Reply With Quote
Media reports the news. This isn't newsworthy? What's the alternative, suppress?
I do think there's too much opinion on the news these days, but apparently that's what sells.
So, every time a black man attacks someone and gets killed in the process, we have to have riots and have our burned to the ground?
Media glorifies these rioters instead of shaming them, and this is what we get.
https://apnews.com/4a297ba576eb60e77e8c302686a877e7
Media reports the news. This isn't newsworthy? What's the alternative, suppress?
I do think there's too much opinion on the news these days, but apparently that's what sells.
We are complicit. Out of fear of losing our job and/or being physically attacked
Where are counter protests? All the black community sees is whites ass kissing them. Why would they stop?
I posted the report for reference. I am not saying the AP story is bad. I speak of the various other forms of media fanning the flames.
Apparently, counter protestors are pretty prevalent in Europe.
I've yet to read mainstream media in a non-opinion piece fanning those flames (at the very least, the usual ones), but I admit not reading that many different sources for the same information. I think it would've stood out.
I think the larger issue here, is the blending of opinion pieces passing as journalistic work or passed along as news, which is what we know today as fake news.
This obviously exploded with social media where everybody has an opinion, either honest or clickbait.
When it comes to opinion, media can't win. If they curate the content (like they largely used to) to get rid of opinion, or center it strictly on editorial opinions, they're accused of being biased or censors, and frankly, they lose revenue because they no longer have a captive audience.
If they try to compete with social media to stay relevant, then they have to hop into the fake news, and the vast amounts of garbage (as far as journalistic/news value) that comes from there. Which is more or less the status quo now.
As you can see, I'm not disagreeing with your assessment, but I think there are reasons why we see what we see.
Bro. The media and the overarching establishment is in full campaign mode.
Oh there is plenty more coming before November. Consider Hollywood is still on hiatus.
Social media seems over-represented by youth and English speaking outlets by the black community. That whole stereotype of many of them not working and instead sitting around watching day time television.
But again to my previous post, we aren't making our voice heard so why would the media give us a venue?
Inclusion makes average people especially Westeners feel happy, proud, good about themselves. "Diversity is our strength"! This is what our ins utions decided we should strive for. Which makes the whole claim of ins utional racism puzzling. Except for law enforcement, which ins ution isn't in bed with diversity/equality? Even the Pope took the side of Muslim migrants in 2015.
Last edited by FrostKing; 06-14-2020 at 05:48 AM.
If we're being honest here, Media A hasn't liked Trump and made it known early and often, since he was elected. Media B licks Trump boots and made it known early and often, since he was elected.
But, again, this would be a lot less of a problem if we didn't have opinion passing as news.
One is enough, but there are more. Immigration clearly, now the president just took away some LGBT protections, and in a lot of places "diversity" is just a slogan, and not well represented. Women and people of color in Washington and in politics in general? Not many (women have been gaining recently though).
Yah bro
Interesting theory, and whose campaign do you suppose is most helped by exhaustive coverage of riots?
Media is fanning your flames.
You fell for the media hype of covid. You needed ships to save you. And blamed it all on the president. When I said 2x flu, you said 100 times. Bwahahhahahhahahah cdc reports say I'm right again. Lol you said kansas. And didn't know wet markets were in ny. Lol daily cases.
You said it was the flu.
This is a bit disingenuous. The "media" certainly doesn't just report what it sees, they op ed the out of it and use their bias to make it palatable to their audience. If you think there's too much opinion in the news, why do you say they report the news? They tell a story, they don't report facts except to bolster the opinions of their talking heads.
It seems extremely obvious that the media works hard to create the narrative and spin to bolster their ratings and ensure every drop is squeezed from any event.
This notion that op eds are separate from the news when the same en y provides both, their employees provide opinions on the news, that notion is bunk. People are being told what to think. The invisible line between opinion and fact where articles and headlines are concerned is a pointless distinction if the average consumer cannot discern between the two and has to filter out the 'splainin from the actual reported facts.
Last edited by DMC; 06-14-2020 at 03:09 PM.
Media can win, they do so by offering customized opinions to salve the needs of their listeners/viewers. This creates ratings.
If I was a salesperson and I walked into your office with a product, I could present the facts of the product as listed in the brochure. I could then spin the implications of those facts in a way that shaped your opinion on just how effective my product is, even though the facts don't necessarily support it. If you bought my product and then came to me with a complaint that the product doesn't live up to the hype I created in your office, I could simply point you to the list of facts and disclaim any responsibility for simply giving my opinion. This is what the news does. Since I am the one selling you the product, my opinion on these facts could likely be considered promises made by me to my customer. "It says you can get 15 days without changing that filter.. that doesn't seem like a lot but it's on par with the market, and I know personally that I've gotten 30 days regularly" so the customer thinks "even 20 days would be an improvement". The customer gets 15 days only if they use the product sparingly. Hey, I was getting 30, I think.. on a different model in a different state, at least someone told me that at a sales convention.
You're fanning your ass.
Journalistically they are (or should be). I think you probably replied to this before I expanded on it, but we're largely in agreement that's a money grab. I'm not sure it has helped these media outlets as much as they think it has.
But they can't. You're talking about winning the business race, but the cost is both integrity and the notion of non-bias, which is central to trust, and is paramount to the alleged media mission (and a lot of their legal protections hinge on that).
With the advent of the internet, places that cater strictly to the left or right specifically (or other similar niches) are dime a dozen, and don't have to care about displaying an ounce of integrity and/or non-bias.
The problem for the more traditional media is how to compete with that while trying to present a non-biased view, and it's definitely a huge problem these days.
Any media is edgelord. It comes down to the gossip that propels the story. Look at ChumpDumper and RandomGuy, these clowns have access to data and they just copy and paste media hype with their political views. If they were smart as they claim, they would not allow politics and emotions interfere with logic.... but here we are.
No u bro
Just waiting for CNN to bring on more of their experts to touch on the subject -- you know like Greta Thunberg
At least they're making no pretense about minimum qualifications for pundits.Just waiting for CNN to bring on more of their experts to touch on the subject -- you know like Greta Thunberg
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
