media matters

[Seacoaster(1)]

Interesting...

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1 ... gr%5Etweet

Back up the bus there. I have been advised by the liberal elite on this forum otherwise. Everybody knows it's FOX that is doing all of the brainwashing. Hell I've been accused many times on this forum for having been brainwashed by FOX. The fact I NEVER listen to FOX doesn't matter. I guess this is true to form for FLP radical ideology. The seriousness of the accusations and all the other typical FLP meadow muffins.

Not to mention, we've seen others around here attempt to brainwash us that the Wall Street Journal is now gone too far right.

Nope, just the editorial slant which has grown further right under Murdoch ownership. Posters on here have many times said that that the WSJ's straight reporting has been and remains by and large trustworthy, actual journalism. Trying to get the facts right before publishing, publicly correcting errors when they happen. No systematic lying on provable facts. Not an absence of mistakes, but a clear effort to 'get it right'. Basic journalistic ethics. Never perfect, but trying to cover the world truthfully.

What I find "interesting" in that graphic (haven't looked at the methodology, but just taking on face value) is that Republicans trust so little of the media, even have very low positive trust of the WSJ.

Negative on nearly everything else except a handful of organizations...organizations which not only allow outright lying on the facts without challenge, their own hosts do so on the regular, without public correction; proven...those are the only outlets with high levels of GOP "trust".

Ouch.

Also of note of course is that some of the orgs that are definitely left-leaning have high trust levels among Dems, though their editorial slant permeates the 'straight' reporting. Do they outright lie systematically? I dunno, I don't think so, but the editorial bias is quite strong.

Obviously, the psychology of "trust" is related to whether the content reinforces already held beliefs. Similar to the 'value' people place on a good or service once they've bought it. Pre-purchase, the value is lower...goes up markedly post purchase. Same for voting. Once a vote is cast, humans tend to self-justify and their esteem for who they voted for goes up and hardens.

So, tech and youth, why do you think so many people (mostly Republicans) have very low trust levels of actual journalism (trying to get the facts right, public correction, etc) regardless of editorial slant? Do demographics have anything to do with it?

Do many decades of Republicans and alternative media telling them not to trust journalists have anything to do with it? Enemies of the State?

Maybe b/c during the entire term of BHO, we were bamboozled with the glaring media and political symbiotic relationship, front and center.

The media didn't cover up for Kennedy? Or how about our wheelchair bound President?

The media didn't cheerlead for Vietnam...and mute all dissent? Or the Gulf War? Or the Iraq War? FFS, YA, how many Republicans thought that Saddam was responsible for 9/11???

GTFO of here with the "media was evenhanded until Obama" BS. I'm sick of correcting this obvious right-wing nonsense.

You are proving my point. My BHO marker was the time stamp for the sprawl of mass media that was right in our face and was revenue generated b/c of the ease of the internet AND competition against the toe the line major three with ABC, NBC, and CBS. People knew full well they were getting stabbed in the back, while someone was attempting to BS them right in their face.

My last reply to MD tries to further explain this.

You are one trigger happy m'fer

Buffalo bagels. People gulp the Kool Aid from FoxNews and RightWing sites and LeftWing sites.

When people say they don't trust the media? They are LYING their *sses off. They trust the media that they want to hear. Full stop.

Look at how the Forum works: posters NEVER cite stories that run counter to their worldview. The citations are either neutral, or are extensions of how we view the world.

The trust of the media, for the bulk of Americans, has never been higher. If they see it on the internet, and it confirms their worldview about an issue? They buy it WITHOUT QUESTION.

It's why I mock "some guy on the internet".

You are bumping into a piece of YA bedrock philosophy (and the clarion call of his "news" feed): everything got worse when BHO was elected. Before Obama, we all got along; news media was fair and balanced; everyone had a good job and a pension; there were no mass shootings; and the confederate flag triggered no one. Then Eric Holder and Michelle got their fingernails on power, and the rest is internet history!!

[cradleandshoot]

https://www.newsweek.com/topic/child-molestation

I wonder why these stories didn’t get national attention? Just putting this out here…..forum members may have missed these and these stories just unite us all.

YA was the only person here complaining about all of these stories being missed in the National Media….don’t you all remember his posts?

