However, if you watch their interviews, for example, you quickly realize the problem isn't maintaining veracity as a fair source of news. The problem is if the reporters remain intrepid (as they currently seem to be), the people they interview-- like Ted Cruz-- end up looking like complete dumbasses. I'm honestly surprised they continue to get interviews with prominent figures.
That, to me, is the bigger problem. There are plenty of partisan pundits who feel comfortable appearing on the "other" cable news to play the wrestling villain. Nearly none of them will ever appear on Democracy Now, for example, because Amy will:
1. not negotiate ground rules for the interview in advance
2. ask occasional follow-up questions
Amy Goodman clearly sits pretty far on the left. But those two simple rules essentially made her as much of a nuisance to Bill Clinton as to George Bush. (And if you haven't heard it, go on youtube and watch her grill Clinton when he was attempting to campaign during Hilary's Senate run on Democracy Now.)
And that's the bigger issue. I don't really care whether some pundit reinforces my worldview or not. I care whether they fold under pressure when an intrepid reporter reveals they don't know what they're talking about. The problem with MSNBC/Fox/CNN is they don't usually (or even consistently) apply that pressure. (And sometimes actively suppress it, e.g., not telling their audience that one of their military analysts who is arguing for an invasion is also a board member of a defense contractor that would benefit from the invasion.)
Nonprofit news organizations are a thing and I've been incredibly positive about their future (full disclosure: I used to work for a nonprofit publication).
The nonprofit model encourages much more direct community engagement through conferences, festivals, and long-form interviews with local, state and national leaders.
A major hurdle that nonprofit and higher-quality news outlets face is that the major media players have dopamine-driven news down to a science, and it's a lot easier to consume a small and practically meaningless soundbyte than it is to sit and listen to a politician have a challenging discussion with an interviewer for an hour. The attention span of the average American isn't equipped for higher-level discourse as it's not nearly as exciting and rage-inducing as watching CNN/FOX/ABC/??? network.
The most popular podcaster right now is Joe Rogan, who does 2-3 hour interviews. Doesn't the popularity of his content suggest that Americans are very interested in higher level discourse, but have long been denied it?
My town is blessed with an excellent nonprofit news organization: Berkeleyside and its spin-off, Oaklandside. Together they publish 1-2 articles each day, because that's how much news there is. There's really no reason to have the local dailies like the SF Chronicle, the only major-city newspaper to my knowledge to have been openly mocked in a famous movie, or the SJ Mercury News and the other papers of the Bay Area News Group, a Denver company that hasn't printed anything worth reading in the past decade.
This is feeding into a false narrative that Fox News largely created out of whole cloth. Fox staked out a conservative position, but claimed they were 'fair and balanced'. To suggest that other news outlets, like CNN or the Washington Post must have a liberal bent is to serve Fox's agenda. Articles like this show how one media outlet has managed to shift the Overton window.
Yes, there are some explicitly leftist news outlets, some, like Mother Jones, long pre-dating Fox news, and others, like MSNBC that pivoted in response to Fox. It is wrong to claim that there are no unbiased outlets because they used the term 'insurrectionists' to describe an organized group that broke into the United States Capitol with the intent to keep Congress from functioning. It's an objectively accurate description.
It's what he writes about now, and I find his take on this somewhat disingenuous given that he's positioned himself as the "a pox on both your houses" guy and is making that his bread and butter. Given that, there really isn't any reason he'd want to solve this problem. I've followed him since the "vampire squid" days and enjoy his writing, but he's clearly toned down the gonzo style and largely dropped his coverage on the excesses of Wall Street, which have gotten worse if anything but which I guess don't get a lot of traction with most of the public.
You have to write what sells. It's not like there weren't news organizations that followed the old impartial model as best they could, like McClatchy - who went bankrupt continuing to do it. The real issue is that the public wants the entertainment of blood sport in every venue, from e-celeb beefs to politics and because the barriers to entry are so low now, if you don't hot-take it, the next Youtuber will.
