"Main Stream Media" - A pundits view
#1
K. Parker's column from todays (11/21) Mail tribune. I don't post this as "news"...that it is a definitive and conclusive fact proving a point. It's only a pundits opinion. However, Ms. Parker expresses a view I share and have tried (and failed) to make here often. I think she has "nailed" the problem and explained clearly why fact based professional journalism is important and why there are dangers of not supporting it. 



"It seems we’ve forgotten that the purpose of a newspaper, as Chicago Evening Post journalist and humorist Finley Peter Dunne put it in an 1893 column, is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable."


         *************************************************************************
Ms. Parker: 
Of all the losers in this season of discontent, the mainstream media top the list. I don’t say this lightly, and sincerely fear that loss of faith in journalism ultimately will cause more harm to the nation than any outside enemy could hope to.
Only 18 percent of Americans trust national news and just 22 percent trust local news, according to the Pew Research Center. That said, three-fourths of Americans think news organizations keep political leaders in line, though about the same percentage think the news media are biased.
Not surprisingly, Republicans more than Democrats think this way. It hasn’t helped that Republican politicos and conservative cable and radio outlets have convinced their constituents that the media are the enemy. It seems we’ve forgotten that the purpose of a newspaper, as Chicago Evening Post journalist and humorist Finley Peter Dunne put it in an 1893 column, is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.
Could there be a better reason to give Donald J. Trump a rough ride?
Nevertheless, distrust of legitimate journalism is no joking matter. What happens to democracy when an uninformed, misinformed, or dis-informed populace tries to make sound decisions? The simple and terrible answer is, democracy fails.
We’ve reached this critical juncture thanks largely to the digital revolution. Until relatively recently, most people relied on a limited number of trusted news sources, which provided a basis for what we referred to as “common knowledge.” The country more or less also shared a set of common values.
Today, of course, we have thousands of news sources — or millions if you count social media. Everyone can pick his or her own outlet for consumption as well as a venue for invention. Personal journalists — that is, anyone with a smartphone to photograph or video in real time — have created virtual newsrooms of one that can communicate with countless others through tweets, retweets and created buzz on fact or fiction.
If you’re suddenly put in mind of insects, you’re not far off. Deafened by the dizzying din, it’s hard to hear the angels sing.
To those who complain that Trump received more negative coverage than Hillary Clinton did, I would merely point out that correctly quoting the man was inherently negative. He said a lot of awful stuff and offered little of substance to offset the headlines. Moreover, the media have covered every follicle of Hillary Clinton’s scalp for 25 to 30 years. Her flaws and failures are well known to anyone who’s been half-awake, while Trump was essentially new on the political stage.
Trump’s own criticism of the press was as trumped up as many of his other campaign slogans, created to rile the crowd and deflect attention from, among other things, the fact that his manipulation of the media was the engine that propelled him to the top of the heap. But he knew that media bashing was popular among his base and gave them what they wanted.
Also contributing to the growing distrust is the perceived blurring of news and opinion, which can be a legitimate beef. Advocacy journalism, in this opinion writer’s view, belongs on the editorial and op-ed pages, though many news organizations subscribe to the notion that advancing a social cause or, perhaps, derailing an unfit candidate, justifies aggressive, Page 1 coverage. Objectivity be damned.
Thus, one shouldn’t wonder why so many have lost faith. It is worth noting, however, that when a mainstream reporter or editor is found to be deliberately dishonest, he or she is quickly dispatched to the outer darkness. The same can’t be said of the alternative news world or of social media. On Facebook, “fake” news creator Paul Horner recently marveled that his viral, made-up stories helped get Trump elected.
Fortunately, only 4 percent of Americans trust social media “a lot” as a news source, and 30 percent trust it “some,” according to Pew. But sometimes it’s hard to tell fake from true, or advocacy from propaganda, and therein lies perhaps the greatest challenge of our time.
What’s clear is that news consumers must be extra vigilant in selecting news sources, while also being self-critical about those choices. The mainstream media need to work harder at presenting balanced reporting to rebuild trust. And education programs aimed at teaching students how to evaluate news, such as those created by The Literacy Project, need greater public support and an accelerated timeline.
Words to this effect from our next president wouldn’t hurt. Trump would see headlines change quickly in his favor, the world would rejoice, and the Trump brand would be golden forever. Come on, do it. — Kathleen Parker’s email address is kathleenparker@washpost.com.
[Image: Image_1.jpg]
Reply
#2
(11-21-2016, 09:50 AM)Wonky3 Wrote: K. Parker's column from todays (11/21) Mail tribune. I don't post this as "news"...that it is a definitive and conclusive fact proving a point. It's only a pundits opinion. However, Ms. Parker expresses a view I share and have tried (and failed) to make here often. I think she has "nailed" the problem and explained clearly why fact based professional journalism is important and why there are dangers of not supporting it. 