It might be because fewer and fewer and fewer people are paying attention to what the national media has to say. In our house we usually eat dinner at 6:30 pm just as Lester Holt is trying to brainwash me. What winds up happening is that good ole Lester winds up being background noise while we dine. There is NOBODY in the mainstream media that can replicate the relationship Walter Cronkite had with the American people. When Cronkite said " and that's the way it is" well as an avid listener you believed " that's the way it is"

Y'all can take my challenge, listen to ABC, CBS or NBC on any given evening. Same stories presented in the same fashion night after night after night. A rational and inquisitive person might come to the conclusion that is a disconcerting issue. Why do we need the exact same news presented by the big 3 every night? If you condense that down to the ABCCBSNBC nightly news you would be doing alot of people a huge solid. Call it downsizing for the sake of sanity.

Well Walter is dead.

You just ruined the man’s world since he hasn’t moved past 1989 clearly.

GO BILLS.....

Just remember you started this petty biyach game stepping on a post I replied to MD not you with a weak douchebag comment for no reason then pretend to be liek this little lamb in the woods. While simultaneously lecturing about glass and character. That’s your contemporary record of action here today. That is who you are right now.

My dad died rooting for the bills. They lost the wrong fan.

GO BILLS. ... I have a lengthy list of relatives that have left this earth rooting for the Bills. My dad and mom and aunt and uncle and sister and nephew were all hard core Bills fans. My aunt Clarice was born and raised in Orchard Park a stones throw from the stadium. Her parents owned Pound Brothers meats. She transformed into a lunatic the minute the Bills game kicked off. I've been a Bills fan since some guy named Orenthal James Simpson was drafted in 1969.

[cradleandshoot]

Interesting...

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1 ... gr%5Etweet

Back up the bus there. I have been advised by the liberal elite on this forum otherwise. Everybody knows it's FOX that is doing all of the brainwashing. Hell I've been accused many times on this forum for having been brainwashed by FOX. The fact I NEVER listen to FOX doesn't matter. I guess this is true to form for FLP radical ideology. The seriousness of the accusations and all the other typical FLP meadow muffins.

Not to mention, we've seen others around here attempt to brainwash us that the Wall Street Journal is now gone too far right.

Nope, just the editorial slant which has grown further right under Murdoch ownership. Posters on here have many times said that that the WSJ's straight reporting has been and remains by and large trustworthy, actual journalism. Trying to get the facts right before publishing, publicly correcting errors when they happen. No systematic lying on provable facts. Not an absence of mistakes, but a clear effort to 'get it right'. Basic journalistic ethics. Never perfect, but trying to cover the world truthfully.

What I find "interesting" in that graphic (haven't looked at the methodology, but just taking on face value) is that Republicans trust so little of the media, even have very low positive trust of the WSJ.

Negative on nearly everything else except a handful of organizations...organizations which not only allow outright lying on the facts without challenge, their own hosts do so on the regular, without public correction; proven...those are the only outlets with high levels of GOP "trust".

Ouch.

Also of note of course is that some of the orgs that are definitely left-leaning have high trust levels among Dems, though their editorial slant permeates the 'straight' reporting. Do they outright lie systematically? I dunno, I don't think so, but the editorial bias is quite strong.

Obviously, the psychology of "trust" is related to whether the content reinforces already held beliefs. Similar to the 'value' people place on a good or service once they've bought it. Pre-purchase, the value is lower...goes up markedly post purchase. Same for voting. Once a vote is cast, humans tend to self-justify and their esteem for who they voted for goes up and hardens.

So, tech and youth, why do you think so many people (mostly Republicans) have very low trust levels of actual journalism (trying to get the facts right, public correction, etc) regardless of editorial slant? Do demographics have anything to do with it?

Do many decades of Republicans and alternative media telling them not to trust journalists have anything to do with it? Enemies of the State?

Maybe b/c during the entire term of BHO, we were bamboozled with the glaring media and political symbiotic relationship, front and center.

The media didn't cover up for Kennedy? Or how about our wheelchair bound President?

The media didn't cheerlead for Vietnam...and mute all dissent? Or the Gulf War? Or the Iraq War? FFS, YA, how many Republicans thought that Saddam was responsible for 9/11???

GTFO of here with the "media was evenhanded until Obama" BS. I'm sick of correcting this obvious right-wing nonsense.