Taibbi is a reporter and a commentator, not an innovator or a leader. The latter two are who we are relying upon to find solutions. At least Taibbi is one of the few remaining journalists doing their job.
From what I’ve read of Taibbi’s work he’s the last guy interested in stoking any kind of culture war - but he does a very good job of both analyzing how it’s been developing and predicting how the end game will work out.
I'm wondering if there is any way for a "trusted to be mostly neutral" news organization to come about. Let's pretend we have a nascent neutral organization X:
Action: X publishes something properly critical of the right/left.
Reaction: The extreme right/left media throws all sorts of criticisms of X's reporting and sees what sticks.
Result: Some fraction of the right/left constituency starts to believe (and voice) that X is biased.
Action: X publishes something wrongly (or at least with more bias than expected) of the right/left
Reaction: All right/left media publishes articles lambasting X's coverage of the item in question.
Result: A fraction of the more moderate right/left constituency starts to think "maybe my extreme friend was right about X"
Cycle through the above a few times, and even though the majority of the country may trust X, most of that majority will be among the least politically engaged (because partisanship and political engagement are correlated), so you are left without much of an audience that cares about what you are reporting.
> a "trusted to be mostly neutral" news organization
Until there's a definition of 'neutral' that everyone agrees with, that won't work. It's impossible to avoid making important editorial judgements unless you're going to literally report all information being generated. News organizations are not a substitute for doing research on the things that matter to you.
Neutrality is not a realistic goal. In fact, the idea that neutrality is the goal has just resulted in more shrill commentary as each side claims their position is more neutral (i.e more truthful).
Humans aren't neutral. The way we interpret events isn't neutral. It is difficult to be brief or put this down to any one event/cause but, ultimately, media is just a reflection of what people want.
Weakening bonds between people in society, an education system that teach facts over nuance (this is interesting, lots of lawyers in politics in the US which generally builds a culture that permits resonable disagreement...hasn't happened), low levels of respect for other people, etc.
Neutrality is not realistic though, and isn't required. Res
Neutrality is implausible. What matters is honesty. Sometimes I will find a political article written by somebody whose views I disagree with but the author attempts to be thorough, doesn't reason backward from their conclusion and tries to account for their own biases and limitations. It's frankly heart warming what that happens.
Most of the news that seems to gain popularity on social networks is not that though. It's not really news, it's pandering and it's reinforced by the echo-chamber nature of said social networks.
I'm lucky enough to be able to read several languages and I found that the best way to find consistently decent news coverage is simply to look for it on the outside. See how the Russians or Brasilians report the Capitol riots. See what the Ukrainians have to say about the British elections. Of course these news outlets are not without their own biases, but at least they tend to be less emotionally involved and don't have a horse in the race, which in my experience leads to more factual reports.
For instance while most European news outlets will lean anti-Trump, they are unlikely to consciously or unconsciously silence or downplay pro-Trump or anti-Democratic news simply because they don't really have any direct influence on American politics. Meanwhile a journalist at CNN or Fox News is in a different position, because their reporting will be de-facto politicized and could have direct consequences one way or an other.
People here will first play the gambit "there is not such thing as an objective/impartial press" knowing that that will lead to a neverending philosophical debate with no conclusions.
Then you will say, "fine, at least give me some journo that exposes a Democratic senator with the same ferocity of a Republican senator who did the same thing and vice versa" And you will be received with this line "You are an enlightened centrist, both sides will never be the same and if A says the earth is flat and B says is kind of a sphere there is not a valid C ,middle-of-the-road both-sides position" and they will act as if they gave a fatal blow to your argument.
People love love love to be reassured they (and the people they chose to support) have the moral high-ground.
Twitter / Reddit / YouTube / management is CHOOSING to make their platforms into liberal-or-die echo chambers because their upper management leans left. No one is forcing their hands.
