I first started mistrusting the media when I saw the scathing media reports from NYT and Kara Swisher over Uber that were completely wrong and diametrically opposed to what I saw with my own eyes. Being wrong is one thing, but the completely lack of willingness to correct themselves really opened my eyes. It was clear they had an agenda to hurt Uber as much as they could regardless of the facts.
After that, everything I saw just reinforced this, especially during the Pandemic until I stopped believing the media altogether. The worst part was the media repeating lies that I could see were lies with my own eyes, and they were trying to gaslight me into submission. When it started to confuse my own children is where I drew the line and I am teaching them to disbelieve the media as well.
I don't trust any media at all, whether or not it's confirming or dispelling my own beliefs. Anything I see I will always double check because I assume I'm being manipulated in one way or the other.
However bad the US Media may be, the alternatives are so much worse. And the fact that the alternatives appear to be winning isn't a huge surprise, considering the mess the world is in.
Basically, there has always been a strong bias and structural constraints toward US / elite views.
I think the core question is why trust has gotten particularly bad over the last decade (I have some ideas, including one side particularly trying to weaken trust in it).
Expressed vs revealed preferences. Our reliance on mass media is at an all-time high.
The president attacks the media every single day. But then asked why he wanted to deploy troops to Portland: "because of what I saw on TV".
The amount of media outlets has exploded. However, there are fewer journalists than ever "on the beat" - independent researchers, beat reporters, local journalists, industry experts, etc. So most of our original quality reporting is coming from a small set of national sources, and then spun every which in the second-hand media channels.
Not figuring ways to monetize news back in the early days I think will prove to be one of the biggest failures of the internet as a collective technology.
I trust that I can get the news from US Media, and I trust my own critical thinking to understand that the news has always been and will always be biased in one way or another. That bias can shift also, for instance I would say the NY Times is much more conservative now, even while being held up as this big liberal institution.
All of the national media organizations are bottom-feeder trash. They share the same rotsting topics like that conservative guy who was murdered, I/P etc. shared narrative for entertainment. A taste for violence, and tribal politics. Even BBC does it!
Is anybody who identifies strongly with a political party is interested in hearing fair or balanced news? I had presumed that they just want to hear confirmation, and are likely to stray far beyond their favorite echo chambers.
> With confidence fractured along partisan and generational lines...
the root cause, i think, is a devaluation of truth; for "truth" in the name of partisan lines
this is so so common: "we know this is not true, but we advance it to improve our position or virtue signal etc"
this was, i think, foundational to the collapse of society at the beginning of the 1900s -- we "believe this" because we get other peoples property or otherwise advance our cause
being truthful costs us, and people are no-longer so willing to pay
the root cause of that, i would say is they have walked away from Jesus who pays his life for our benefit; only people who live like that can be trusted to tell the truth
Great opportunity to point to organizations like allsides.com who do a good job attempting to counter media bias. It's worth taking a pass over their coverage of any major politicized event in order to see the different slants.
IMO this is caused by the ease of creating non-mainstream media sources with the internet. Before the internet there were only a handful of media sources (the "mainstream media") and since ~everone got ~all their news from them, society mostly agreed on the same news facts. This doesn't mean that the media of the time was always true and unbiased, just that people looked at it less critically. Now that there's alternative sources, people can find ones that better align with their beliefs, even if those sources and their beliefs are incorrect. Inevitably any source is going to be wrong some of the time, so evidence of mainstream media being wrong is treated as reasons not to trust them. As the underdog, alternative media gets a looser pass in most people's minds and are held to a lower standard. If people get sucked far enough into an echo chamber that they no longer regularly see opposing viewpoints then it's possible they don't criticise their sources at all as they look like they're always true.
The solution to this isn't fact checking, banning disinformation, or forcing unbiased media, because that creates an impossible standard that nobody will be able to reach all the time (which will cause the standard to degrade as exceptions are passed over). Instead, it's to cultivate media literacy: who's reporting this, why are they reporting this, why are they choosing these facts to highlight, why do they deemphasize facts reported by other sources, what's their long term bias and affiliation, and what are they trying to get you to believe. You need to apply those questions to every source and trust none of them implicitly, at least because nobody's perfect.
