At which point can we trust what media tell us?

[Juventud]

I don't even trust single individuals. So I'm certainly not going to trust organizations made up of numbers of people.

 

[Luger]

Trust no one.

Agreed.
Question everything. Especially what the biggest media outlets are spewing.

 

[BearGrounds]

Anyway, to answer the question: Whenever we hear information that contradicts what we already think we know, it's a lie, and if it's what we want to hear, it's the truth (managed to slip past the censors). Right, IDL? Everyone?

Wrong, although I get your point. A lie doesn't become a lie because you've been fooled by it. It's a lie regardless.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Wrong, although I get your point. A lie doesn't become a lie because you've been fooled by it. It's a lie regardless.

But the mainstream media isn't fabricating anything. You can argue that they're not covering things they should cover, that they tend to have buried assumptions that are reflective of a certain worldview, that they don't understand complex issues and report badly because of that, that they have a balance bias, etc. But "lies" is not accurate. And I notice that no one here is the least bit skeptical when the mainstream media report something that they think backs their worldview up.

 

[Allan__Martel]

But the mainstream media isn't fabricating anything. You can argue that they're not covering things they should cover, that they tend to have buried assumptions that are reflective of a certain worldview, that they don't understand complex issues and report badly because of that, that they have a balance bias, etc. But "lies" is not accurate. And I notice that no one here is the least bit skeptical when the mainstream media report something that they think backs their worldview up.

news chanels leaving out details on a story to shape it to fit their worldview-agenda is a lie. They all do it on a regular basis.

 

[Jack V Savage]

news chanels leaving out details on a story to shape it to fit their worldview-agenda is a lie. They all do it on a regular basis.

Can you give me an example? Not because I'm doubting you but because I want to see exactly what you mean.

 

[BearGrounds]

Can you give me an example? Not because I'm doubting you but because I want to see exactly what you mean.

Did a quick search and came up with this article. Gave it a cursory glance, and it seems to be the type of thing you're asking for.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/10/01/a-history-of-dishonest-fox-charts/190225

These charts would be an example of disingenuous reporting. They lead people to believe inaccurate information.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Did a quick search and came up with this article. Gave it a cursory glance, and it seems to be the type of thing you're asking for.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/10/01/a-history-of-dishonest-fox-charts/190225

These charts would be an example of disingenuous reporting. They lead people to believe inaccurate information.

Fox is a big company, but it's ideological media, which I'd distinguish from mainstream media.

 

[BearGrounds]

Fox is a big company, but it's ideological media, which I'd distinguish from mainstream media.

Its reach makes it relevant to this discussion, no? You may consider it to be ideological media, but its marketed as news. I mean, they have the statement, "fair and balanced" beneath their logo. lol.

Nevertheless, the MSM is not feeding us unadulterated, unbiased truth. CNN even got caught back in '98 making shit up about operation Tailwind (heads rolled for that one).

Here's a beef with an NBC's poll findings I came across after a quick search:
http://www.lifenews.com/2013/01/22/nbc-poll-claiming-americans-favor-roe-is-grossly-misleading/

Like I said, I got your point about people's perceptions and how their bias can distort their ability to discern truth. It happens for sure. But if you think the large media corporations are not attempting to steer the opinions of their viewers at all, you're mad.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Its reach makes it relevant to this discussion, no? You may consider it to be ideological media, but its marketed as news. I mean, they have the statement, "fair and balanced" beneath their logo. lol.

But they are ideological media and separate from what's called "mainstream media" (the big media companies that reach for universal audiences and follow a certain set of standards). They are news, but it's ideological news (which used to be the norm and openly so).

Nevertheless, the MSM is not feeding us unadulterated, unbiased truth.

Well, this is what I said:

"You can argue that they're not covering things they should cover, that they tend to have buried assumptions that are reflective of a certain worldview, that they don't understand complex issues and report badly because of that, that they have a balance bias, etc. But "lies" is not accurate."

For you to claim to interpret that to mean "the MSM is feeding us unadulterated, unbiased truth" is simply dishonest.

CNN even got caught back in '98 making shit up about operation Tailwind (heads rolled for that one).

Um, so CNN made a mistake, had it convincingly pointed out to them and retracted. OK?

Here's a beef with an NBC's poll findings I came across after a quick search:
http://www.lifenews.com/2013/01/22/nbc-poll-claiming-americans-favor-roe-is-grossly-misleading/

I suggest you read that link.

Like I said, I got your point about people's perceptions and how their bias can distort their ability to discern truth. It happens for sure. But if you think the large media corporations are not attempting to steer the opinions of their viewers at all, you're mad.

Well, I'd say that if you think they care about the opinions of their viewers at all (any more than McDonald's or Wal-Mart care about the opinions of their customers), you're mad.

 

[badascan]

The large majority of "news" that we see presented by the "media" is gotten from two sources, Reuters and the Associated Press. Imagine if both Reuters and The AP were owned by the same family/entity... It is "rumored" that they are, by the Rothschild family and its interests... One can start connecting some dots...

 

[Like A Bas]

The large majority of "news" that we see presented by the "media" is gotten from two sources, Reuters and the Associated Press. Imagine if both Reuters and The AP were owned by the same family/entity... It is "rumored" that they are, by the Rothschild family and its interests... One can start connecting some dots...

Do you even know how the AP works? It sounds like you have absolutely no idea whatsoever.