What Rolling Stone did in giving a political reporter the freedom to write about the banalities of the system was revolutionary at the time. They also allowed their writer to be a sides-taker and a rooter, which seemed natural and appropriate because biases end up in media anyway. They were just hidden in the traditional dull “objective” format.
I think Taibbi, whom I’m not generally a fan but do believe strives to be intellectually honest, makes a really unfortunate statement here. First, Rolling Stone would have only allowed your opinionated voice as long as it was generally an opinion the editors shared. Second, the idea that you did it the right way but the current breed is nothing but shallow polemics is tremendously arrogant. Third, “taking sides” means you are no longer a reliable reporter, as you unavoidably feel compelled to report things that justify the side you’ve selected.
Really, Matt and others who took off their masks of objectivity during the Bush presidency (Dan Rather, Helen Thomas, Bill O’Reilly to name a few) were the ones that opened the gates to the journalists of today that wear their bias and ignorance on their sleeve. “They literally know nothing”, as Ben Rhodes famously said.
I lament the same things in the article that Taibbi laments. The fear merchants selling wall-to-wall panic porn (from the Russians are coming! to Birtherism to whatever the lie du jour happens to be) have significantly damaged American culture and American politics. And all for clicks and eyeballs! But Taibbi, despite his attempts to distance himself, deserves a measure of blame for leading the way.
I know journalism has always had bias, but there was an incentive to make sure the bias wasn’t overt. Because overt bias would have been considered unethical. I don’t think we are better for it now the pretense of objectivity is gone.
I do not think the problem is that we lost the pretense of objectivity. I am fine listening to people who are not objective, and that is everybody really, the problem is the lack of intellectual honesty and basic fairness. That is just revolting and incredibly damaging. Taibbi is liberal minded as is almost anyone in any creative profession, but he is fair and not full of it. That is more than enough.
Every few weeks this issue comes on HN. It's hard not to mention my startup, The Factual, which is proving that people will pay a modest amount for ad-free, unbiased news on trending topics. I suspect this will get downvoted but I don't know how not to scream "we have a solution" to a problem so many have. So as not to be entirely biased let me mention other good offerings: The New Paper, Knowhere News.
Of course, our solution is not for everyone. If you have a well-tuned Twitter feed, or have figured out forums like HN/Reddit where you get news and commentary you trust, then we may not be as useful for you. But for the vast majority that just want the facts on topics of importance our daily newsletter is an easy way to stay informed and then get on with life. And we've priced it to be affordable for everyone so that factual news is not just for the rich.
The first headline on The Factual right now is “How conservative media stoked baseless election-fraud claims that motivated D.C. rioters”. That is certainly not what the “fairness doctrine” type centrist media sounded like. The whole feed doesn’t seem like it is considering both sides of the issues, it seems like it is providing the same generic left viewpoint that the New York Times would provide.
Yes, I can vouch for this model. I currently use The New Paper, but I will probably try other similar services (like yours) just to see which if I like any of the competition better.
Thanks for making this service! I'd be more interested in it if there were a weekly option that just rolls up the most important stuff from the week instead of daily - I try not to read the news everyday for my own sanity. Is that in the works at all?
#1 - Allocate a share of money and create a BBC like news source totally un-biased and pay the reporters extremely well(to attract good reporters). Have decent UI on the web, well produced shows and a mandate that both sides are allocated equal time.(PBS does this but is not very well produced, it needs more money)
#2 - Have "Bias" flags mandated on each article(or visual bubbles on TV), reflecting the authors political persuasion. This would be similar to responsible business reporting where the author states whether he has a position(shares) in the company or industry he reports on.
#3 - Require that whenever a article is posting a position, a opposite view point is required to be tagged next to said article.