"It seems we’ve forgotten that the purpose of a newspaper, as Chicago Evening Post journalist and humorist Finley Peter Dunne put it in an 1893 column, is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable."


         *************************************************************************
Ms. Parker: 
Of all the losers in this season of discontent, the mainstream media top the list. I don’t say this lightly, and sincerely fear that loss of faith in journalism ultimately will cause more harm to the nation than any outside enemy could hope to.
Only 18 percent of Americans trust national news and just 22 percent trust local news, according to the Pew Research Center. That said, three-fourths of Americans think news organizations keep political leaders in line, though about the same percentage think the news media are biased.
Not surprisingly, Republicans more than Democrats think this way. It hasn’t helped that Republican politicos and conservative cable and radio outlets have convinced their constituents that the media are the enemy. It seems we’ve forgotten that the purpose of a newspaper, as Chicago Evening Post journalist and humorist Finley Peter Dunne put it in an 1893 column, is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.
Could there be a better reason to give Donald J. Trump a rough ride?
Nevertheless, distrust of legitimate journalism is no joking matter. What happens to democracy when an uninformed, misinformed, or dis-informed populace tries to make sound decisions? The simple and terrible answer is, democracy fails.
We’ve reached this critical juncture thanks largely to the digital revolution. Until relatively recently, most people relied on a limited number of trusted news sources, which provided a basis for what we referred to as “common knowledge.” The country more or less also shared a set of common values.
Today, of course, we have thousands of news sources — or millions if you count social media. Everyone can pick his or her own outlet for consumption as well as a venue for invention. Personal journalists — that is, anyone with a smartphone to photograph or video in real time — have created virtual newsrooms of one that can communicate with countless others through tweets, retweets and created buzz on fact or fiction.
If you’re suddenly put in mind of insects, you’re not far off. Deafened by the dizzying din, it’s hard to hear the angels sing.
To those who complain that Trump received more negative coverage than Hillary Clinton did, I would merely point out that correctly quoting the man was inherently negative. He said a lot of awful stuff and offered little of substance to offset the headlines. Moreover, the media have covered every follicle of Hillary Clinton’s scalp for 25 to 30 years. Her flaws and failures are well known to anyone who’s been half-awake, while Trump was essentially new on the political stage.
Trump’s own criticism of the press was as trumped up as many of his other campaign slogans, created to rile the crowd and deflect attention from, among other things, the fact that his manipulation of the media was the engine that propelled him to the top of the heap. But he knew that media bashing was popular among his base and gave them what they wanted.
Also contributing to the growing distrust is the perceived blurring of news and opinion, which can be a legitimate beef. Advocacy journalism, in this opinion writer’s view, belongs on the editorial and op-ed pages, though many news organizations subscribe to the notion that advancing a social cause or, perhaps, derailing an unfit candidate, justifies aggressive, Page 1 coverage. Objectivity be damned.
Thus, one shouldn’t wonder why so many have lost faith. It is worth noting, however, that when a mainstream reporter or editor is found to be deliberately dishonest, he or she is quickly dispatched to the outer darkness. The same can’t be said of the alternative news world or of social media. On Facebook, “fake” news creator Paul Horner recently marveled that his viral, made-up stories helped get Trump elected.
Fortunately, only 4 percent of Americans trust social media “a lot” as a news source, and 30 percent trust it “some,” according to Pew. But sometimes it’s hard to tell fake from true, or advocacy from propaganda, and therein lies perhaps the greatest challenge of our time.
What’s clear is that news consumers must be extra vigilant in selecting news sources, while also being self-critical about those choices. The mainstream media need to work harder at presenting balanced reporting to rebuild trust. And education programs aimed at teaching students how to evaluate news, such as those created by The Literacy Project, need greater public support and an accelerated timeline.
Words to this effect from our next president wouldn’t hurt. Trump would see headlines change quickly in his favor, the world would rejoice, and the Trump brand would be golden forever. Come on, do it. — Kathleen Parker’s email address is kathleenparker@washpost.com.
[Image: Image_1.jpg]

Ms. Parker expresses a view I share and have tried (and failed) to make here often

Really?


the problem and explained clearly why fact based professional journalism is important and why there are dangers of not supporting it.