You are proving my point. My BHO marker was the time stamp for the sprawl of mass media that was right in our face and was revenue generated b/c of the ease of the internet AND competition against the toe the line major three with ABC, NBC, and CBS. People knew full well they were getting stabbed in the back, while someone was attempting to BS them right in their face.

My last reply to MD tries to further explain this.

You are one trigger happy m'fer

Buffalo bagels. People gulp the Kool Aid from FoxNews and RightWing sites and LeftWing sites.

When people say they don't trust the media? They are LYING their *sses off. They trust the media that they want to hear. Full stop.

Look at how the Forum works: posters NEVER cite stories that run counter to their worldview. The citations are either neutral, or are extensions of how we view the world.

The trust of the media, for the bulk of Americans, has never been higher. If they see it on the internet, and it confirms their worldview about an issue? They buy it WITHOUT QUESTION.

It's why I mock "some guy on the internet".

You are bumping into a piece of YA bedrock philosophy (and the clarion call of his "news" feed): everything got worse when BHO was elected. Before Obama, we all got along; news media was fair and balanced; everyone had a good job and a pension; there were no mass shootings; and the confederate flag triggered no one. Then Eric Holder and Michelle got their fingernails on power, and the rest is internet history!!

On a side note since you kinda brought up his name, has Eric Holder ever been accused of contempt for ignoring a subpoena? Was he the nations AG when he did so? I don't remember for sure. I think the vote in Congress was like 255 to 64 wondering why he refused to hand over documents from fast and furious. As a lawyer did that bother you at all?

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://www.newsweek.com/topic/child-molestation

I wonder why these stories didn’t get national attention? Just putting this out here…..forum members may have missed these and these stories just unite us all.

YA was the only person here complaining about all of these stories being missed in the National Media….don’t you all remember his posts?

It might be because fewer and fewer and fewer people are paying attention to what the national media has to say. In our house we usually eat dinner at 6:30 pm just as Lester Holt is trying to brainwash me. What winds up happening is that good ole Lester winds up being background noise while we dine. There is NOBODY in the mainstream media that can replicate the relationship Walter Cronkite had with the American people. When Cronkite said " and that's the way it is" well as an avid listener you believed " that's the way it is"

Y'all can take my challenge, listen to ABC, CBS or NBC on any given evening. Same stories presented in the same fashion night after night after night. A rational and inquisitive person might come to the conclusion that is a disconcerting issue. Why do we need the exact same news presented by the big 3 every night? If you condense that down to the ABCCBSNBC nightly news you would be doing alot of people a huge solid. Call it downsizing for the sake of sanity.

Well Walter is dead.

Good thing , I'm sure Walter would be embarrassed to see what the nightly news has been reduced to. Walter was an old school liberal who put integrity first and foremost. You think there was no reason why between 6:30 and 7 America wanted to know what Walter had to say. You think I give a rats behind what Lester Holt has to say between 6:30 and 7? I'll bet dollars to donuts that in most American households Lester Holt is background noise while they eat supper.

A friend of mine used to work with Lester Holt. He doesn’t think much of Lester and neither do I. Why don’t you turn the channel?

[cradleandshoot]

Interesting...

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1 ... gr%5Etweet

Back up the bus there. I have been advised by the liberal elite on this forum otherwise. Everybody knows it's FOX that is doing all of the brainwashing. Hell I've been accused many times on this forum for having been brainwashed by FOX. The fact I NEVER listen to FOX doesn't matter. I guess this is true to form for FLP radical ideology. The seriousness of the accusations and all the other typical FLP meadow muffins.

Not to mention, we've seen others around here attempt to brainwash us that the Wall Street Journal is now gone too far right.

Nope, just the editorial slant which has grown further right under Murdoch ownership. Posters on here have many times said that that the WSJ's straight reporting has been and remains by and large trustworthy, actual journalism. Trying to get the facts right before publishing, publicly correcting errors when they happen. No systematic lying on provable facts. Not an absence of mistakes, but a clear effort to 'get it right'. Basic journalistic ethics. Never perfect, but trying to cover the world truthfully.

What I find "interesting" in that graphic (haven't looked at the methodology, but just taking on face value) is that Republicans trust so little of the media, even have very low positive trust of the WSJ.

