEE BIAS IN THE NEWS SOURCE THEY RELY ON MOST.
A majority of Americans currently see “a great deal” (49%) or “a fair amount” (37%) of political bias in news coverage. The percentage seeing a great deal of bias is up from 45% in 2017.
Most Americans see bias in their go-to news source; 20% see “a great deal” and another 36% see “a fair amount” of bias in the news source they rely on most often.
Given the choice, however, more Americans say they are concerned about bias in the news other people are getting (69%) than say they worry about their own news being biased (29%).
Nearly three-quarters of Americans say they see too much bias in the reporting of news that is supposed to be objective as “a major problem” (73%), up from 65% in the 2017 study."
It is pretty clear that the vast majority of those who criticize the press are *concerned* with democracy and the medias failing role in preserving it, and are not actively hostile to a functioning and fair media by any stretch of the imagination.
You wouldn't know that, since the media itself uses this attitude as proof of "authoritarian leanings" in people. A perfect microcosm of how out of touch and ideological they are, really.
This random poll has a number of issues (response bias, for example). The most glaring is it requires me to believe that the sampled individuals can
A - Recognize their own bias.
B - Recognize the bias in others
C - Differentiate between the two.
That's a heavy lift. There are plenty of people I interact with daily that I dont think do these three things consistently or effectively. Truly, the only useful thing I got out of this poll is that people tend to believe their news source is less biased than other people's news source.
In other news, water is wet.
I didn't interpret that as people thinking their news source was less biased. I thought it was rather that lots of people think they themselves are able to discount the bias, but that others were less able to do so - and hence what was not a problem for them was still a problem for the country.
Does anyone think there would be value in having a requirement for media to maintain political balance? That's the case for broadcast media in the UK, though not print media.
This survey looks at international attitudes to the media. The results are pretty consistent that people say they want news to be presented in a politically neutral manner. The US is a bit of an outlier in the extent to which there's a divide between political groups in how the media actually perform.
To expand a bit further on what I was saying previously, it's worth looking at how even the critics of the press feel about the press. To quote from the Gallup/Knight writeup:
"The vast majority of Americans (84%) say that, in general, the news media is “critical” (49%) or “very important” (35%) to democracy.
Americans are more likely today to say the media’s role in democracy is “critical,” up five percentage points since 2017.
Large majorities say it is “critical” or “very important” for the news media to provide accurate and fair news reports (92%), ensure Americans are informed about public affairs (91%) and hold leaders accountable for their actions (85%).
More Americans say the media is performing poorly rather than well in accomplishing these goals than did in 2017."
"2. HOWEVER, AMERICANS SEE INCREASING LEVELS OF BIAS IN THE NEWS MEDIA; MAJORITIES SEE BIAS IN THE NEWS SOURCE THEY RELY ON MOST.
A majority of Americans currently see “a great deal” (49%) or “a fair amount” (37%) of political bias in news coverage. The percentage seeing a great deal of bias is up from 45% in 2017.
Most Americans see bias in their go-to news source; 20% see “a great deal” and another 36% see “a fair amount” of bias in the news source they rely on most often.
Given the choice, however, more Americans say they are concerned about bias in the news other people are getting (69%) than say they worry about their own news being biased (29%).
Nearly three-quarters of Americans say they see too much bias in the reporting of news that is supposed to be objective as “a major problem” (73%), up from 65% in the 2017 study."
It is pretty clear that the vast majority of those who criticize the press are *concerned* with democracy and the medias failing role in preserving it, and are not actively hostile to a functioning and fair media by any stretch of the imagination.
You wouldn't know that, since the media itself uses this attitude as proof of "authoritarian leanings" in people. A perfect microcosm of how out of touch and ideological they are, really.
This random poll has a number of issues (response bias, for example). The most glaring is it requires me to believe that the sampled individuals can
A - Recognize their own bias.
B - Recognize the bias in others
C - Differentiate between the two.
That's a heavy lift. There are plenty of people I interact with daily that I dont think do these three things consistently or effectively. Truly, the only useful thing I got out of this poll is that people tend to believe their news source is less biased than other people's news source.
In other news, water is wet.
I didn't interpret that as people thinking their news source was less biased. I thought it was rather that lots of people think they themselves are able to discount the bias, but that others were less able to do so - and hence what was not a problem for them was still a problem for the country.
Does anyone think there would be value in having a requirement for media to maintain political balance? That's the case for broadcast media in the UK, though not print media.
This survey looks at international attitudes to the media. The results are pretty consistent that people say they want news to be presented in a politically neutral manner. The US is a bit of an outlier in the extent to which there's a divide between political groups in how the media actually perform.
You're right. I misinterpreted this line:
"Most Americans see bias in their go-to news source; 20% see “a great deal” and another 36% see “a fair amount” of bias in the news source they rely on most often.
Given the choice, however, more Americans say they are concerned about bias in the news other people are getting (69%) than say they worry about their own news being biased (29%)."
Thinking it was saying that other news sources are more biased than their own. Instead, they're just saying they can see through the bias of their own but are afraid others cannot, as you noted.
Either way - it still requires A B and C at a minimum, and I'm not so terribly charitable in my belief that they can.
It's definitely not hard to tell there's a lot of bias in news reporting. I have no idea if it's actually increased at all (how would we measure that?), but I do think the perception has gone up.
