Posted on 08/06/2020 10:24:12 AM PDT by Rummyfan
The establishment media continues to become more and more unpopular — for a very good reason.
A major survey came out this week showing deep distrust in the media, and then a top producer at MSNBC and a recently deposed opinion editor from the New York Times aired their own biting critiques. The message from all three is that the media has forfeited professional standards and ethics. The message is correct.
“We are a cancer and there is no cure.” That’s what “a successful and insightful TV veteran” told Ariana N. Pekary, who two days ago quit her job as a producer for MSNBC’s The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell. Pekary penned a blog post agreeing with that assessment.
According to Pekary, the “model” used by cable news networks (and presumably other news outlets) “blocks diversity of thought and content because the networks have incentives to amplify fringe voices and events, at the expense of others.” She wrote that the cancer “risks human lives … [and] risks our democracy,” in part because “context and factual data are often considered too cumbersome for the audience.”
The main thrust of those sentiments reaffirmed the message of Bari Weiss, the New York Times opinion staff editor who resigned her position on July 14 with a scathing exit letter of her own. On Friday, during Real Time with Bill Maher, she amplified her point.
“I don't want to live in a world where the views of half of the country can't be heard in the paper of record,” Weiss said. “And that, I fear, is where we're heading."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
Actually, there is a cure — lawsuits. It seems every Ammendment can have some restrictiions — that is if the Dems want them. There is no reason that the freedom of the press can’t also have restrictions when it is blatently obvious when the media is intentionally lying. The Supreme’s have said there can be restrictions on the 2nd Ammendment, on Churches etc. So why not on the most powerful and corrupt part of our society — the press. A few huge wins against not only the media outlet but also the individual and I gaurantee they will be a little more honest.
It’s hard for me to have much sympathy for the Producer of the Lawrence O’Donnell show.
What’s her real beef here? That O’Donnell wasn’t allowed to go COMPLETELY barking moon bat nuts every night?
How does her work not allow diversity on Larry’s show? Should Larry appear in blackface?
We're already there, luv.
Even the dishonest and contemptible can be expected to be contemptuous of them.
The big question is whether they are cynical and intentionally dishonest, stupid, or honestly unaware of how seriously they have degenerated into a contemptible propaganda machine.
The problem is: what are you going to sue them for? To sue them you need to show some actual harm was done by them to you, and not just some general “they’re hurting society” argument.
Now if they mess up and slander someone who isn’t a public figure, like Nick Sandman, then they are liable and they are going to pay up. But those cases are few and far between and are probably not going to result in any real change in corporate behavior.
There were no "investigative reporters" there was little or no spin. It was brief and concise with no talking head rants like you get today.
Today's "news" is almost all opinion and doctrine disguised as information.
15 minutes of news for a 30-minute program. Well, that's about 14 minutes more of real news than you get in the average 60-minute news program today!
Reporting the actual news and informing the public probably ended at the end of the 1930s and has only worsened since then.
The original program was 15 minutes long when it began.
The public sees bad consequences flowing directly from these misbehaviors, with 36% saying the media bears “a moderate amount” of the blame for the nation’s political divisions, plus a whopping additional 48% saying that reporters merit “a great deal” of blame.
Perhaps we need to reimagine the media as it currently exists.
What happens, and has already happened, is that said paper is no longer the "paper of record" despite all the boasting and preening. One of those boasts has been that the media perform a valuable function in representative government by keeping the members of the latter honest. Try to say that aloud with a straight face anymore. Best of luck.
Nevertheless, if what is rewarded from monetary to celebrity to Pulitzer prize and the like is this strident cacophony of hatred, then that's what we'll get. The people propping it up through subsidy are doing so because the power is worth it to them. They aren't going anywhere, and neither is bias in the media.
I came home from Vietnam in February ‘69 and saw how Cronkite was straight up lying about the war. Ever since then I have known that the one and only thing you can be sure of is that you are being lied to.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.