Negative on nearly everything else except a handful of organizations...organizations which not only allow outright lying on the facts without challenge, their own hosts do so on the regular, without public correction; proven...those are the only outlets with high levels of GOP "trust".

Ouch.

Also of note of course is that some of the orgs that are definitely left-leaning have high trust levels among Dems, though their editorial slant permeates the 'straight' reporting. Do they outright lie systematically? I dunno, I don't think so, but the editorial bias is quite strong.

Obviously, the psychology of "trust" is related to whether the content reinforces already held beliefs. Similar to the 'value' people place on a good or service once they've bought it. Pre-purchase, the value is lower...goes up markedly post purchase. Same for voting. Once a vote is cast, humans tend to self-justify and their esteem for who they voted for goes up and hardens.

So, tech and youth, why do you think so many people (mostly Republicans) have very low trust levels of actual journalism (trying to get the facts right, public correction, etc) regardless of editorial slant? Do demographics have anything to do with it?

Do many decades of Republicans and alternative media telling them not to trust journalists have anything to do with it? Enemies of the State?

Maybe b/c during the entire term of BHO, we were bamboozled with the glaring media and political symbiotic relationship, front and center.

The media didn't cover up for Kennedy? Or how about our wheelchair bound President?

The media didn't cheerlead for Vietnam...and mute all dissent? Or the Gulf War? Or the Iraq War? FFS, YA, how many Republicans thought that Saddam was responsible for 9/11???

GTFO of here with the "media was evenhanded until Obama" BS. I'm sick of correcting this obvious right-wing nonsense.

You are proving my point. My BHO marker was the time stamp for the sprawl of mass media that was right in our face and was revenue generated b/c of the ease of the internet AND competition against the toe the line major three with ABC, NBC, and CBS. People knew full well they were getting stabbed in the back, while someone was attempting to BS them right in their face.

My last reply to MD tries to further explain this.

You are one trigger happy m'fer

Buffalo bagels. People gulp the Kool Aid from FoxNews and RightWing sites and LeftWing sites.

When people say they don't trust the media? They are LYING their *sses off. They trust the media that they want to hear. Full stop.

Look at how the Forum works: posters NEVER cite stories that run counter to their worldview. The citations are either neutral, or are extensions of how we view the world.

The trust of the media, for the bulk of Americans, has never been higher. If they see it on the internet, and it confirms their worldview about an issue? They buy it WITHOUT QUESTION.

It's why I mock "some guy on the internet".

You are bumping into a piece of YA bedrock philosophy (and the clarion call of his "news" feed): everything got worse when BHO was elected. Before Obama, we all got along; news media was fair and balanced; everyone had a good job and a pension; there were no mass shootings; and the confederate flag triggered no one. Then Eric Holder and Michelle got their fingernails on power, and the rest is internet history!!

On a side note since you kinda brought up his name, has Eric Holder ever been accused of contempt for ignoring a subpoena? Was he the nations AG when he did so? I don't remember for sure. I think the vote in Congress was like 255 to 64 wondering why he refused to hand over documents from fast and furious. As a lawyer did that bother you at all?

[MDlaxfan76]

Why would the main media outlets avoid this gross story? https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=a ... 9&dpr=1.25

Why should it be reported any more widely than it already is?

Really? Maybe because it is about the lowest/worst form of crime possible to humanity and it would serve as a monumental public service to educate those who blindly trust others with their children. Not to mention, all the recent bashing of the movie Sound of Freedom, pushing it out of the spotlight of known issue in the world.

I am really curious, why you even needed an explanation?

You are the same guy who chastises me for reporting out about Trump, who is angling to again become the "leader of the leader of the Free World." So I asked. Given the fact that the bandwidth and space for news is finite, why does this story -- as horrible as it certainly is -- require the national media platforms? You've answered why it is newsworthy, for sure, and what its purpose in reporting might be. But why does it bump up the list and, effectively and probably in fact, bump some other story off the news? Why would the curators pick this one to bring national?

Simply because it is main street, kitchen table news, that binds with ALL OF US, with no partisan leaning. You see how easy it is to post text on this forum, yet question why a major news outlet could NOT do the very same.