For all the talk about the problem of bias and how people need to be more objective, I don't know of any way to actually be less biased ourselves.
I remember reading some articles from the CIA website about critical thinking and saying that, while scientists had done tons of research about bias, no one has ever actually found a proven way to minimize or counteract it. Even when the issue of bias was explained to people, people still exhibited the same biases--knowing you're prone to bias doesn't make you any less biased.
We are aware of the existence of bias, and we can confirm that people will interpret the same information differently based on their biases, but we still don't know how to actually fix the problem.
In laboratory settings, researchers can control the flow of information to find biases (you can feed participants true or false information and see if they react consistently). But in the real world, we don't have that. All we have is our own flawed understanding of reality--and therefore our own biases.
We measure other people's biases using our own views as a measuring stick.
I'm reasonably certain the reason why they considered "distrusting the news" to be an "authoritarian" thing is because every authoritarian government in existence is opposed to an independent press, from Hitler railing against the "lying press" to the Chinese Communist Party denouncing anything that paints them in a bad light as foreign propaganda.
The notion that authoritarians don't like the news is based on decades of history across the entire world. Whether it's the Soviet Union or the Third Reich or the DPRK or the CCP, all of them view journalists as their enemies.
Meanwhile, every advanced democracy in the world allows and defends an independent press, whether it's an age-old democracy like the U.K. or a relatively new democracy like Japan.
Yes, distaste for the free press is a classic mark of authoritarianism. We've known that for 90 years.
You ever listen to Rush Limbaugh when he plays his 'Mainstream News Parrot' segments? I'm going to guess not. Several times a week he'll pull out some news story that was first reported in AP and then play back a bunch of segments from various news outlets later that day. The news outlets inevitably parrot the AP story right down to each and every buzzword. It's sickening that that's what journalism has devolved to in this day and age. Parroting a bunch of bullet points and buzzwords. That's not an 'independent' media at all. Just a bunch of plagiarists paid to look good on TV...
Edit: The same can be said of the AM doofuses and Fox News parroting them, so I'm an equal opportunity eye-candy plagiarist spotter.
Other outlets "parrot" the Associated Press, because the Associated Press a wire service. Their clients *are* other news outlets. Other outlets aren't parroting them. They are running their stories. News outlets don't have the ability to have their own on-the-ground reporters all across the globe. And so rely on wire services like the AP, AFP or Reuters to produce these stories. And then they run them because they own subscriptions to these wire services.
Stop getting your information from freaking Limbaugh. This is such a monstrous display of ignorance on a subject you are pretending to have an authoritative opinion on.
I am not opposed to the idea behind the bill, but it violates Article III of the Constitution, so it won't pass in its present state. Any changes to the Supreme Court are going to be decided by a constitutional amendment one way or the other, whether we have to go through multiple administrations packing the court to reach that point, or otherwise. I would rather skip the years of turmoil and just do it. I am sad that it has led to this point, but it's probably the only solution.
I am not opposed to the idea behind the bill, but it violates Article III of the Constitution, so it won't pass in its present state. Any changes to the Supreme Court are going to be decided by a constitutional amendment one way or the other, whether we have to go through multiple administrations packing the court to reach that point, or otherwise. I would rather skip the years of turmoil and just do it. I am sad that it has led to this point, but it's probably the only solution.
It will have to be a constitutional amendment. But starting will at least start the conversation about the amendment.
This amendment will probably be a lot of give and take with both term limits and the amount of justices allowed on the court and when they are appointed.
Republicans will get quickly on board if Biden wins and talk of packing the court comes to fruition.
There's an important piece of omitted context in this argument. Americans may largely agree there's a prevalence of fake news within the news media industry, but they disagree enormously over which media conglomerates are outputting that fake news.
It's true that most people see more bias in the news coverage other people choose to read or listen to (big surprise there), but it's also true that the majority see that even their own go-to sources exhibit this kind of bias. It's become so bad it is largely inescapable. I consider a majority of people seeing their own sources as biased as very significant, because the majority of people are not predisposed to think that way about brands that they trust. It isn't something that should be that common.
I also think that the majority opinion on how the news is biased is also largely correct. The most common bias is coverage bias, which has nothing to do with whether any article is true or false, but instead with what news is prioritized, what voices are heard, and what news is ignored. News that is inaccurate or improperly communicated does exist and is a problem, but when most people see media bias they are seeing issues being talked about from one dominant perspective at almost all times. To many, even to some people who agree with that perspective, it seems unfair at best and undemocratic at worst.
Ultimately, the non-existence of independent media isn't a Democrat issue. They don't share the blame any more than Republicans do, and there's nothing the average person can do about it anyways other than demand better, which they pretty much do. FOX is highly successful by the numbers, one of the best actually. Why would Republicans change that? The echo chamber actually serves them just as well. The fact that it doesn't provide anything of value other than partisan slop from the other direction, and the sum total of this further divides the nation, leads to people not understanding each other, and assuming the worst motives about one another, is irrelevant
Ultimately, the non-existence of independent media isn't a Democrat issue. They don't share the blame any more than Republicans do, and there's nothing the average person can do about it anyways other than demand better, which they pretty much do. FOX is highly successful by the numbers, one of the best actually. Why would Republicans change that? The echo chamber actually serves them just as well. The fact that it doesn't provide anything of value other than partisan slop from the other direction, and the sum total of this further divides the nation, leads to people not understanding each other, and assuming the worst motives about one another, is irrelevant
They are the best at what they do. I would NEVER dispute this. They are absolutely destructive and have poisoned this country beyond the point of redemption, but they are really, really good at doing it. I'd give my left arm for something half as effective on the left.
