Red Flag 1
Verified Military
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2010
- Messages
- 7,587
Smart decision.
Green Beret officer's Silver Star revoked as Army cites investigation
- Thread starter Ravage
- Start date
Smart decision.
Gotta hand it to them, at least they take journalism seriously. The MSM on the other hand.. :wall:
TLDR20
Verified SOF
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2009
- Messages
- 6,273
Wait what?
At least the intercept attempts to report on real topics and not what kind of taco bowl Trump is eating in his tower like the main stream media.
TLDR20
Verified SOF
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2009
- Messages
- 6,273
What to you is the MSM?
Brill
SOF Support
Any media that reports from an ideological bias. The televised outlets are only the tip of the iceberg. Most of the reading I do personally is from peer reviewed journals and historical texts as I cant stand much else. I like the Intercepts work that includes links to the source material.
You could argue that every media outlet has at least some ideological bias. Why does "Mainstream media" have to be an epithet?
Agreed on the degree of bias, I should have been more specific. The mainstream media in particular has not just an political ideology bias, but a partisan one. Fox news in particular, is the most obvious offender. I would argue that Fox news and affiliates have done more damage to intelligent political discourse in this country than anything.
Because they've earned that level of derision and scorn? Because their biases are that blatant? The guy makes a point, and he didn't even defend the Great Satan FNC.
How does "pravda" translate into Farsi?
حقیقت
"Because they've earned that level of derision and scorn" is not much of an argument. That's essentially saying "They're bad because I say that they are." The mainstream media encompasses a wide swath of news providers, and while I agree that some are not as good as others, I would take the word of the newspapers of record any day over Breitbart, ZeroHedge, NaturalNews or anyone else in the clickbait cottage industry. Yes, a majority of studies conclude that there is a liberal bias in media. But I argue that when compared to alternative media (such as the aforementioned sites), the mainstream media actually makes an honest attempt at some form of objectivity. Take a look at MSNBC versus, say, Breitbart. Does MSNBC have some bias? Probably. Does Breitbart have a bias? Definitely. Like, it's practically written into their mission statement. At that point, you're just trading one bias for another, which suggests to me that people who distrust the mainstream media are not looking for "unbiased" media, but rather one that conforms to their own biases. I'm aware that you could levy the same criticism against me because of my preference for the mainstream media, but there's one key feature that distinguishes the mainstream and alternative outlets.
I believe that the one feature that sets mainstream media outlets apart from its alternative, online competitors is simple: they have editorial departments. Within each organization is a group of experienced journalists who can tell their staff writers that a story is great, if its bullshit, or it needs development. And these outlets (the good ones, at least) won't put out a story that can't be hasn't, or can't, be verified. The first thing I think of when I hear the clarion call of "WHY ISN'T THE MSM REPORTING ON THIS?!" is simply "Can it be verified?" If not, they aren't very likely to run with it. It's like an intel section: you don't jump at the first bit of juicy info that your source feeds you just because you think the CO will think it's sexy. You make every attempt possible to corroborate or deny it. Trumpeting single source info is something that amateurs do, and for the alternative media it's more often than not their raison d'etre. Do I really need to point out how many "Pants on Fire" ratings that Allen West has received?
(Yes, I understand the irony of citing Politifact in a post about alternative media, but at the very least their Pulitzer gives them far more credibility than other fact-checking sites).
Now, in a case where a news outlet gets a story wrong, or omits some detail, they at least have the wherewithal to issue corrections, retractions, and apologies if necessary. Most recently, the New York Times had to issue two corrections to the news story about Gary Johnson's "What is Aleppo?" fracas. That's bad, right? Well, compared to Breitbart's corrections, which are the editorial equivalent of the "I'm sorry if I offended anyone" non-apology, they're incredible journalism. Hell, I don't think ZeroHedge, Allen B. West, WorldNewsDaily or any of those guys even issue corrections. They can manufacture stories out of whole cloth and nobody can take them to task for it. Do I even need to start on the staggering amount of diarrhea that drops out of Alex Jones' mouth on a daily basis? Or the medicinal woo that comes from Huffington Post?
ETA: I just now saw that HuffPo corrected a story regarding Donald Trump Jr. that didn't even bother to change the headline
This is not to say that alternative media doesn't have an important place in the news landscape. After all, Matt Drudge broke the Lewinsky story after Newsweek decided to sit on it. But the wholesale rejection of the mainstream media because of bias issues is short-sighted, at best, and dangerous at worst. I firmly believe that most mainstream outlets work hard to attempt to preserve objectivity, something that really can't be said of the majority of alternative sites. They have little to no quality control, and can put out practically any story to fit a preconceived viewpoint. The "MSM" may be imperfect, but it does not deserve to become a proverbial four-letter word.