IMHO it's about AUDIENCE and VIEWERSHIP which may explain all the Obama and Orange Fatso focus - it's good for BUSINESS and less about informing audience

Absolutely. It's all about profits.

Profits are necessary to pay for actual journalism, but trust and audience should be associated with integrity and the role journalism has in informing, especially on governmental corruption or excess.

But there's also always been an alternative strategy of audience (and profit) building that focuses on inflaming, not informing.

And obviously, there's also a political economy that works the same way.

Trust should be associated with integrity and competence, but there's always been an alternative way to build 'support'.

This all ties in with my last post that you could not parse. You seem to add in the terms inflaming, not informing...implying the right side of the media....maybe not, but it is my read of your tone.

NO, you seem unable to believe me when I say that this strategy of "audience" building has been used by left and right. Here and around the world. It's a strategy to gain eyeballs and money and political power, based on inflaming passions...you see it, for instance on several of night time MSNBC shows. That it has been used SO much by the right, in America, is a factual reality. Other countries have different histories...look at much of South America's history, though that's been more of a violent swing back and forth in the use of propaganda in most of those countries.

Here in the US, the right wing has used propagandistic methods to inflame and control, whether Jim Crow Democrats, Father Coughlin and pro-fascism radio in the '30's, McCarthyism, right wing talk radio, TV evangelists becoming political, and so on...not that there weren't pro-communist inflammatory efforts as well, just none from the left as widespread in their impact in building cohesive, inflamed audiences.

So yes BHO era really ramped up the transition to what we have now. The opposing internet and cable news programs, that leaned right, really took off during the BHO era; that does not imply it was all b/c of BHO, but he sure made it easy for the reasons you cited.

A nit perhaps, but no, Obama himself didn't make it "easy". The fact of a popular black President was what made it "easy". The reality of his popularity and power as a black man. That he simply didn't fit the stereotype that so many held drove some people quite bonkers. Strange name, "Hussein"? Birtherism (Trump's entry point in 2008) And the gay marriage thesis has a whole lot of credence as well. Pick your 'shock'.

It was the cable/internet news that transitioned from the Rush Limbaugh, G Gordon Liddy types...finding their way. Then, when Trump announced in 2015... all hell broke loose. I have a close friend that runs a major part of c-span...I have mentioned this before, when Trump came into play, media could not find enough people to post up on every corner for coverage. To the point, these people were living in and out of hotels for years....Trump sold news clicks and was a cash cow for damned near all of them.

Yes, and both the mainstream media and the right wing propagandists made money. Couldn't get enough of him. Still can't.

We seem to agree on much of this, just a matter of which syllable of 'emPHAsis' to lean on.

[youthathletics]

Why would the main media outlets avoid this gross story? https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=a ... 9&dpr=1.25

Why should it be reported any more widely than it already is?

Really? Maybe because it is about the lowest/worst form of crime possible to humanity and it would serve as a monumental public service to educate those who blindly trust others with their children. Not to mention, all the recent bashing of the movie Sound of Freedom, pushing it out of the spotlight of known issue in the world.

I am really curious, why you even needed an explanation?

You are the same guy who chastises me for reporting out about Trump, who is angling to again become the "leader of the leader of the Free World." So I asked. Given the fact that the bandwidth and space for news is finite, why does this story -- as horrible as it certainly is -- require the national media platforms? You've answered why it is newsworthy, for sure, and what its purpose in reporting might be. But why does it bump up the list and, effectively and probably in fact, bump some other story off the news? Why would the curators pick this one to bring national?

Simply because it is main street, kitchen table news, that binds with ALL OF US, with no partisan leaning. You see how easy it is to post text on this forum, yet question why a major news outlet could NOT do the very same.

IMHO it's about AUDIENCE and VIEWERSHIP which may explain all the Obama and Orange Fatso focus - it's good for BUSINESS and less about informing audience

Absolutely. It's all about profits.

Profits are necessary to pay for actual journalism, but trust and audience should be associated with integrity and the role journalism has in informing, especially on governmental corruption or excess.

But there's also always been an alternative strategy of audience (and profit) building that focuses on inflaming, not informing.

And obviously, there's also a political economy that works the same way.

Trust should be associated with integrity and competence, but there's always been an alternative way to build 'support'.