I'm reasonably certain the reason why they considered "distrusting the news" to be an "authoritarian" thing is because every authoritarian government in existence is opposed to an independent press, from Hitler railing against the "lying press" to the Chinese Communist Party denouncing anything that paints them in a bad light as foreign propaganda.
The notion that authoritarians don't like the news is based on decades of history across the entire world. Whether it's the Soviet Union or the Third Reich or the DPRK or the CCP, all of them view journalists as their enemies.
Meanwhile, every advanced democracy in the world allows and defends an independent press, whether it's an age-old democracy like the U.K. or a relatively new democracy like Japan.
Yes, distaste for the free press is a classic mark of authoritarianism. We've known that for 90 years.
You ever listen to Rush Limbaugh when he plays his 'Mainstream News Parrot' segments? I'm going to guess not. Several times a week he'll pull out some news story that was first reported in AP and then play back a bunch of segments from various news outlets later that day. The news outlets inevitably parrot the AP story right down to each and every buzzword. It's sickening that that's what journalism has devolved to in this day and age. Parroting a bunch of bullet points and buzzwords. That's not an 'independent' media at all. Just a bunch of plagiarists paid to look good on TV...
Edit: The same can be said of the AM doofuses and Fox News parroting them, so I'm an equal opportunity eye-candy plagiarist spotter.
Other outlets "parrot" the Associated Press, because the Associated Press a wire service. Their clients *are* other news outlets. Other outlets aren't parroting them. They are running their stories. News outlets don't have the ability to have their own on-the-ground reporters all across the globe. And so rely on wire services like the AP, AFP or Reuters to produce these stories. And then they run them because they own subscriptions to these wire services.
Stop getting your information from freaking Limbaugh. This is such a monstrous display of ignorance on a subject you are pretending to have an authoritative opinion on.
I don't listen to Limbaugh anymore (he used to an informative window on behind the scenes politics, but now he's just a Trump groupie and I can't stand him), just pointing out a segment of his shows that I remember being somewhat informative. I don't mind outlets using AP, UPI or Reuters as their sources but cor God's sake don't parrot the exact language. It makes them look sloppy and lazy. Perception trumps reality in this day and age.
I'm reasonably certain the reason why they considered "distrusting the news" to be an "authoritarian" thing is because every authoritarian government in existence is opposed to an independent press, from Hitler railing against the "lying press" to the Chinese Communist Party denouncing anything that paints them in a bad light as foreign propaganda.
The notion that authoritarians don't like the news is based on decades of history across the entire world. Whether it's the Soviet Union or the Third Reich or the DPRK or the CCP, all of them view journalists as their enemies.
Meanwhile, every advanced democracy in the world allows and defends an independent press, whether it's an age-old democracy like the U.K. or a relatively new democracy like Japan.
Yes, distaste for the free press is a classic mark of authoritarianism. We've known that for 90 years.
You ever listen to Rush Limbaugh when he plays his 'Mainstream News Parrot' segments? I'm going to guess not. Several times a week he'll pull out some news story that was first reported in AP and then play back a bunch of segments from various news outlets later that day. The news outlets inevitably parrot the AP story right down to each and every buzzword. It's sickening that that's what journalism has devolved to in this day and age. Parroting a bunch of bullet points and buzzwords. That's not an 'independent' media at all. Just a bunch of plagiarists paid to look good on TV...
Edit: The same can be said of the AM doofuses and Fox News parroting them, so I'm an equal opportunity eye-candy plagiarist spotter.
Other outlets "parrot" the Associated Press, because the Associated Press a wire service. Their clients *are* other news outlets. Other outlets aren't parroting them. They are running their stories. News outlets don't have the ability to have their own on-the-ground reporters all across the globe. And so rely on wire services like the AP, AFP or Reuters to produce these stories. And then they run them because they own subscriptions to these wire services.
Stop getting your information from freaking Limbaugh. This is such a monstrous display of ignorance on a subject you are pretending to have an authoritative opinion on.
I don't listen to Limbaugh anymore (he used to an informative window on behind the scenes politics, but now he's just a Trump groupie and I can't stand him), just pointing out a segment of his shows that I remember being somewhat informative. I don't mind outlets using AP, UPI or Reuters as their sources but cor God's sake don't parrot the exact language. It makes them look sloppy and lazy. Perception trumps reality in this day and age.
AP Radio news is usually played at the top of the hour on every (here's that word again) radio station in the country. It isn't BIASED per se, but it provides absolutely no context to anything whatsoever. It's basically "this is what Trump said today, and this is what Democrats responded with" and then two other stories before telling you how much the DOW is up or down at that minute.
I'm reasonably certain the reason why they considered "distrusting the news" to be an "authoritarian" thing is because every authoritarian government in existence is opposed to an independent press, from Hitler railing against the "lying press" to the Chinese Communist Party denouncing anything that paints them in a bad light as foreign propaganda.