I can't argue with that, I totally agree. This election may have had a winner from NON fact based so called journalism.
WE may have for the first time have a president elected by Facebook.

Now what You might mean is no one here wants to subscribe to newspapers around the country like you do.
The newspaper industry is circling the drain. So what kind of "support" for fact based professional journalism
are you talking about?
Reply
#3
Reply
#4
(11-21-2016, 12:39 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(11-21-2016, 09:50 AM)Wonky3 Wrote: K. Parker's column from todays (11/21) Mail tribune. I don't post this as "news"...that it is a definitive and conclusive fact proving a point. It's only a pundits opinion. However, Ms. Parker expresses a view I share and have tried (and failed) to make here often. I think she has "nailed" the problem and explained clearly why fact based professional journalism is important and why there are dangers of not supporting it. 



"It seems we’ve forgotten that the purpose of a newspaper, as Chicago Evening Post journalist and humorist Finley Peter Dunne put it in an 1893 column, is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable."


         *************************************************************************
Ms. Parker: 
Of all the losers in this season of discontent, the mainstream media top the list. I don’t say this lightly, and sincerely fear that loss of faith in journalism ultimately will cause more harm to the nation than any outside enemy could hope to.
Only 18 percent of Americans trust national news and just 22 percent trust local news, according to the Pew Research Center. That said, three-fourths of Americans think news organizations keep political leaders in line, though about the same percentage think the news media are biased.
Not surprisingly, Republicans more than Democrats think this way. It hasn’t helped that Republican politicos and conservative cable and radio outlets have convinced their constituents that the media are the enemy. It seems we’ve forgotten that the purpose of a newspaper, as Chicago Evening Post journalist and humorist Finley Peter Dunne put it in an 1893 column, is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.
Could there be a better reason to give Donald J. Trump a rough ride?
Nevertheless, distrust of legitimate journalism is no joking matter. What happens to democracy when an uninformed, misinformed, or dis-informed populace tries to make sound decisions? The simple and terrible answer is, democracy fails.
We’ve reached this critical juncture thanks largely to the digital revolution. Until relatively recently, most people relied on a limited number of trusted news sources, which provided a basis for what we referred to as “common knowledge.” The country more or less also shared a set of common values.
Today, of course, we have thousands of news sources — or millions if you count social media. Everyone can pick his or her own outlet for consumption as well as a venue for invention. Personal journalists — that is, anyone with a smartphone to photograph or video in real time — have created virtual newsrooms of one that can communicate with countless others through tweets, retweets and created buzz on fact or fiction.
If you’re suddenly put in mind of insects, you’re not far off. Deafened by the dizzying din, it’s hard to hear the angels sing.
To those who complain that Trump received more negative coverage than Hillary Clinton did, I would merely point out that correctly quoting the man was inherently negative. He said a lot of awful stuff and offered little of substance to offset the headlines. Moreover, the media have covered every follicle of Hillary Clinton’s scalp for 25 to 30 years. Her flaws and failures are well known to anyone who’s been half-awake, while Trump was essentially new on the political stage.
Trump’s own criticism of the press was as trumped up as many of his other campaign slogans, created to rile the crowd and deflect attention from, among other things, the fact that his manipulation of the media was the engine that propelled him to the top of the heap. But he knew that media bashing was popular among his base and gave them what they wanted.
Also contributing to the growing distrust is the perceived blurring of news and opinion, which can be a legitimate beef. Advocacy journalism, in this opinion writer’s view, belongs on the editorial and op-ed pages, though many news organizations subscribe to the notion that advancing a social cause or, perhaps, derailing an unfit candidate, justifies aggressive, Page 1 coverage. Objectivity be damned.
Thus, one shouldn’t wonder why so many have lost faith. It is worth noting, however, that when a mainstream reporter or editor is found to be deliberately dishonest, he or she is quickly dispatched to the outer darkness. The same can’t be said of the alternative news world or of social media. On Facebook, “fake” news creator Paul Horner recently marveled that his viral, made-up stories helped get Trump elected.
Fortunately, only 4 percent of Americans trust social media “a lot” as a news source, and 30 percent trust it “some,” according to Pew. But sometimes it’s hard to tell fake from true, or advocacy from propaganda, and therein lies perhaps the greatest challenge of our time.
What’s clear is that news consumers must be extra vigilant in selecting news sources, while also being self-critical about those choices. The mainstream media need to work harder at presenting balanced reporting to rebuild trust. And education programs aimed at teaching students how to evaluate news, such as those created by The Literacy Project, need greater public support and an accelerated timeline.
Words to this effect from our next president wouldn’t hurt. Trump would see headlines change quickly in his favor, the world would rejoice, and the Trump brand would be golden forever. Come on, do it. — Kathleen Parker’s email address is kathleenparker@washpost.com.
[Image: Image_1.jpg]