This all ties in with my last post that you could not parse. You seem to add in the terms inflaming, not informing...implying the right side of the media....maybe not, but it is my read of your tone.

NO, you seem unable to believe me when I say that this strategy of "audience" building has been used by left and right. Here and around the world. It's a strategy to gain eyeballs and money and political power, based on inflaming passions...you see it, for instance on several of night time MSNBC shows. That it has been used SO much by the right, in America, is a factual reality. Other countries have different histories...look at much of South America's history, though that's been more of a violent swing back and forth in the use of propaganda in most of those countries.

Here in the US, the right wing has used propagandistic methods to inflame and control, whether Jim Crow Democrats, Father Coughlin and pro-fascism radio in the '30's, McCarthyism, right wing talk radio, TV evangelists becoming political, and so on...not that there weren't pro-communist inflammatory efforts as well, just none from the left as widespread in their impact in building cohesive, inflamed audiences.

So yes BHO era really ramped up the transition to what we have now. The opposing internet and cable news programs, that leaned right, really took off during the BHO era; that does not imply it was all b/c of BHO, but he sure made it easy for the reasons you cited.

A nit perhaps, but no, Obama himself didn't make it "easy". The fact of a popular black President was what made it "easy". The reality of his popularity and power as a black man. That he simply didn't fit the stereotype that so many held drove some people quite bonkers. Strange name, "Hussein"? Birtherism (Trump's entry point in 2008) And the gay marriage thesis has a whole lot of credence as well. Pick your 'shock'.

It was the cable/internet news that transitioned from the Rush Limbaugh, G Gordon Liddy types...finding their way. Then, when Trump announced in 2015... all hell broke loose. I have a close friend that runs a major part of c-span...I have mentioned this before, when Trump came into play, media could not find enough people to post up on every corner for coverage. To the point, these people were living in and out of hotels for years....Trump sold news clicks and was a cash cow for damned near all of them.

Yes, and both the mainstream media and the right wing propagandists made money. Couldn't get enough of him. Still can't.

We seem to agree on much of this , just a matter of which syllable of 'emPHAsis' to lean on.

Appreciate you taking the time to understand where I was coming from and not taking it to enth degree as so many often do.

WRT to the first part..NO, you seem unable to believe me when I say that this strategy of "audience" building has been used by left and right....

....I do, and drew attention to giving you the benefit of doubt here -->"You seem to add in the terms inflaming, not informing...implying the right side of the media....maybe not, but it is my read of your tone.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Anyone know why this didn’t get more coverage in the national media? This is a kitchen table story that binds us all together….

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nat ... 985326007/

[Farfromgeneva]

Interesting...

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1 ... gr%5Etweet

Back up the bus there. I have been advised by the liberal elite on this forum otherwise. Everybody knows it's FOX that is doing all of the brainwashing. Hell I've been accused many times on this forum for having been brainwashed by FOX. The fact I NEVER listen to FOX doesn't matter. I guess this is true to form for FLP radical ideology. The seriousness of the accusations and all the other typical FLP meadow muffins.

Not to mention, we've seen others around here attempt to brainwash us that the Wall Street Journal is now gone too far right.

I’ve read the WSJ consistently for over 20yrs, it’s turned into trash in the last decade. Murdoch has cut the journalism to nothing, no Corp fin or capital markets stories of any value anymore buts lots of Elon and Kathy Wood pieces. The op Ed has gone even further into the trash bin.

You can claim what you want but it’s inconceivable anyone who’s read the WSJ since, 2005 or 2000 or 1995, could deny it’s garbage and the decline overlaps the Newscorp ownership in at a min a highly correlated manner. Brainwash? That would be to believe it’s the same as it was 15yrs ago. That’s being brainwashed.

[cradleandshoot]

Interesting...

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1 ... gr%5Etweet

Back up the bus there. I have been advised by the liberal elite on this forum otherwise. Everybody knows it's FOX that is doing all of the brainwashing. Hell I've been accused many times on this forum for having been brainwashed by FOX. The fact I NEVER listen to FOX doesn't matter. I guess this is true to form for FLP radical ideology. The seriousness of the accusations and all the other typical FLP meadow muffins.

Not to mention, we've seen others around here attempt to brainwash us that the Wall Street Journal is now gone too far right.

