Sadly journalism nowadays is a lot about creating "content". By the way, "content" is the stuff that fills out the void between the ads.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Should we break this discussion about journalism (or lack thereof) off?
I agree though. I'm shocked at how often even paid journalists don't get basic facts about the Model S right like base price or 0-60 times (things easily found on their website).
I agree though. I'm shocked at how often even paid journalists don't get basic facts about the Model S right like base price or 0-60 times (things easily found on their website).
Speaking as a moderator, I would say yes... but my earlier posting is on-topic insofar as a "reporter" quoted my comments on this thread without permission or attribution. </rant>
Ever since news became just another way to get advertising dollars the only thing that matters is the number of clicks, ratings, etc. that an article or show gets. Reporting accuracy isn't even considered in the top 100. So news is now just another form of entertainment. Might as well watch X-Files as news, both have about the same level of believability.
Yep. Our local radio has police helicopter warnings during the fall, for growers in the hills. Pretty cool. Local news usually laughs at the terrrible journalism and news from other sources
NPR is one of the better ones
NPR is one of the better ones
I can't agree with you there. While NPR once upon a time delivered news from a neutral stance, it's been biased left since the early 90's. it's not as horrid as Fox's right wing dogma, but IMO its about as neutral as the NYTimes.
gg_got_a_tesla
Model S: VIN 65513, Model 3: VIN 1913
I never said anything about them being liberal or conservative, but rather impartial to advertisers. And you have to admit they are proper journalists.
I personally believe that the facts have a liberal bias.
One thing that has always bugged me is the newspapers endorsing candidates outright, especially when they are the only viable news source in town. I've seen this happen all my life and I'm shocked that a they can remain a credible news source after taking those actions. I thought this would go away as the communications industry matured.
If there is competition in an area then it appears that the news organizations ultimately merge, get acquired, get bought out or go out of business resulting in no opportunity for the public to vet information. It's too bad that it is the objective reporting organizations get acquired or fade away in most cases. I thought the internet would resolve some of this but it seems like blogging and the lack of good editors, journalistic ethics and education is making the situation even worse.
Its almost like the wild, wild west all over again.
Good journalism need not be unbiased journalism. I'm not sure that humans can produce any communication that isn't biased. What good journalism brings is a well-researched, fact-checked article that presents alternative points of view, but also helps to summarize these views for the reader. Good consumers of journalism don't rely on a single source; I read the New York Times and Wall Street Journal regularly, and listen to a lot of NPR and BBC coverage. Four distinct voices there, that require me to synthesize their competing views into one of my own. Sadly, most people are lazy consumers of news and eat whatever is shoveled onto their plates by whatever -- Fox, CNN, NPR.
Agreed.
Unfortunately, some consumers do not have a choice of news sources and they are forced to rely on their news source to fact check for them and provide a holistic view. I grew up in an area where only one newspaper was available for delivery, one radio station could be received and occasionally maybe two TV stations could be picked up. We were more fortunate than others that lived on the other side of the hill or further up the road. News was extremely slanted since it was from a "company town". The John Birch Society was, and still is, extremely influential there. Much of this area still does not have internet access, cable or cell phone service to this day because the small towns are scattered and population is not dense enough for the services to be profitable. Satellite has been available for some time but frequently they can't get the signal due to terrain or it is not affordable. Their news is even thinner now in this information age due to acquisitions of newspapers by larger companies and the ultimate demise of the publications because it skews their parent company’s portfolio in the wrong direction. If they survive it is often due to a self-serving motive.
I left that area the day I turned 18 and I had a ravenous appetite when it came to different perspectives, cultures and points-of-view. I still go back to visit family regularly and old friends and I see that they are still stuck with limited and unreliable information sources and it saddens me. They had access to more news sources in the 1940’s than they have now. I do my best to open doors for them, especially the young ones.
So, that explains my strong feelings about objective and factual reporting and my feeling that opinions should be left on the opinion page. I remember what it was like to go without.
@v12 to 12v: Your post speaks to a true public need: universal broadband access. Surely this would assure democracy more than an equal expenditure on the military.
Anyone try Sonos? I just got that and I can listen via internet to almost any radio station in the world! Really impressive, and integrates with my home network to distribute the audio throughout the house. Controll is through your smart phone application, or I pad. Really cool! Point is that you can listen to any source from any country in the world and get very different perspectrives.
This sounds like a fun topic.
Who would protect such a resource from exploitation, corruption, blockage, etc.?
We'll let you know once we have spent Aud$42 billion on the National Broadband Network here in Australia.
Opinion is divided on if this is a good use of money or not, but the aim is for universal broadband access anywhere in Australia.
Not surprisingly the left side of politics, supports it and has brought it in but the conservative side of politics argue it's not worth the cost.
National Broadband Network
I find "is it worth growing our debt for" a simple decision-making approach, and it seems like some other folks have picked this up. Dunno Australia's financial situation though.
Similar threads