The notion that authoritarians don't like the news is based on decades of history across the entire world. Whether it's the Soviet Union or the Third Reich or the DPRK or the CCP, all of them view journalists as their enemies.
Meanwhile, every advanced democracy in the world allows and defends an independent press, whether it's an age-old democracy like the U.K. or a relatively new democracy like Japan.
Yes, distaste for the free press is a classic mark of authoritarianism. We've known that for 90 years.
You ever listen to Rush Limbaugh when he plays his 'Mainstream News Parrot' segments? I'm going to guess not. Several times a week he'll pull out some news story that was first reported in AP and then play back a bunch of segments from various news outlets later that day. The news outlets inevitably parrot the AP story right down to each and every buzzword. It's sickening that that's what journalism has devolved to in this day and age. Parroting a bunch of bullet points and buzzwords. That's not an 'independent' media at all. Just a bunch of plagiarists paid to look good on TV...
Edit: The same can be said of the AM doofuses and Fox News parroting them, so I'm an equal opportunity eye-candy plagiarist spotter.
Other outlets "parrot" the Associated Press, because the Associated Press a wire service. Their clients *are* other news outlets. Other outlets aren't parroting them. They are running their stories. News outlets don't have the ability to have their own on-the-ground reporters all across the globe. And so rely on wire services like the AP, AFP or Reuters to produce these stories. And then they run them because they own subscriptions to these wire services.
Stop getting your information from freaking Limbaugh. This is such a monstrous display of ignorance on a subject you are pretending to have an authoritative opinion on.
I don't listen to Limbaugh anymore (he used to an informative window on behind the scenes politics, but now he's just a Trump groupie and I can't stand him), just pointing out a segment of his shows that I remember being somewhat informative. I don't mind outlets using AP, UPI or Reuters as their sources but cor God's sake don't parrot the exact language. It makes them look sloppy and lazy. Perception trumps reality in this day and age.
I have never listened to Limbaugh in my life, funnily enough, but I know he was a popular figure for many years. I have never liked FOX, but I do admit that Tucker Carlson has said a lot of things that I strongly agree with, particularly that one of the primary purposes of government should be to ensure that people can safely and affordably buy a house and raise families, and that they have completely abandoned any thought of this, particularly on the right. I also appreciate that he is willing to go after Republicans on the most popular show on FOX. But he is one voice, and I don't watch his show regularly by any means. Everything I have seen has been youtube clips.
The fact that nowadays there is so little investigative reporting, and a majority of it is media parroting other media, is a problem in itself. In the 90's and to some extent the early 2000's you would see investigative reporting on mainstream media that was actually pretty damning to major corporations. Now that they are cash strapped and dependant on ad revenue and the like this isn't possible.
Almost all media problems boil down to funding, where it comes from or the lack of it.
I'm reasonably certain the reason why they considered "distrusting the news" to be an "authoritarian" thing is because every authoritarian government in existence is opposed to an independent press, from Hitler railing against the "lying press" to the Chinese Communist Party denouncing anything that paints them in a bad light as foreign propaganda.
The notion that authoritarians don't like the news is based on decades of history across the entire world. Whether it's the Soviet Union or the Third Reich or the DPRK or the CCP, all of them view journalists as their enemies.
Meanwhile, every advanced democracy in the world allows and defends an independent press, whether it's an age-old democracy like the U.K. or a relatively new democracy like Japan.
Yes, distaste for the free press is a classic mark of authoritarianism. We've known that for 90 years.
You ever listen to Rush Limbaugh when he plays his 'Mainstream News Parrot' segments? I'm going to guess not. Several times a week he'll pull out some news story that was first reported in AP and then play back a bunch of segments from various news outlets later that day. The news outlets inevitably parrot the AP story right down to each and every buzzword. It's sickening that that's what journalism has devolved to in this day and age. Parroting a bunch of bullet points and buzzwords. That's not an 'independent' media at all. Just a bunch of plagiarists paid to look good on TV...
Edit: The same can be said of the AM doofuses and Fox News parroting them, so I'm an equal opportunity eye-candy plagiarist spotter.
Other outlets "parrot" the Associated Press, because the Associated Press a wire service. Their clients *are* other news outlets. Other outlets aren't parroting them. They are running their stories. News outlets don't have the ability to have their own on-the-ground reporters all across the globe. And so rely on wire services like the AP, AFP or Reuters to produce these stories. And then they run them because they own subscriptions to these wire services.
Stop getting your information from freaking Limbaugh. This is such a monstrous display of ignorance on a subject you are pretending to have an authoritative opinion on.
I don't listen to Limbaugh anymore (he used to an informative window on behind the scenes politics, but now he's just a Trump groupie and I can't stand him), just pointing out a segment of his shows that I remember being somewhat informative. I don't mind outlets using AP, UPI or Reuters as their sources but cor God's sake don't parrot the exact language. It makes them look sloppy and lazy. Perception trumps reality in this day and age.
You still don't get it and you're refusing to closely read what I wrote.
As such, you're repeating misinformation.
