Trump and the Press

[knapplc]

I think we're all pretty clear who we're talking about when we refer to "the media." I don't think anyone in this conversation is saying the Grand Island Independent is to blame for our country's media woes. We're looking at Fox, MSNBC, CNN, etc.

 

The thing about those shows staying around because people watch them - the press' obligation is to be better than the consumer. They WILL watch those shows, but the press has to have the integrity not to show them.

 

The media doesn't get to claim some distinction of integrity or importance unless they hold each other accountable for sullying their collective name. Rather than push back against infotainment when Fox really started running with that ball, the rest of the national news media ran with it and tried to emulate them. Yet, when real news hits they want to again cloak themselves in that Fourth Estate mystique and have us all respect them like real journalists. It's hard to justify that.

[BigRedBuster]

[Danny Bateman]

Yes, I think the crux of this argument is that it is useful to delineate the corporate media, which exists largely to turn a profit and churns out a lot of the opinion-based punditry crap, from the type of local, fact-based objective reporting that Enhance is trying to defend.

 

The thing that sucks about the corporate media is that it encapsulates so many folks who like the conflict of left vs. right, conservative vs. progressive, talking head BS. People tune in, get entertained a bit, and learn to regurgitate some talking points without critically examining what's being fed to them.

 

Good journalism and responsible media stewards are out there. There's just an excessive amount of crap people have to wade through to get to them.

[Enhance]

I think we're all pretty clear who we're talking about when we refer to "the media."

From your perspective, perhaps. And some here may be operating under that assumption, but evidence over the last year on this board suggests otherwise.

 

Four-panel screens with people shouting over each other is a news-media creation.

 

Case in point - this suggests the propaganda talk shows are a creation of "news-media," an incredibly broad and generic term that encompasses everything. You're indirectly suggesting they're ALL to blame, and whether that's the intention or not, it contaminates the term.

 

I also disagree that it is only the press' obligation to be better than the consumer. It's without question a two way street. The consumer shouldn't be allowed a fair pass by saying 'well, it's what was on TV, so I had to watch it!' Decision makers in the media should be held to a high standard, but viewers bear some of the responsibility.

 

We all need to be better - consumers are not devoid of culpability.

[knapplc]

The consumer has a roughly eighth-grade education level, lacks common sense and is in general not discerning.

 

If we're going to say that Journalists/Journalism as a whole is not better than that, and therefore more responsible, then we may as well just end "the press" as a thing right now and turn everything over to the people.

[Enhance]

If we're going to say that Journalists/Journalism as a whole is not better than that, and therefore more responsible, then we may as well just end "the press" as a thing right now and turn everything over to the people.

No, we're not going to say that, but we should say those consumers can take some ownership. It's silly to debate what percentage we assign. News outlets should hold themselves to a higher standard than the public, I agree, but that doesn't give the public the right to bear zero responsibility.

 

Every day news decisions are based on facts, relevance and importance. They're also based on viewership and clicks. That's why crime and weather rank higher on the give-a-sh#t list over feature pieces about cute dogs.

[knapplc]

I don't disagree with you, but the problem could be 100% solved if the news outlets stopped showing that kind of garbage.

 

Consumers will always want to consume the lowest common denominator of news. They are susceptible to suggestion and easily fall prey to propaganda. That's just the nature of the masses - they're herd animals.

 

Someone has to step up. Consumers, while responsible for what they consume, will not do this. So the media has to.

[Danny Bateman]

I don't disagree with you, but the problem could be 100% solved if the news outlets stopped showing that kind of garbage.

 

Consumers will always want to consume the lowest common denominator of news. They are susceptible to suggestion and easily fall prey to propaganda. That's just the nature of the masses - they're herd animals.

 

Someone has to step up. Consumers, while responsible for what they consume, will not do this. So the media has to.

 

That task is complicated by the fact that the other parts of the media aren't going to aid them in this at all.

 

The proliferation of reality TV amazes me. I absolutely hate the stuff. I think it's unwatchable. But tons of people all around me love it and really buy in. By contract, almost no one I know likes to or has time to read anymore. Could just be an anecdotal thing specific to me, but nonetheless...