Ms. Parker expresses a view I share and have tried (and failed) to make here often

Really?


the problem and explained clearly why fact based professional journalism is important and why there are dangers of not supporting it.

I can't argue with that, I totally agree. This election may have had a winner from NON fact based so called journalism.
WE may have for the first time have a president elected by Facebook.

Now what You might mean is no one here wants to subscribe to newspapers around the country like you do.
The newspaper industry is circling the drain. So what kind of "support" for fact based professional journalism
are you talking about?

I regret that I can't add anything that will help you understand.
Reply
#5
(11-21-2016, 01:38 PM)GPnative Wrote:

An almost perfect example of the difference between fact based information and propaganda aimed at people who think one simple view will answer everything. 
Ignorance squared!
Reply
#6
(11-21-2016, 01:57 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(11-21-2016, 12:39 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(11-21-2016, 09:50 AM)Wonky3 Wrote: K. Parker's column from todays (11/21) Mail tribune. I don't post this as "news"...that it is a definitive and conclusive fact proving a point. It's only a pundits opinion. However, Ms. Parker expresses a view I share and have tried (and failed) to make here often. I think she has "nailed" the problem and explained clearly why fact based professional journalism is important and why there are dangers of not supporting it. 



"It seems we’ve forgotten that the purpose of a newspaper, as Chicago Evening Post journalist and humorist Finley Peter Dunne put it in an 1893 column, is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable."


         *************************************************************************
Ms. Parker: 
Of all the losers in this season of discontent, the mainstream media top the list. I don’t say this lightly, and sincerely fear that loss of faith in journalism ultimately will cause more harm to the nation than any outside enemy could hope to.
Only 18 percent of Americans trust national news and just 22 percent trust local news, according to the Pew Research Center. That said, three-fourths of Americans think news organizations keep political leaders in line, though about the same percentage think the news media are biased.
Not surprisingly, Republicans more than Democrats think this way. It hasn’t helped that Republican politicos and conservative cable and radio outlets have convinced their constituents that the media are the enemy. It seems we’ve forgotten that the purpose of a newspaper, as Chicago Evening Post journalist and humorist Finley Peter Dunne put it in an 1893 column, is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.
Could there be a better reason to give Donald J. Trump a rough ride?
Nevertheless, distrust of legitimate journalism is no joking matter. What happens to democracy when an uninformed, misinformed, or dis-informed populace tries to make sound decisions? The simple and terrible answer is, democracy fails.
We’ve reached this critical juncture thanks largely to the digital revolution. Until relatively recently, most people relied on a limited number of trusted news sources, which provided a basis for what we referred to as “common knowledge.” The country more or less also shared a set of common values.
Today, of course, we have thousands of news sources — or millions if you count social media. Everyone can pick his or her own outlet for consumption as well as a venue for invention. Personal journalists — that is, anyone with a smartphone to photograph or video in real time — have created virtual newsrooms of one that can communicate with countless others through tweets, retweets and created buzz on fact or fiction.
If you’re suddenly put in mind of insects, you’re not far off. Deafened by the dizzying din, it’s hard to hear the angels sing.
To those who complain that Trump received more negative coverage than Hillary Clinton did, I would merely point out that correctly quoting the man was inherently negative. He said a lot of awful stuff and offered little of substance to offset the headlines. Moreover, the media have covered every follicle of Hillary Clinton’s scalp for 25 to 30 years. Her flaws and failures are well known to anyone who’s been half-awake, while Trump was essentially new on the political stage.
Trump’s own criticism of the press was as trumped up as many of his other campaign slogans, created to rile the crowd and deflect attention from, among other things, the fact that his manipulation of the media was the engine that propelled him to the top of the heap. But he knew that media bashing was popular among his base and gave them what they wanted.
Also contributing to the growing distrust is the perceived blurring of news and opinion, which can be a legitimate beef. Advocacy journalism, in this opinion writer’s view, belongs on the editorial and op-ed pages, though many news organizations subscribe to the notion that advancing a social cause or, perhaps, derailing an unfit candidate, justifies aggressive, Page 1 coverage. Objectivity be damned.
Thus, one shouldn’t wonder why so many have lost faith. It is worth noting, however, that when a mainstream reporter or editor is found to be deliberately dishonest, he or she is quickly dispatched to the outer darkness. The same can’t be said of the alternative news world or of social media. On Facebook, “fake” news creator Paul Horner recently marveled that his viral, made-up stories helped get Trump elected.
Fortunately, only 4 percent of Americans trust social media “a lot” as a news source, and 30 percent trust it “some,” according to Pew. But sometimes it’s hard to tell fake from true, or advocacy from propaganda, and therein lies perhaps the greatest challenge of our time.
What’s clear is that news consumers must be extra vigilant in selecting news sources, while also being self-critical about those choices. The mainstream media need to work harder at presenting balanced reporting to rebuild trust. And education programs aimed at teaching students how to evaluate news, such as those created by The Literacy Project, need greater public support and an accelerated timeline.
Words to this effect from our next president wouldn’t hurt. Trump would see headlines change quickly in his favor, the world would rejoice, and the Trump brand would be golden forever. Come on, do it. — Kathleen Parker’s email address is kathleenparker@washpost.com.
[Image: Image_1.jpg]