Wire services like the AP are providing a service to news outlets. There's nothing untoward about news outlets running wire reports. The freaking AM stations that play Rush's show run wire stories. It's impossible for a news outlet to have a reporter in say India or South Africa. So when a big news story breaks there, outlets rely on wire services like the AP or Reuters, who do have embedded reporters there. It's a perfectly legitimate way of reporting and disseminating news. And you are using a completely unscrupulous actor to slander hard-working and well-meaning news gathering.
Wire services exist almost entirely to provide news in various corners of the US and the world that normal outlets wouldn't be able to provide because they wouldn't be able to afford full time reporters in these regions. But wire services can employ reporters here because they feed stories to multiple outlets.
We would live in a much more ignorant world if news outlets were not "parroting" as you say, wire reports.
Please, I encourage you to take some time and actually learn about the journalism industry before popping off with slander about it.
Edit to add: This is from the very top of the wikipedia page on the AP: "As of 2016, news collected by the AP was published and republished by more than 1,300 newspapers and broadcasters."
The AP exists to be "parroted" by other news outlets. That's their main business model! Other news outlets can run their reports in their paper, radio or tv news. That's the whole freaking point about AP. Limbaugh knows this too, he's worked decades on AM radio whose stations rely on wire reports. But he has such a minuscule respect for the intelligence and integrity of his listeners that he is happy to pump them with disinformation about the subject.
I'm reasonably certain the reason why they considered "distrusting the news" to be an "authoritarian" thing is because every authoritarian government in existence is opposed to an independent press, from Hitler railing against the "lying press" to the Chinese Communist Party denouncing anything that paints them in a bad light as foreign propaganda.
The notion that authoritarians don't like the news is based on decades of history across the entire world. Whether it's the Soviet Union or the Third Reich or the DPRK or the CCP, all of them view journalists as their enemies.
Meanwhile, every advanced democracy in the world allows and defends an independent press, whether it's an age-old democracy like the U.K. or a relatively new democracy like Japan.
Yes, distaste for the free press is a classic mark of authoritarianism. We've known that for 90 years.
You ever listen to Rush Limbaugh when he plays his 'Mainstream News Parrot' segments? I'm going to guess not. Several times a week he'll pull out some news story that was first reported in AP and then play back a bunch of segments from various news outlets later that day. The news outlets inevitably parrot the AP story right down to each and every buzzword. It's sickening that that's what journalism has devolved to in this day and age. Parroting a bunch of bullet points and buzzwords. That's not an 'independent' media at all. Just a bunch of plagiarists paid to look good on TV...
Edit: The same can be said of the AM doofuses and Fox News parroting them, so I'm an equal opportunity eye-candy plagiarist spotter.
Other outlets "parrot" the Associated Press, because the Associated Press a wire service. Their clients *are* other news outlets. Other outlets aren't parroting them. They are running their stories. News outlets don't have the ability to have their own on-the-ground reporters all across the globe. And so rely on wire services like the AP, AFP or Reuters to produce these stories. And then they run them because they own subscriptions to these wire services.
Stop getting your information from freaking Limbaugh. This is such a monstrous display of ignorance on a subject you are pretending to have an authoritative opinion on.
I don't listen to Limbaugh anymore (he used to an informative window on behind the scenes politics, but now he's just a Trump groupie and I can't stand him), just pointing out a segment of his shows that I remember being somewhat informative. I don't mind outlets using AP, UPI or Reuters as their sources but cor God's sake don't parrot the exact language. It makes them look sloppy and lazy. Perception trumps reality in this day and age.
You still don't get it and you're refusing to closely read what I wrote.
As such, you're repeating misinformation.
Wire services like the AP are providing a service to news outlets. There's nothing untoward about news outlets running wire reports. The freaking AM stations that play Rush's show run wire stories. It's impossible for a news outlet to have a reporter in say India or South Africa. So when a big news story breaks there, outlets rely on wire services like the AP or Reuters, who do have embedded reporters there. It's a perfectly legitimate way of reporting and disseminating news. And you are using a completely unscrupulous actor to slander hard-working and well-meaning news gathering.
I'd go a bit further. Not only is it not wrong to just repeat these stories, but changing what is said in them would introduce the sort of bias most people are suggesting is a problem. The use of the same language only becomes notable if you follow multiple news outlets, but if every outlet put their own spin on a story - without having any knowledge of their own about it - I can't see any way that improves the accuracy of the reporting.
I think something that this conversation has taught me is that people have a real hard time differentiating between journalism and punditry. They tend to think they're the same thing, and they're not.
Although it's not journalism, it is instructive to look at the 2016 election to see the effect of punditry. The polls were relatively close towards the end, although showed a reasonable Clinton win. Pundits took that information and tried to spin it as a 99% likelihood of a Clinton victory. All it took was one bad late news cycle and a totally average polling miss (2% is a completely average polling miss, historically) - and Clinton lost narrowly.
I'm reasonably certain the reason why they considered "distrusting the news" to be an "authoritarian" thing is because every authoritarian government in existence is opposed to an independent press, from Hitler railing against the "lying press" to the Chinese Communist Party denouncing anything that paints them in a bad light as foreign propaganda.
The notion that authoritarians don't like the news is based on decades of history across the entire world. Whether it's the Soviet Union or the Third Reich or the DPRK or the CCP, all of them view journalists as their enemies.
Meanwhile, every advanced democracy in the world allows and defends an independent press, whether it's an age-old democracy like the U.K. or a relatively new democracy like Japan.