 

Think about what being exposed to that faux drama on a near daily basis does to people's appreciation of critical thinking and desire to be spoon-fed entertainment.

 

A lot of overlap there, IMO. Not that that absolves the news media from responsibility, but it certainly doesn't make their job any easier.

[Enhance]

I don't disagree with you, but the problem could be 100% solved if the news outlets stopped showing that kind of garbage.

 

Consumers will always want to consume the lowest common denominator of news. They are susceptible to suggestion and easily fall prey to propaganda. That's just the nature of the masses - they're herd animals.

 

Someone has to step up. Consumers, while responsible for what they consume, will not do this. So the media has to.

By contrast, would you argue it's entirely the police's responsibility to fix racial divides and address the use of excessive force, while telling the citizens and community leaders it's no longer their responsibility to address the problem, as well? I believe you would argue it's within both group's best interest to find common ground and work together, despite the reality that police should be held to a higher standard.

 

Just like atrocities in the name of religion are a human construct, propaganda news is not the fault of some obscure entity like "the media" but is instead a human construct.

 

News and consumers are not exclusive variables but instead must work together in unison. They're one. Furthermore, syndicated network news entities are money-driven businesses just like any other corporation. Leaving the power and responsibility in their hands, while they're making money, is a fractious approach.

[Landlord]

That will never happen as long as news operates on an advertising and/or subscription model of monetary gain. That's the flawed side of capitalism - what's the news to do when they're forced into an ultimatum of revenue for their bosses or uncompromising integrity and probably getting fired?

 

 

Hopefully, as technology progresses and the democratization and accessibility of goods and services becomes so much easier (Facebook's solar planes providing free internet to everyone, 3D printing food, self-driving cars, etc.) our world will adapt to not be centered so heavily around the exchange of money because we won't need to be. In that case, if we make it that far, the fourth estate can exist in a much purer form.

[RedDenver]

The media could fix a ton of their problems by doing two things:

1) Hire back the investigative journalists. Try actually discovering the story instead of reporting what someone else figured out.

2) Stop showing live interviews. Use your editorial discretion to edit the interviews (and post the entire interview online) and fact-check the guests. And this also allows the interviewer to continue to ask the tough question without the guest "running out the clock" to avoid answering.

[knapplc]

 

I don't disagree with you, but the problem could be 100% solved if the news outlets stopped showing that kind of garbage.

 

Consumers will always want to consume the lowest common denominator of news. They are susceptible to suggestion and easily fall prey to propaganda. That's just the nature of the masses - they're herd animals.

 

Someone has to step up. Consumers, while responsible for what they consume, will not do this. So the media has to.

By contrast, would you argue it's entirely the police's responsibility to fix racial divides and address the use of excessive force, while telling the citizens and community leaders it's no longer their responsibility to address the problem, as well? I believe you would argue it's within both group's best interest to find common ground and work together, despite the reality that police should be held to a higher standard.

 

Just like atrocities in the name of religion are a human construct, propaganda news is not the fault of some obscure entity like "the media" but is instead a human construct.

 

News and consumers are not exclusive variables but instead must work together in unison. They're one. Furthermore, syndicated network news entities are money-driven businesses just like any other corporation. Leaving the power and responsibility in their hands, while they're making money, is a fractious approach.

 

 

I think a far better analogy is teacher/student sex. Presuming the relationship involves mutual attraction, the onus of the blame lies with the teacher as the more responsible party.

[StPaulHusker]

[NM11046]

I don't have a big problem with KAC and this photo (it's tacky but does that really surprise anyone)- but do have a question. This is the WHITE HOUSE and the PRESIDENT. Isn't there a paid WH Photographer that is to capture everything (there has been for every other administration). WTH are we depending on a high ranking staff member to snap shots on her iPhone? Isn't that probably some sort of potential security issue as well?

[StPaulHusker]

I don't have a big problem with KAC and this photo (it's tacky but does that really surprise anyone)- but do have a question. This is the WHITE HOUSE and the PRESIDENT. Isn't there a paid WH Photographer that is to capture everything (there has been for every other administration). WTH are we depending on a high ranking staff member to snap shots on her iPhone? Isn't that probably some sort of potential security issue as well?

My guess is that she was taking her own personal photos.