I’ve read the WSJ consistently for over 20yrs, it’s turned into trash in the last decade. Murdoch has cut the journalism to nothing, no Corp fin or capital markets stories of any value anymore buts lots of Elon and Kathy Wood pieces. The op Ed has gone even further into the trash bin.

You can claim what you want but it’s inconceivable anyone who’s read the WSJ since, 2005 or 2000 or 1995, could deny it’s garbage and the decline overlaps the Newscorp ownership in at a min a highly correlated manner. Brainwash? That would be to believe it’s the same as it was 15yrs ago. That’s being brainwashed.

The fact that print media in the USA has been on life support for a awhile now. I subscribed to our local Democrat and Chronicle for years. I use to enjoy getting that paper in my hands and reading every page. Your criticism should rightfully carry over to the good folks who run Gannett. They have taken a print media giant and have it circling the drain. Friends tell me that the way to go is read the paper on line. F**k that noise. I want the feel of a newspaper in my hand that I can crumple up and fold over and scribble on and at the end of the day use it to put table scraps in on the way to the garbage tote.

[MDlaxfan76]

Why would the main media outlets avoid this gross story? https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=a ... 9&dpr=1.25

Why should it be reported any more widely than it already is?

Really? Maybe because it is about the lowest/worst form of crime possible to humanity and it would serve as a monumental public service to educate those who blindly trust others with their children. Not to mention, all the recent bashing of the movie Sound of Freedom, pushing it out of the spotlight of known issue in the world.

I am really curious, why you even needed an explanation?

You are the same guy who chastises me for reporting out about Trump, who is angling to again become the "leader of the leader of the Free World." So I asked. Given the fact that the bandwidth and space for news is finite, why does this story -- as horrible as it certainly is -- require the national media platforms? You've answered why it is newsworthy, for sure, and what its purpose in reporting might be. But why does it bump up the list and, effectively and probably in fact, bump some other story off the news? Why would the curators pick this one to bring national?

Simply because it is main street, kitchen table news, that binds with ALL OF US, with no partisan leaning. You see how easy it is to post text on this forum, yet question why a major news outlet could NOT do the very same.

IMHO it's about AUDIENCE and VIEWERSHIP which may explain all the Obama and Orange Fatso focus - it's good for BUSINESS and less about informing audience

Absolutely. It's all about profits.

Profits are necessary to pay for actual journalism, but trust and audience should be associated with integrity and the role journalism has in informing, especially on governmental corruption or excess.

But there's also always been an alternative strategy of audience (and profit) building that focuses on inflaming, not informing.

And obviously, there's also a political economy that works the same way.

Trust should be associated with integrity and competence, but there's always been an alternative way to build 'support'.

This all ties in with my last post that you could not parse. You seem to add in the terms inflaming, not informing...implying the right side of the media....maybe not, but it is my read of your tone.

NO, you seem unable to believe me when I say that this strategy of "audience" building has been used by left and right. Here and around the world. It's a strategy to gain eyeballs and money and political power, based on inflaming passions...you see it, for instance on several of night time MSNBC shows. That it has been used SO much by the right, in America, is a factual reality. Other countries have different histories...look at much of South America's history, though that's been more of a violent swing back and forth in the use of propaganda in most of those countries.

Here in the US, the right wing has used propagandistic methods to inflame and control, whether Jim Crow Democrats, Father Coughlin and pro-fascism radio in the '30's, McCarthyism, right wing talk radio, TV evangelists becoming political, and so on...not that there weren't pro-communist inflammatory efforts as well, just none from the left as widespread in their impact in building cohesive, inflamed audiences.

So yes BHO era really ramped up the transition to what we have now. The opposing internet and cable news programs, that leaned right, really took off during the BHO era; that does not imply it was all b/c of BHO, but he sure made it easy for the reasons you cited.

A nit perhaps, but no, Obama himself didn't make it "easy". The fact of a popular black President was what made it "easy". The reality of his popularity and power as a black man. That he simply didn't fit the stereotype that so many held drove some people quite bonkers. Strange name, "Hussein"? Birtherism (Trump's entry point in 2008) And the gay marriage thesis has a whole lot of credence as well. Pick your 'shock'.