For the record, I think FNC does a much better job than CNN.
Last edited:
It is a fact that they do not do a better job. Also, those right wing outlets you listed are not subject to journalistic integrity. They are political commentary and entertainment, not news. Unfortunately the average person doesn't understand the difference.
Mainstream outlets do not attempt to preserve objectivity lol, especially the right wing. The mainstream media deserves every bit of criticism because their focus is sensationalism.
John Stewart sums it up fantastically here, its quite funny actually.
TLDR20
Verified SOF
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2009
- Messages
- 6,273
So to be clear you mean 24/hr news networks?
When I think "mainstream" I don't think of Breitbart, Drudge, HuffPo, etc. To me, "mainstream" encompasses outlets like Fox, CNN, MSNBC, CBS, and other mass market, internationally reporting agencies. I would include traditional newspapers in that group, Washington Times, the Post, NY Times, Chicago Tribune, Philly Inquirer, USA Today, etc., and even include some of the major agencies like the AP and Reuters.
My 1/2 Dhirham or whatever.
My 1/2 Dhirham or whatever.
TLDR20
Verified SOF
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2009
- Messages
- 6,273
I think the 24 he news networks are garbage... all of them. The papers, not so much. Obviously many are doing the click bait thing, but they are also almost the only ones doing real investigative journalism. They also do a pretty good job fact checking, particularly the Washington Post.
BuckysBadger24
Member
Sounds to me like he just means Fox. Plenty of bullshit to go around, all things being equal. And when it comes to the 24 hr networks, it's all pretty damn equal.
I think they can, but the editorial process and bias can/ does creep into some reporting. I'm not saying all, but some papers and some articles.
I used to date a print reporter who worked for a medium-sized market/ newspaper, one of the largest in FL at least. While she worked the Business section she had horror stories of editors changing or outright removing stories based upon political or business bias. It happens, but I doubt if any of us could claim knowledge of a percentage.
policemedic
Verified SWAT
OK. So, you don't consume any news programming? No news station or newspaper that I know of is peer reviewed.
BuckysBadger24
Member
Also, a "fact" simply according to you is an opinion without proof to support your "fact". You keep going after Fox and media with a perceived right leaning agenda, whatever outlet that may be, and then continue on about mainstream media. Which leads me to believe that your opinion is that any outlet that may have a conservative lean, large or small, is your definition of MSM.
Essentially it seems to me, as @Deathy McDeath hinted, that you seem to discredit anything that doesn't fit your personal political views. If that's the case, you're literally practising the same thing you accuse those outlets of doing.
I'm conservative. So generally I check Fox News first. When I see a story of interest, I then flip to CNN, and then MSNBC, to see if I can find the story, and if so, to get their take on things. I use these three because they're the broadest forms of media in America. I begin the basis of my opinion on what I've seen/read from the big three. Then I continue to the smaller outlets (granted after the big three, these days, I tend to immediately come here but that's because this place is great for two sides to most major stories from educated individuals). This tends to allow multiple viewpoints and sources, and ends in a better informed conclusion. If your neglecting any perceived conservative outlets, because you're liberal, all your getting is exactly what you'd like to hear. That's a pretty half assed opinion in my view.
I have a silly method for gathering news: I utilize a number of varied sources, all with a bias. I compare the stories that interest me and then cross check those with other sites if they are important enough. Relying on one news source (which is all to common IMO) is a bucket of fail and everyone deserves the intellectual Darwinism that inevitably results.
No, I shouldn't HAVE to become a junior intel analyst to follow the world, but that's life. People who bitch about the media, regardless of their political bent, need to "put in work" unless they are content with the bullshit served to them on a platter. You don't learn a damn thing by sticking with similar sources. You have to broaden your horizons if you want knowledge. Conservatives who won't look at MSNBC or CNN are no better than liberals who won't read Fox or Breitbart.
No, I shouldn't HAVE to become a junior intel analyst to follow the world, but that's life. People who bitch about the media, regardless of their political bent, need to "put in work" unless they are content with the bullshit served to them on a platter. You don't learn a damn thing by sticking with similar sources. You have to broaden your horizons if you want knowledge. Conservatives who won't look at MSNBC or CNN are no better than liberals who won't read Fox or Breitbart.
Similar threads
