Jump to content


Vox skewers CNN


Recommended Posts

This has been true since long before this election cycle, and it's not exclusive to CNN. This is a brutal and direct evisceration by Vox, and it's spot on.

 

 

CNN isn't fake news. But they've surrendered wholesale to sensationalism. Politics-as-sport theater hurts our democracy. There are serious journalists at CNN, and yet the network thrives on this.

 

Plea to all you folks out there -- please, please do not spend your days watching CNN (and other cable news networks) and consider that your way of keeping informed.

  • Fire 3
Link to comment

So.....what you're saying is Trump isn't completely off base when he disparages CNN as fake news?

 

 

I'm assuming this is said somewhat (mostly?) tongue in cheek, but no, obviously CNN isn't fake news. They do real, legitimate journalism, they cite their sources, they verify their claims, etc.

 

But they have a bias, and while everyone and their grandpa talks about news bias as either being liberal or conservative, that's usually not the case - the bias is towards sensationalism and outrage.

  • Fire 3
Link to comment

In a sense, Trump isn't wrong when he says that. Sometimes CNN isn't news. What Landlord described is what I appreciate about them. That's their legitimate journalism arm. Then there's their "get as many eyeballs on the screens to get the highest ratings possible" division, and that crap is just plain irresponsible. Here, let me offer a bleeding-heart lib from the left and a whack job from the right and they can argue it out. Got to make sure we have representation for both progressives and Trump supporters on our panel, so they can duke it out!

 

That isn't news. That's offering a bunch of partisans a platform to spin a narrative. Better parry that other person's points so I can put some points on the board. It sucks, because I have the utmost respect for their legitimate reporters and some of their anchors. They do great work. But their TV business model ruins it with these stupid panel discussions trying to check a bunch of boxes and give equal deference to everyone. Sorry, sometimes everyone doesn't deserve equal weight. How many times have you heard a partisan, one way or the other, construct some tortured, ridiculous argument to try to support some pre-decided viewpoint, instead of building a quality argument that actually leads to a point?

 

That doesn't absolve Trump, though. Not by a long-shot. He's grievously irresponsible to use the term "Fake news" as he does. Anything that doesn't support him is atomically fake and illegitimate. He clearly can't handle any level of criticism, but he's also devaluing the worth of the phrase "fake news" every time he uses it. Let's say news does come out about him that's complete crap. No one is going to believe him when he calls it "fake news" because he already claims everything is!

  • Fire 1
Link to comment

Obviously we need a mischievous/onery emoticon.

 

Yes, it was almost entirely tongue in cheek but with a shred of truth. I mean what that report literally said was that CNN pays pundits to create stories and then once that is done, they'll come back later in the day and debate the very BS that they started. I know this isn't technically what is meant by fake news but it is a manufactured dialog.

 

The interesting thing I learned is that Zucker of CNN used to be involved with the Apprentice. I wonder how much that contributes to the relationship between CNN and Trump?

Link to comment

Is that what TV "news" has become? I'm two years post-cable and I don't miss it one bit. If that's what they're offering, no wonder people don't know the facts of any given situation. No wonder people come on here and start in full-throttle with the outrage.

 

What's Headline News like these days? It was fantastic in the 1990s, but it really lost its way in the 2000s. Once they hired Nancy Grace, that was it for me.

  • Fire 1
Link to comment

Is that what TV "news" has become? I'm two years post-cable and I don't miss it one bit. If that's what they're offering, no wonder people don't know the facts of any given situation. No wonder people come on here and start in full-throttle with the outrage.

 

What's Headline News like these days? It was fantastic in the 1990s, but it really lost its way in the 2000s. Once they hired Nancy Grace, that was it for me.

The following was a Facebook post from Sam McKewon and incredibly well worth the read, despite the length.

 

 

 

Sometimes, people who know what I do ask me what I read for news, or what they should read. And I can't recall all the answers I've given over the years, but, in recent months, I feel like this has been clarified, to some degree, for me.