It was the cable/internet news that transitioned from the Rush Limbaugh, G Gordon Liddy types...finding their way. Then, when Trump announced in 2015... all hell broke loose. I have a close friend that runs a major part of c-span...I have mentioned this before, when Trump came into play, media could not find enough people to post up on every corner for coverage. To the point, these people were living in and out of hotels for years....Trump sold news clicks and was a cash cow for damned near all of them.

Yes, and both the mainstream media and the right wing propagandists made money. Couldn't get enough of him. Still can't.

We seem to agree on much of this , just a matter of which syllable of 'emPHAsis' to lean on.

Appreciate you taking the time to understand where I was coming from and not taking it to enth degree as so many often do.

WRT to the first part..NO, you seem unable to believe me when I say that this strategy of "audience" building has been used by left and right....

....I do, and drew attention to giving you the benefit of doubt here -->"You seem to add in the terms inflaming, not informing...implying the right side of the media....maybe not, but it is my read of your tone.

well, yeah, "maybe not" ...given I'd been quite explicit that it's not solely on the right. But the use of this sort of understanding of human psychology for propagandistic 'value' creation has a long history in the US on the right, especially. And we're in one of the peak moments of such usage on the right.

Here's another question for us as information consumers.

Do we want a truth-based, fact-seeking journalism or do want to be inflamed by misinformation/disinformation designed to inflame?

And if many of us are choosing the latter, whether knowingly or not, how do we operate a successful pluralistic democracy?

The question I was asking above re demographics was also not a left-right question, per se, as lots of countries with left wing populist dictatorships have appealed to demographics and messaging (including ethnic, religious or other bigotries) quite similar to what we're seeing perpetrated by the right in America today.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Just putting this out there for forum members. These kind of kitchen table news stories binds us all together. I am surprised this wasn’t picked up in the national media? I wonder why?

https://www.kecofm.com/featured/one-in- ... am-county/

[Typical Lax Dad]

Just sharing a story to help bind us all together. Share this with your families around the kitchen table. National media picked this story up for some reason.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/18/us/ameri ... index.html

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://www.wlbt.com/2024/01/17/mississ ... -juvenile/

National media not covering this story. I wonder why? These are the kitchen table stories that bind us all together. National media can do better.

[Kismet]

Apparently the end of an era in media and publishing

The Arena Group has given notice that it intends to lay off Sports Illustrated’s entire staff per the SI Union on Twitter

https://twitter.com/si_union/status/174 ... 59/photo/1

The owner of SI - Authentic Brands Group hooked Arena's license to publish what's left of the magazine after it was revealed they were using AI in lieu of humans to write some stories that appeared in the publication. They also missed a $3.8 million quarterly payment.

[njbill]

I hope the world will keep spinning on its axis without the letters to the editor from moms canceling their sons subscriptions following the swimsuit issue. I, for one, will miss them.

[Farfromgeneva]

I hope the world will keep spinning on its axis without the letters to the editor from moms canceling their sons subscriptions following the swimsuit issue. I, for one, will miss them.

There was a far superior letters to the editor I read as a teen. It was overseen by this media magnate who was known as Robert Guccione. Maybe you’ve heard of him and his magical publication? It changed gender relations at the college level for many years in a profound manner.

[njbill]

Yes, I’ve heard of ol’ Bob. Tip top taste, and a connoisseur for the “fine arts.” And the letters to the editor and the responses were an interesting read to be sure.

[Farfromgeneva]

Yes, I’ve heard of ol’ Bob. Tip top taste, and a connoisseur for the “fine arts.” And the letters to the editor and the responses were an interesting read to be sure.

My only issue is I went to college thinking I could accomplish like 65-90% of those stories. Reality set in when only a few were recreated. And that’s with me being a degenerate who had access to a colleges skeleton key as a FR from a friend at a frat and a person who finds risk taking as price discovery. Such a letdown. Though perhaps I should celebrate the motivation and energy it provided me for the journey!

[njbill]

When I started law school, I lived in a house with a bunch of guys in Arlington, Virginia. I was the only student; the rest of them had jobs. One day I came home and, much to my surprise, there were issues of Playboy, Penthouse, and Oui magazine that had been delivered to the house. All in my name. One of my roommates fessed up and said he had, without my knowledge or permission, used my student status to get student subscription rates to all the magazines. Needless to say, I got some interesting junk mail for years after that.