Yes, distaste for the free press is a classic mark of authoritarianism. We've known that for 90 years.
You ever listen to Rush Limbaugh when he plays his 'Mainstream News Parrot' segments? I'm going to guess not. Several times a week he'll pull out some news story that was first reported in AP and then play back a bunch of segments from various news outlets later that day. The news outlets inevitably parrot the AP story right down to each and every buzzword. It's sickening that that's what journalism has devolved to in this day and age. Parroting a bunch of bullet points and buzzwords. That's not an 'independent' media at all. Just a bunch of plagiarists paid to look good on TV...
Edit: The same can be said of the AM doofuses and Fox News parroting them, so I'm an equal opportunity eye-candy plagiarist spotter.
Other outlets "parrot" the Associated Press, because the Associated Press a wire service. Their clients *are* other news outlets. Other outlets aren't parroting them. They are running their stories. News outlets don't have the ability to have their own on-the-ground reporters all across the globe. And so rely on wire services like the AP, AFP or Reuters to produce these stories. And then they run them because they own subscriptions to these wire services.
Stop getting your information from freaking Limbaugh. This is such a monstrous display of ignorance on a subject you are pretending to have an authoritative opinion on.
I don't listen to Limbaugh anymore (he used to an informative window on behind the scenes politics, but now he's just a Trump groupie and I can't stand him), just pointing out a segment of his shows that I remember being somewhat informative. I don't mind outlets using AP, UPI or Reuters as their sources but cor God's sake don't parrot the exact language. It makes them look sloppy and lazy. Perception trumps reality in this day and age.
You still don't get it and you're refusing to closely read what I wrote.
Ditto.
I'm not talking about reality. I'm talking about perception. When it's called out that these news outlets are parroting one source, they 'appear' to be brain-dead clones. The buzzwords make it even worse. Remember when 'gravitas' was the rage and all of the mainstream outlets were using that word for the first time in probably, ever? I do and when it's noticed, it 'appears' lazy and faddish.
Education is bullshit. I know we already know that. But today I woke up strangely mad at the sheer number of people I know who were told to get an education, got one, and ultimately ended up in a worse position then they are now. The average young adult can't afford a house and can barely support themselves let alone a family. The entire system has failed at least a generation of people and the entire political scene is filled with nothing but distractions. Republicans wouldn't raise wages if their life depended on it and Democrats view Amazon having more diversity in their ads as a victory for the working class. I have little hope things will improve.
I think something that this conversation has taught me is that people have a real hard time differentiating between journalism and punditry. They tend to think they're the same thing, and they're not.
At this point in time, I don't think there is much distinction between the two. Separating your own opinions from the facts is apparently a lost art in all but law.
@WarChiefZeke I see now that you can't use it to try and discredit liberals, you're back to claiming that the press is manipulative and dishonest.
Yes, the press is manipulative and dishonest, and the majority of people have agreed with me on that fact for nearly 20 straight years. Has the majority of the country for the past two decades been crazy, or is it possible that I just might have a point?
Its hard to tell what your point IS when it changes everytime you bring it up. First the news is un-reliable when its used to criticize your leanings, but when it supports your leanings, its suddenly reputable enough to base an entire argument on a single article with no further fact checking. But once it swings back to not supporting your cause, its un-reliable again.
Comments
There's an important piece of omitted context in this argument. Americans may largely agree there's a prevalence of fake news within the news media industry, but they disagree enormously over which media conglomerates are outputting that fake news.
Other missing pieces of context is that the GOP has been punching at the media for decades (literally). It's a core piece of American Conservative ideology to be super skeptical of all media. Unfortunately - that means it isnt any kind of "cold, hard rationality" that drives media skepticism from many Conservatives - but the ideological box they're self-sorted into.
So while you see it clear as day, there are many of us that just see another part of Conservative ideology at work.
If you scroll down to the chart of % who trust each source, under the conservative row is Hannity (48) and Limbaugh (38), who don’t report the news but their opinion on the news and if their opinion is ‘don’t trust what these guys are saying’ then those listeners aren’t going to trust them.
I get the view of news sources not being trustworthy. We live in a clickbait world where the story that gets the most views generates the most money, so scandalous headlines are more appealing but also less credible as they are harder to prove outright.
It is usually left to the reader to decide if what they read was true or not. Take Trump calling soldiers ‘losers’ and ‘suckers.’ It’s an anonymous source against a pathological liars. Some people will believe it outright, some will think it is fake news and a political attack against the president during an election. Both could be true at the same time as well.
When it is left to the reader to decide, it enters opinion territory, that allows others to write about it and generate more clicks, and more revenue. People will probably only read the opinions that they agree with and never see the other side of the debate, and when they do hear a different opinion, it’s fake news or propaganda.
The problem isn't that the "main-stream media" disagrees with some conservative ideology though. They pretty much reject all of it. Even the ideas that work are explained away as outliers or 'other variables' at work. They're also just as bad as the AM radio buffoons in demonizing the people they disagree with. When it's no longer people debating the merits of ideas, but becomes a Holy War between 'Good' and 'Evil', the shit inevitably hits the fan...