>If you work in conservative media, you probably felt tremendous pressure all November to stay away from information suggesting Trump lost the election. If you work in the other ecosystem, you probably feel right now that even suggesting what happened last Wednesday was not a coup in the literal sense of the word (e.g. an attempt at seizing power with an actual chance of success) not only wouldn’t clear an editor, but might make you suspect in the eyes of co-workers, a potentially job-imperiling problem in this environment.
Is this pressure coming from editors or from readers?
Would an outlet that dispassionately reported the fact that Trump lost the election truly have been able to have been "perceived as neutral arbiters" by Trump supporters?
> Would an outlet that dispassionately reported the fact that Trump lost the election truly have been able to have been "perceived as neutral arbiters" by Trump supporters?
Considering Trump and his supporters are a symptom, not a cause (although at this point it's a feedback loop) of our broader post-truth environment, I think the minimum is a newspaper with a track record of neutrality (i.e., it's not sufficient for any reasonable person to completely change their opinion of NYT or MSNBC or whomever based on a single dispassionate piece). I think the extent to which our society esteems neutral institutions ("neutral" within some reasonable error margin) is the extent to which we can see a reversal of Trumpism (and probably the woke progressivism that preceded it). There's always a fringe, but I yearn for the days when extremist viewpoints were (rightly) marginalized.
A gaping hole in this article is the fact that >90% of the media is comprised of culture war sellers in favor of the left (not to mention all FAANG companies), and <10% in favor of the right.
So, I have to preface this with saying that I am not a particular fan of the guy as a businessman or a President. Having said that, between this "fact check" from NBC https://twitter.com/nbcnews/status/785299709342654465?lang=e... in October of 2016 and CNN commentator Donna Brazile being "totally not sorry" that she leaked the debate questions and topics to Clinton's campaign in November of 2016, it was very clear that this guy was never going to get a fair shake from the media, and that any and all reporting of him must be carefully examined.
I don't have it on hand, but remember that whole bit about him calling veterans losers and weak? Yeah, so if you start digging for the full transcript, you get to see just how taken out of context that was. I just can no longer trust the established media not to have a huge agenda and be constantly on the lookout for a "spin."
Trump may have been an emabarrassment, but the media has actively made me lose faith in reporting. He'll be out of the office soon, but my ability to trust in reporting has been forever tarnished. Decades of reputation have been squandered by these acts.
The Donna Brazile issue did highlight how callous the media has become. It seems there was no fallout from her making such a dishonest act ... basically openly cheating the election process.
> Fox’s business model has long been based on scaring the crap out of aging Silent Majority viewers with a parade of anything-but-the-truth explanations for America’s decline.
Okay, so what is the truth? Isn’t that what everybody’s looking for? Give an uncontroversially factual explanation of that and people will start looking for solutions instead of problems. Unless they are the problem, and then they’ll be forced to engage in all-out propaganda war to convince people otherwise.
It seems to me that the truth is usually cheap and unprofitable. So if you want to know what the biggest lies are, see how much is being spent to convince you of something. Truth may often be associated with somebody losing a lot of money. These are GDP destroyers, stock market crashes waiting to happen. We’re all socially invested in preventing them.
i’ve come to the conclusion it’s impossible to be unbiased and to pretend it is, is a total farce. the best we can do as readers is read multiple sources from different sides and try to piece together the truth from it. journalists are 99.5 percent hacks, we shouldn’t pretend otherwise
my personal preference would be a world where we just have like reuters and AP sources that try to give purely factual info..(though even they are biased somewhat) and then just substack. we don’t need nyt
I think the media is again just a symptom, the major problem in the US is the two party system which is a result of the electoral system and the electoral college in particular.
If there are more than two "teams" it's much more difficult to just be against the "other side" and you can see that while other countries certainly have their problems, places with multiparty systems have significantly less "hatred" against the "other" side.
I agree whole heartily, but I think we should go bigger. I think we should create a fourth branch of government, call it the Informational, whose job is to independently educate and inform citizens of matters relevant to their citizenship. This could be modeled after the supreme court, that is life-term (or reasonably long) nominations with a public vetting process.