I've noticed that most reports fit the following format. 2-5 minutes of selective reporting of the headline issue. Then, "For more, we're joined by [credentialed think tank expert]". At this point the gloves come off and the rest of the session is editorializing.
I'm not watching to hear what happened anymore. Something happened, that much I can accept. What exactly happened is up for debate. I watch exclusively to see what they're trying to sell me. I'm more interested in the agenda and narrative the presenters are attempting to frame. After this is established I can consider the incentives of the factions or actors involved.
Back in the 80s, the fairness doctrine was dropped from broadcast regulations. After that, the proliferation of opinion based "news" programming started. Fox News would not have been born with an intact fairness doctrine. Once Fox News was around, the other broadcasters followed suit.
As "all birds know" US has the best MSM "the money can buy" and three letter orgs and NGOs extensively manipulate? The paid swamp in Washington is has made and facilitated it. Any surprise?
24 comments
[ 1.7 ms ] story [ 39.2 ms ] threadI don't trust it.
After that, everything I saw just reinforced this, especially during the Pandemic until I stopped believing the media altogether. The worst part was the media repeating lies that I could see were lies with my own eyes, and they were trying to gaslight me into submission. When it started to confuse my own children is where I drew the line and I am teaching them to disbelieve the media as well.
I don't trust any media at all, whether or not it's confirming or dispelling my own beliefs. Anything I see I will always double check because I assume I'm being manipulated in one way or the other.
Basically, there has always been a strong bias and structural constraints toward US / elite views.
I think the core question is why trust has gotten particularly bad over the last decade (I have some ideas, including one side particularly trying to weaken trust in it).
It it's a shame that this impugns traditional journalism which is one of the last institutions that still believes in objective fact.
The president attacks the media every single day. But then asked why he wanted to deploy troops to Portland: "because of what I saw on TV".
The amount of media outlets has exploded. However, there are fewer journalists than ever "on the beat" - independent researchers, beat reporters, local journalists, industry experts, etc. So most of our original quality reporting is coming from a small set of national sources, and then spun every which in the second-hand media channels.
Not figuring ways to monetize news back in the early days I think will prove to be one of the biggest failures of the internet as a collective technology.
So if you hear Main Stream Media is a problem then you know Main Steam Social Media is much worse.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/655106/americans-ratings-profes...
What's shocking is that democrats are above 50%. I'm blown away by that number.
I think this might be a key root cause of polarization for you americans. Democrats absolutely should not be trusting the media that much.
the root cause, i think, is a devaluation of truth; for "truth" in the name of partisan lines
this is so so common: "we know this is not true, but we advance it to improve our position or virtue signal etc"
this was, i think, foundational to the collapse of society at the beginning of the 1900s -- we "believe this" because we get other peoples property or otherwise advance our cause
being truthful costs us, and people are no-longer so willing to pay
the root cause of that, i would say is they have walked away from Jesus who pays his life for our benefit; only people who live like that can be trusted to tell the truth
The solution to this isn't fact checking, banning disinformation, or forcing unbiased media, because that creates an impossible standard that nobody will be able to reach all the time (which will cause the standard to degrade as exceptions are passed over). Instead, it's to cultivate media literacy: who's reporting this, why are they reporting this, why are they choosing these facts to highlight, why do they deemphasize facts reported by other sources, what's their long term bias and affiliation, and what are they trying to get you to believe. You need to apply those questions to every source and trust none of them implicitly, at least because nobody's perfect.
I'm not watching to hear what happened anymore. Something happened, that much I can accept. What exactly happened is up for debate. I watch exclusively to see what they're trying to sell me. I'm more interested in the agenda and narrative the presenters are attempting to frame. After this is established I can consider the incentives of the factions or actors involved.
I'd imagine Murrow rolled in his grave