I agree with this. Unfortunately - I feel like people have taken to painting with a very broad brush on the matter of journalism. Take your example about Trump: Several different news rooms have all sourced the same information and reported it. That means editorial staffs, career journalists and the like were all put on the spot to evaluate a claim and decided they felt it was true.
There's an absolute world between that and Hannity or Limbaugh, who arent journalists, and dont have news room editorial staffs at their disposal to ensure they they're being ethical/fair/honest.
The problem is - they get lumped together. So when Hannity says "I dont think he said that", and several news rooms say "We have reporting that he said that", they cancel each other out. - or worse, the consumer of media uses their ideological priors and just agrees with the source they prefer.
The notion that authoritarians don't like the news is based on decades of history across the entire world. Whether it's the Soviet Union or the Third Reich or the DPRK or the CCP, all of them view journalists as their enemies.
Meanwhile, every advanced democracy in the world allows and defends an independent press, whether it's an age-old democracy like the U.K. or a relatively new democracy like Japan.
Yes, distaste for the free press is a classic mark of authoritarianism. We've known that for 90 years.
You ever listen to Rush Limbaugh when he plays his 'Mainstream News Parrot' segments? I'm going to guess not. Several times a week he'll pull out some news story that was first reported in AP and then play back a bunch of segments from various news outlets later that day. The news outlets inevitably parrot the AP story right down to each and every buzzword. It's sickening that that's what journalism has devolved to in this day and age. Parroting a bunch of bullet points and buzzwords. That's not an 'independent' media at all. Just a bunch of plagiarists paid to look good on TV...
Edit: The same can be said of the AM doofuses and Fox News parroting them, so I'm an equal opportunity eye-candy plagiarist spotter.
It is pretty clear that the vast majority of those who criticize the press are *concerned* with democracy and the medias failing role in preserving it, and are not actively hostile to a functioning and fair media by any stretch of the imagination.
You wouldn't know that, since the media itself uses this attitude as proof of "authoritarian leanings" in people. A perfect microcosm of how out of touch and ideological they are, really.
Yes and that’s the point. You should not expect your local television/ radio/ newspaper station to have national news correspondent covering or investigative journalism. There is no budget for that. Local level, sure but national, hell to the no. Even local radio won’t have local journalist but will rely on interviewing or bringing in print journalist to rehash any give their opinions on any breaking story.
Instead they pay to be part of news wires, companies that allow them to rehash their stories. They are still delivering the news that has been vetted.
Someone like Limbaugh knows this is how it works and subscribed to the same wires.
There is a huge difference between "reporters" and on-air talent. It's a uniquely American phenomena to conflate the two. I believe in most other countries they are called "news readers".
This random poll has a number of issues (response bias, for example). The most glaring is it requires me to believe that the sampled individuals can
A - Recognize their own bias.
B - Recognize the bias in others
C - Differentiate between the two.
That's a heavy lift. There are plenty of people I interact with daily that I dont think do these three things consistently or effectively. Truly, the only useful thing I got out of this poll is that people tend to believe their news source is less biased than other people's news source.
In other news, water is wet.
I didn't interpret that as people thinking their news source was less biased. I thought it was rather that lots of people think they themselves are able to discount the bias, but that others were less able to do so - and hence what was not a problem for them was still a problem for the country.
Does anyone think there would be value in having a requirement for media to maintain political balance? That's the case for broadcast media in the UK, though not print media.
This survey looks at international attitudes to the media. The results are pretty consistent that people say they want news to be presented in a politically neutral manner. The US is a bit of an outlier in the extent to which there's a divide between political groups in how the media actually perform.
You're right. I misinterpreted this line:
"Most Americans see bias in their go-to news source; 20% see “a great deal” and another 36% see “a fair amount” of bias in the news source they rely on most often.
Given the choice, however, more Americans say they are concerned about bias in the news other people are getting (69%) than say they worry about their own news being biased (29%)."
Thinking it was saying that other news sources are more biased than their own. Instead, they're just saying they can see through the bias of their own but are afraid others cannot, as you noted.
Either way - it still requires A B and C at a minimum, and I'm not so terribly charitable in my belief that they can.
For all the talk about the problem of bias and how people need to be more objective, I don't know of any way to actually be less biased ourselves.
I remember reading some articles from the CIA website about critical thinking and saying that, while scientists had done tons of research about bias, no one has ever actually found a proven way to minimize or counteract it. Even when the issue of bias was explained to people, people still exhibited the same biases--knowing you're prone to bias doesn't make you any less biased.
We are aware of the existence of bias, and we can confirm that people will interpret the same information differently based on their biases, but we still don't know how to actually fix the problem.
We measure other people's biases using our own views as a measuring stick.
Other outlets "parrot" the Associated Press, because the Associated Press a wire service. Their clients *are* other news outlets. Other outlets aren't parroting them. They are running their stories. News outlets don't have the ability to have their own on-the-ground reporters all across the globe. And so rely on wire services like the AP, AFP or Reuters to produce these stories. And then they run them because they own subscriptions to these wire services.
Stop getting your information from freaking Limbaugh. This is such a monstrous display of ignorance on a subject you are pretending to have an authoritative opinion on.
It will have to be a constitutional amendment. But starting will at least start the conversation about the amendment.
This amendment will probably be a lot of give and take with both term limits and the amount of justices allowed on the court and when they are appointed.