 

[BearGrounds]

But they are ideological media and separate from what's called "mainstream media" (the big media companies that reach for universal audiences and follow a certain set of standards). They are news, but it's ideological news (which used to be the norm and openly so).

Well, this is what I said:

"You can argue that they're not covering things they should cover, that they tend to have buried assumptions that are reflective of a certain worldview, that they don't understand complex issues and report badly because of that, that they have a balance bias, etc. But "lies" is not accurate."

For you to claim to interpret that to mean "the MSM is feeding us unadulterated, unbiased truth" is simply dishonest.

Um, so CNN made a mistake, had it convincingly pointed out to them and retracted. OK?

I suggest you read that link.

Well, I'd say that if you think they care about the opinions of their viewers at all (any more than McDonald's or Wal-Mart care about the opinions of their customers), you're mad.

I was making my own statement, not interpreting yours. However, you made a statement that implied that viewers create the illusion of dishonesty via their interpretations. That made your stance a bit confusing because it sounded like you were saying the only problem is the viewers.

As for the CNN thing, it's merely a mistake because they got busted and retracted it? Not a lie, not dishonest media. Gotcha. What did you expect them to do, not backtrack after being proved fraudulent? I guess you want people to provide you with intent, motive, etc...Sorry, but I'm not going to bother doing that.

Don't care about the link. It's probably nitpicking and a poor example but if you can dismiss an example where CNN was caught spreading shit news as just a "mistake", then what's the point? Every example will be just that.

Last point, they do care about the opinions of their viewers because they care about shaping that opinion.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I was making my own statement, not interpreting yours. However, you made a statement that implied that viewers create the illusion of dishonesty via their interpretations. That made your stance a bit confusing because it sounded like you were saying the only problem is the viewers.

My point was that even the most devoted CTer will believe anything reported in the mainstream media that he thinks backs up his worldview. The selective distrust we see is really just a way to avoid dealing with uncomfortable truths (don't like the info: "the media is lying," like it: "see!").

As for the CNN thing, it's merely a mistake because they got busted and retracted it? Not a lie, not dishonest media.

I would be crazy if I said the media never made mistakes. They make mistakes every day. How they react to that is important.

Last point, they do care about the opinions of their viewers because they care about shaping that opinion.

Again, no more so than McDonald's or Wal-Mart. And contrary to what CTers think, the media do not have the power to effectively "shape opinion" even if that were their goal.

 

[BearGrounds]

My point was that even the most devoted CTer will believe anything reported in the mainstream media that he thinks backs up his worldview. The selective distrust we see is really just a way to avoid dealing with uncomfortable truths (don't like the info: "the media is lying," like it: "see!").

People who do such things certainly exist. Many people who don't, also do. I don't believe that the selective distrust is solely a product of what you describe. However, I do believe it plays its part.

I would be crazy if I said the media never made mistakes. They make mistakes every day. How they react to that is important.

Something to think on though, mistake or not: How many of these things slip through the cracks?

Again, no more so than McDonald's or Wal-Mart. And contrary to what CTers think, the media do not have the power to effectively "shape opinion" even if that were their goal.

Agree to disagree here.

 

[Allan__Martel]

Fox is a big company, but it's ideological media, which I'd distinguish from mainstream media.

Don't make it a left vs right argument Jack. They all do it. CNN used a old ass pictures of Trayvon to hide his current thugs looks to sell a choir boy image to the public.

Msnbc was running a panel with two white apolegist and a self righteous black man about white supremacist and kkk's showing up with guns at Obama rallies and feeding super closeup of someone's shoulder with a machine gun slung over it. Other news channel exposed the fact that the gun owner was a BLACK gun activist.:icon_lol:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYKQJ4-N7LI

All news network bend the reality to fit their agenda.

edit are you a journalist or former news worker?

 

[badascan]

Do you even know how the AP works? It sounds like you have absolutely no idea whatsoever.

... ok. Do you know how the AP works? Please enlighten the ignorant...

 

[Jack V Savage]

Something to think on though, mistake or not: How many of these things slip through the cracks?

Some, but not as many as you might think. Remember, there are millions of people who are exposed to those stories (not even necessarily just people who watch the first time--anyone who is involved would hear about it), and they'll let people know if there are mistakes (that's how most errors are caught--from readers/viewers/listeners contacting the company).

Don't make it a left vs right argument Jack. They all do it. CNN used a old ass pictures of Trayvon to hide his current thugs looks to sell a choir boy image to the public.

I didn't. I'm saying that the ideological media (like Fox, MSNBC, etc.) is different from the mainstream media. And I find it amusing that you think that using a picture given by the family that doesn't look as menacing as you think it should is a "left-wing" thing. That says that you're looking at left/right entirely in terms of identity politics (as opposed to actual ideology).

edit are you a journalist or former news worker?

Yes. Done multiple jobs in a newsroom, ending as an editor.

 

[Like A Bas]

... ok. Do you know how the AP works? Please enlighten the ignorant...

Look it up. It's among the easiest pieces of information to find on the internet. But here's a hint: it's a nonprofit. And they are possibly going broke at that. Reuters works differently, and is just as easy to look up.

It's annoying when conspiracy theorists put forth a viewpoint that is torn up by the smallest effort to inform themselves.

 

[Allan__Martel]

I never said the good guy picture trick was used only by the left. Left or right media they all do it. I simply gave you a exemple anyone would remember.