 

Read more local news. Read fewer stories from national outlets on national issues. Yes, fewer. Because I'm betting a lot of you read a lot of national news on national issues. Well, cut that consumption down by 25%. Up your consumption of local, state and regional news, from local sources, by 25%.
I suspect you'll be more informed than you were, and little less vexed.
Some local news, I'll admit, isn't as sexy. It won't send you on a 30-minute (or some cases, daylong) pinwheel of emotions and debate. You know what? That's OK sometimes. Every day doesn't need to be battle inside your head triggered by an Internet article. Log off. Put the phone down. (And my wife tell you I need to take my own advice here.)
Set the pinwheel down for a day, pick up a local paper, and see what's going on three miles away. Or three streets away.
Usually, every local daily paper has national news. And it's usually pretty much the nuts and bolts of what you need to know. Sometimes it's "wire" copy. It won't include all the emotional appeals tailored to trigger your anger or self-righteousness, all the outage or anonymous sources or rumors, but it generally puts you in the "informed" category. Plus, it doesn't derail your day.
And usually, alongside the national news, there might even be some world news - some briefs or whatnot. And so, on top of being informed about national concerns, you'll learn a little about something overseas, too.
And then there are whole sections of a local paper devoted to what's going on around you. This is incredibly challenging stuff to read, sometimes, because you drive over three streets, you look for a divided America, and you just see people cleaning out their cars. Sometimes, the local news is kind of boring. A gas station closes. Property valuations are down. A zoning ordinance is in play. Somebody put on a play. Small-scale stuff.
Read more of that. Yep, more of it.
25% more of that, and 25% less of the national stuff you read all the time. Maybe, instead of four stories on a certain politician you do or don't like, you read...2. Just 2. Or, instead of a full hour of a news talk show that analyzes what happened earlier in the week, you watch half.
And since I work for a local paper, maybe it seems a little self-serving, but it's not. Really it isn't. I probably read as much national news as anyone. I read local news, too, and I find myself reading it more and more, not because I want to withdraw from the national conversation...but because I'm trying to choose to not let it control my life as I raise kids and have a marriage and keep a job and make an impact in the lives of others. I don't shut it out...I just consume...less of the national stuff.
That's my take for you, too. Go on a national news diet. Not a national news fast - a diet. Not because it's a bad product. Not because I don't believe in many national journalists - I do. I really do. It's important now, more than ever, for me to reiterate the importance of journalism in America.
But journalism is practiced at the local level - and practiced magnificently - there, as well. What's more, you'll learn things. What's more, the things you learn you can have direct impact on, too.
And when you read something local you like - share it. Share that instead of the latest missive from some independent blogger who spends all day stoking the rage of one side or the other. Make that conscious choice. Even better, share non-political things every so often.
Mix in a salad of local news.
  • Fire 1
Link to comment

I should read more local news. But, living in central Nebraska, I'm not really compelled to pick up the OWH or JS and read about an ordinance change in Omaha or a new development in Lincoln. Just doesn't affect me. I do try to read articles from those papers about state issues.

 

I probably should read the Kearney Hub more.

 

I have tried to get away from the sensationalized news and that's why I follow AP and Reuters more on twitter.

  • Fire 2
Link to comment

It seems like a large proportion of the population assumes that if something is on the news a lot that it is automatically something that happens a lot and happens everywhere. People can't seem to grasp that if something is on the news it's because it's sensational and in most cases really rare.

 

For example as TV viewership increased people started to think kidnappings and violence occurred more often which isn't actually the case. It's just that when someone is shot in another state and there is anything particularly noteworthy about it (on top of it being a shooting), everyone knows about it immediately. For some reason many people then think that they are less safe.

 

In reality this stuff was happening before -- we just didn't hear about it.

Link to comment

And people often can't grasp their interests play a role in what they see. Televisions and newspapers are businesses driven by content, and content decisions are often based on what people will be interested in.

 

That's why murders lead newscasts and feature stories end newscasts.

Link to comment

And people often can't grasp their interests play a role in what they see. Televisions and newspapers are businesses driven by content, and content decisions are often based on what people will be interested in.

 

That's why murders lead newscasts and feature stories end newscasts.

This. The "why can't we have more happy stories" comments are so annoying. No one is going to tune in to see "6 week old kitten plays with string". People will tune in to see what happened in court for the person who murdered someone else. Then offer their expert legal advice on te subject.

Link to comment

So.....what you're saying is Trump isn't completely off base when he disparages CNN as fake news?

 

Trump is so far off-base with news (and reality in general) he wouldn't know what real news is if it punched him in his face.

 

Sensationalized, info-tainment, which is sadly what most networks are now, are NOT necessarily fake.

 

I think ALL media needs to separate actual news from pop culture, entertainment, celebrity, sports, etc.

 

One of the biggest problems in modern news media, to my thinking, has been the melding of news with personal opinions.

 

And for the love of whatever, could news media outlets STOP getting "reactions" or "takes" from talking heads? I realize it will never happen, but all I want from news media are the facts. That's it.

  • Fire 3
Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...