Republicans will get quickly on board if Biden wins and talk of packing the court comes to fruition.
It's true that most people see more bias in the news coverage other people choose to read or listen to (big surprise there), but it's also true that the majority see that even their own go-to sources exhibit this kind of bias. It's become so bad it is largely inescapable. I consider a majority of people seeing their own sources as biased as very significant, because the majority of people are not predisposed to think that way about brands that they trust. It isn't something that should be that common.
I also think that the majority opinion on how the news is biased is also largely correct. The most common bias is coverage bias, which has nothing to do with whether any article is true or false, but instead with what news is prioritized, what voices are heard, and what news is ignored. News that is inaccurate or improperly communicated does exist and is a problem, but when most people see media bias they are seeing issues being talked about from one dominant perspective at almost all times. To many, even to some people who agree with that perspective, it seems unfair at best and undemocratic at worst.
They are the best at what they do. I would NEVER dispute this. They are absolutely destructive and have poisoned this country beyond the point of redemption, but they are really, really good at doing it. I'd give my left arm for something half as effective on the left.
I don't listen to Limbaugh anymore (he used to an informative window on behind the scenes politics, but now he's just a Trump groupie and I can't stand him), just pointing out a segment of his shows that I remember being somewhat informative. I don't mind outlets using AP, UPI or Reuters as their sources but cor God's sake don't parrot the exact language. It makes them look sloppy and lazy. Perception trumps reality in this day and age.
AP Radio news is usually played at the top of the hour on every (here's that word again) radio station in the country. It isn't BIASED per se, but it provides absolutely no context to anything whatsoever. It's basically "this is what Trump said today, and this is what Democrats responded with" and then two other stories before telling you how much the DOW is up or down at that minute.
I have never listened to Limbaugh in my life, funnily enough, but I know he was a popular figure for many years. I have never liked FOX, but I do admit that Tucker Carlson has said a lot of things that I strongly agree with, particularly that one of the primary purposes of government should be to ensure that people can safely and affordably buy a house and raise families, and that they have completely abandoned any thought of this, particularly on the right. I also appreciate that he is willing to go after Republicans on the most popular show on FOX. But he is one voice, and I don't watch his show regularly by any means. Everything I have seen has been youtube clips.
The fact that nowadays there is so little investigative reporting, and a majority of it is media parroting other media, is a problem in itself. In the 90's and to some extent the early 2000's you would see investigative reporting on mainstream media that was actually pretty damning to major corporations. Now that they are cash strapped and dependant on ad revenue and the like this isn't possible.
Almost all media problems boil down to funding, where it comes from or the lack of it.
You still don't get it and you're refusing to closely read what I wrote.
As such, you're repeating misinformation.
Wire services like the AP are providing a service to news outlets. There's nothing untoward about news outlets running wire reports. The freaking AM stations that play Rush's show run wire stories. It's impossible for a news outlet to have a reporter in say India or South Africa. So when a big news story breaks there, outlets rely on wire services like the AP or Reuters, who do have embedded reporters there. It's a perfectly legitimate way of reporting and disseminating news. And you are using a completely unscrupulous actor to slander hard-working and well-meaning news gathering.
We would live in a much more ignorant world if news outlets were not "parroting" as you say, wire reports.
Please, I encourage you to take some time and actually learn about the journalism industry before popping off with slander about it.
Edit to add: This is from the very top of the wikipedia page on the AP: "As of 2016, news collected by the AP was published and republished by more than 1,300 newspapers and broadcasters."
The AP exists to be "parroted" by other news outlets. That's their main business model! Other news outlets can run their reports in their paper, radio or tv news. That's the whole freaking point about AP. Limbaugh knows this too, he's worked decades on AM radio whose stations rely on wire reports. But he has such a minuscule respect for the intelligence and integrity of his listeners that he is happy to pump them with disinformation about the subject.
I'd go a bit further. Not only is it not wrong to just repeat these stories, but changing what is said in them would introduce the sort of bias most people are suggesting is a problem. The use of the same language only becomes notable if you follow multiple news outlets, but if every outlet put their own spin on a story - without having any knowledge of their own about it - I can't see any way that improves the accuracy of the reporting.
Although it's not journalism, it is instructive to look at the 2016 election to see the effect of punditry. The polls were relatively close towards the end, although showed a reasonable Clinton win. Pundits took that information and tried to spin it as a 99% likelihood of a Clinton victory. All it took was one bad late news cycle and a totally average polling miss (2% is a completely average polling miss, historically) - and Clinton lost narrowly.
I'm not talking about reality. I'm talking about perception. When it's called out that these news outlets are parroting one source, they 'appear' to be brain-dead clones. The buzzwords make it even worse. Remember when 'gravitas' was the rage and all of the mainstream outlets were using that word for the first time in probably, ever? I do and when it's noticed, it 'appears' lazy and faddish.
At this point in time, I don't think there is much distinction between the two. Separating your own opinions from the facts is apparently a lost art in all but law.
Its hard to tell what your point IS when it changes everytime you bring it up. First the news is un-reliable when its used to criticize your leanings, but when it supports your leanings, its suddenly reputable enough to base an entire argument on a single article with no further fact checking. But once it swings back to not supporting your cause, its un-reliable again.
Care to explain that?