I agree. I think there's a real market for an _extremely_ boring news site. 4-5 paragraph articles, sentiment analysis to be "neutral", some way to link to context and history on topics, and links to source documents. Same for weather. Here's the forecast- no flashing text and stupid names for every single storm.
[+] [-] jancsika|5 years ago|reply
However, if you watch their interviews, for example, you quickly realize the problem isn't maintaining veracity as a fair source of news. The problem is if the reporters remain intrepid (as they currently seem to be), the people they interview-- like Ted Cruz-- end up looking like complete dumbasses. I'm honestly surprised they continue to get interviews with prominent figures.
That, to me, is the bigger problem. There are plenty of partisan pundits who feel comfortable appearing on the "other" cable news to play the wrestling villain. Nearly none of them will ever appear on Democracy Now, for example, because Amy will:
1. not negotiate ground rules for the interview in advance
2. ask occasional follow-up questions
Amy Goodman clearly sits pretty far on the left. But those two simple rules essentially made her as much of a nuisance to Bill Clinton as to George Bush. (And if you haven't heard it, go on youtube and watch her grill Clinton when he was attempting to campaign during Hilary's Senate run on Democracy Now.)
And that's the bigger issue. I don't really care whether some pundit reinforces my worldview or not. I care whether they fold under pressure when an intrepid reporter reveals they don't know what they're talking about. The problem with MSNBC/Fox/CNN is they don't usually (or even consistently) apply that pressure. (And sometimes actively suppress it, e.g., not telling their audience that one of their military analysts who is arguing for an invasion is also a board member of a defense contractor that would benefit from the invasion.)
Edit: clarifications
[+] [-] save_ferris|5 years ago|reply
The nonprofit model encourages much more direct community engagement through conferences, festivals, and long-form interviews with local, state and national leaders.
A major hurdle that nonprofit and higher-quality news outlets face is that the major media players have dopamine-driven news down to a science, and it's a lot easier to consume a small and practically meaningless soundbyte than it is to sit and listen to a politician have a challenging discussion with an interviewer for an hour. The attention span of the average American isn't equipped for higher-level discourse as it's not nearly as exciting and rage-inducing as watching CNN/FOX/ABC/??? network.
[+] [-] Meekro|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jeffbee|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] andjd|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zefool|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] circumvent123|5 years ago|reply
Isn't culture war 95% of what Taibbi writes about?
This isn't the worst diagnosis I've read, but I don't see him offering any solutions.
[+] [-] yborg|5 years ago|reply
You have to write what sells. It's not like there weren't news organizations that followed the old impartial model as best they could, like McClatchy - who went bankrupt continuing to do it. The real issue is that the public wants the entertainment of blood sport in every venue, from e-celeb beefs to politics and because the barriers to entry are so low now, if you don't hot-take it, the next Youtuber will.
[+] [-] gfodor|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rcurry|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] flybrand|5 years ago|reply
He’s covering - his beat is - the current media’s stoking of culture war as a commercial reality of modern media tech.
[+] [-] aidenn0|5 years ago|reply
Action: X publishes something properly critical of the right/left.
Reaction: The extreme right/left media throws all sorts of criticisms of X's reporting and sees what sticks.
Result: Some fraction of the right/left constituency starts to believe (and voice) that X is biased.
Action: X publishes something wrongly (or at least with more bias than expected) of the right/left
Reaction: All right/left media publishes articles lambasting X's coverage of the item in question.
Result: A fraction of the more moderate right/left constituency starts to think "maybe my extreme friend was right about X"
Cycle through the above a few times, and even though the majority of the country may trust X, most of that majority will be among the least politically engaged (because partisanship and political engagement are correlated), so you are left without much of an audience that cares about what you are reporting.
[+] [-] bachmeier|5 years ago|reply
Until there's a definition of 'neutral' that everyone agrees with, that won't work. It's impossible to avoid making important editorial judgements unless you're going to literally report all information being generated. News organizations are not a substitute for doing research on the things that matter to you.
[+] [-] hogFeast|5 years ago|reply
Humans aren't neutral. The way we interpret events isn't neutral. It is difficult to be brief or put this down to any one event/cause but, ultimately, media is just a reflection of what people want.
Weakening bonds between people in society, an education system that teach facts over nuance (this is interesting, lots of lawyers in politics in the US which generally builds a culture that permits resonable disagreement...hasn't happened), low levels of respect for other people, etc.
Neutrality is not realistic though, and isn't required. Res
[+] [-] simias|5 years ago|reply
Most of the news that seems to gain popularity on social networks is not that though. It's not really news, it's pandering and it's reinforced by the echo-chamber nature of said social networks.
I'm lucky enough to be able to read several languages and I found that the best way to find consistently decent news coverage is simply to look for it on the outside. See how the Russians or Brasilians report the Capitol riots. See what the Ukrainians have to say about the British elections. Of course these news outlets are not without their own biases, but at least they tend to be less emotionally involved and don't have a horse in the race, which in my experience leads to more factual reports.
For instance while most European news outlets will lean anti-Trump, they are unlikely to consciously or unconsciously silence or downplay pro-Trump or anti-Democratic news simply because they don't really have any direct influence on American politics. Meanwhile a journalist at CNN or Fox News is in a different position, because their reporting will be de-facto politicized and could have direct consequences one way or an other.
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] jay_kyburz|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] RivieraKid|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cambalache|5 years ago|reply
People here will first play the gambit "there is not such thing as an objective/impartial press" knowing that that will lead to a neverending philosophical debate with no conclusions.
Then you will say, "fine, at least give me some journo that exposes a Democratic senator with the same ferocity of a Republican senator who did the same thing and vice versa" And you will be received with this line "You are an enlightened centrist, both sides will never be the same and if A says the earth is flat and B says is kind of a sphere there is not a valid C ,middle-of-the-road both-sides position" and they will act as if they gave a fatal blow to your argument.
People love love love to be reassured they (and the people they chose to support) have the moral high-ground.
[+] [-] skrowl|5 years ago|reply
Twitter / Reddit / YouTube / management is CHOOSING to make their platforms into liberal-or-die echo chambers because their upper management leans left. No one is forcing their hands.
[+] [-] Allower|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] trentnix|5 years ago|reply
I think Taibbi, whom I’m not generally a fan but do believe strives to be intellectually honest, makes a really unfortunate statement here. First, Rolling Stone would have only allowed your opinionated voice as long as it was generally an opinion the editors shared. Second, the idea that you did it the right way but the current breed is nothing but shallow polemics is tremendously arrogant. Third, “taking sides” means you are no longer a reliable reporter, as you unavoidably feel compelled to report things that justify the side you’ve selected.
Really, Matt and others who took off their masks of objectivity during the Bush presidency (Dan Rather, Helen Thomas, Bill O’Reilly to name a few) were the ones that opened the gates to the journalists of today that wear their bias and ignorance on their sleeve. “They literally know nothing”, as Ben Rhodes famously said.
I lament the same things in the article that Taibbi laments. The fear merchants selling wall-to-wall panic porn (from the Russians are coming! to Birtherism to whatever the lie du jour happens to be) have significantly damaged American culture and American politics. And all for clicks and eyeballs! But Taibbi, despite his attempts to distance himself, deserves a measure of blame for leading the way.
I know journalism has always had bias, but there was an incentive to make sure the bias wasn’t overt. Because overt bias would have been considered unethical. I don’t think we are better for it now the pretense of objectivity is gone.
[+] [-] zarkov99|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] germanjoey|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] amoorthy|5 years ago|reply
Of course, our solution is not for everyone. If you have a well-tuned Twitter feed, or have figured out forums like HN/Reddit where you get news and commentary you trust, then we may not be as useful for you. But for the vast majority that just want the facts on topics of importance our daily newsletter is an easy way to stay informed and then get on with life. And we've priced it to be affordable for everyone so that factual news is not just for the rich.
[+] [-] lacker|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ElijahLynn|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 11thEarlOfMar|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] umvi|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] presentation|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] amoorthy|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] phendrenad2|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] atc|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] subsubzero|5 years ago|reply
#1 - Allocate a share of money and create a BBC like news source totally un-biased and pay the reporters extremely well(to attract good reporters). Have decent UI on the web, well produced shows and a mandate that both sides are allocated equal time.(PBS does this but is not very well produced, it needs more money)
#2 - Have "Bias" flags mandated on each article(or visual bubbles on TV), reflecting the authors political persuasion. This would be similar to responsible business reporting where the author states whether he has a position(shares) in the company or industry he reports on.
#3 - Require that whenever a article is posting a position, a opposite view point is required to be tagged next to said article.
[+] [-] Imnimo|5 years ago|reply
Is this pressure coming from editors or from readers?
Would an outlet that dispassionately reported the fact that Trump lost the election truly have been able to have been "perceived as neutral arbiters" by Trump supporters?
[+] [-] throwaway894345|5 years ago|reply
Considering Trump and his supporters are a symptom, not a cause (although at this point it's a feedback loop) of our broader post-truth environment, I think the minimum is a newspaper with a track record of neutrality (i.e., it's not sufficient for any reasonable person to completely change their opinion of NYT or MSNBC or whomever based on a single dispassionate piece). I think the extent to which our society esteems neutral institutions ("neutral" within some reasonable error margin) is the extent to which we can see a reversal of Trumpism (and probably the woke progressivism that preceded it). There's always a fringe, but I yearn for the days when extremist viewpoints were (rightly) marginalized.
[+] [-] jb775|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] at_a_remove|5 years ago|reply
I don't have it on hand, but remember that whole bit about him calling veterans losers and weak? Yeah, so if you start digging for the full transcript, you get to see just how taken out of context that was. I just can no longer trust the established media not to have a huge agenda and be constantly on the lookout for a "spin."
Trump may have been an emabarrassment, but the media has actively made me lose faith in reporting. He'll be out of the office soon, but my ability to trust in reporting has been forever tarnished. Decades of reputation have been squandered by these acts.
[+] [-] cudgy|5 years ago|reply
Ironically, she now works for Fox News.
[+] [-] jl2718|5 years ago|reply
Okay, so what is the truth? Isn’t that what everybody’s looking for? Give an uncontroversially factual explanation of that and people will start looking for solutions instead of problems. Unless they are the problem, and then they’ll be forced to engage in all-out propaganda war to convince people otherwise.
It seems to me that the truth is usually cheap and unprofitable. So if you want to know what the biggest lies are, see how much is being spent to convince you of something. Truth may often be associated with somebody losing a lot of money. These are GDP destroyers, stock market crashes waiting to happen. We’re all socially invested in preventing them.
[+] [-] azinman2|5 years ago|reply
Like PBS? Turns out if you’re not sensationalist, and others are, you lose viewership.
[+] [-] ffggvv|5 years ago|reply
my personal preference would be a world where we just have like reuters and AP sources that try to give purely factual info..(though even they are biased somewhat) and then just substack. we don’t need nyt
[+] [-] cycomanic|5 years ago|reply
If there are more than two "teams" it's much more difficult to just be against the "other side" and you can see that while other countries certainly have their problems, places with multiparty systems have significantly less "hatred" against the "other" side.
[+] [-] clint|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Acrobatic_Road|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zarkov99|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] PixyMisa|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AnimalMuppet|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] shireboy|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] frankydp|5 years ago|reply
Also ban news outlets from social media.