Ms. Parker expresses a view I share and have tried (and failed) to make here often

Really?


the problem and explained clearly why fact based professional journalism is important and why there are dangers of not supporting it.

I can't argue with that, I totally agree. This election may have had a winner from NON fact based so called journalism.
WE may have for the first time have a president elected by Facebook.

Now what You might mean is no one here wants to subscribe to newspapers around the country like you do.
The newspaper industry is circling the drain. So what kind of "support" for fact based professional journalism
are you talking about?

I regret that I can't add anything that will help you understand.
 
 Bullshit. I haven't asked any mystifying questions that are SO hard to answer.
Reply
#7
(11-21-2016, 02:01 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(11-21-2016, 01:38 PM)GPnative Wrote:

An almost perfect example of the difference between fact based information and propaganda aimed at people who think one simple view will answer everything. 
Ignorance squared!

Lol, if that's what you take away from the vid, you are the perfect example of an occupied mind.  Enjoy your delusion!
Reply
#8
(11-21-2016, 02:04 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(11-21-2016, 01:57 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(11-21-2016, 12:39 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(11-21-2016, 09:50 AM)Wonky3 Wrote: K. Parker's column from todays (11/21) Mail tribune. I don't post this as "news"...that it is a definitive and conclusive fact proving a point. It's only a pundits opinion. However, Ms. Parker expresses a view I share and have tried (and failed) to make here often. I think she has "nailed" the problem and explained clearly why fact based professional journalism is important and why there are dangers of not supporting it. 



"It seems we’ve forgotten that the purpose of a newspaper, as Chicago Evening Post journalist and humorist Finley Peter Dunne put it in an 1893 column, is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable."


         *************************************************************************
Ms. Parker: 
Of all the losers in this season of discontent, the mainstream media top the list. I don’t say this lightly, and sincerely fear that loss of faith in journalism ultimately will cause more harm to the nation than any outside enemy could hope to.
Only 18 percent of Americans trust national news and just 22 percent trust local news, according to the Pew Research Center. That said, three-fourths of Americans think news organizations keep political leaders in line, though about the same percentage think the news media are biased.
Not surprisingly, Republicans more than Democrats think this way. It hasn’t helped that Republican politicos and conservative cable and radio outlets have convinced their constituents that the media are the enemy. It seems we’ve forgotten that the purpose of a newspaper, as Chicago Evening Post journalist and humorist Finley Peter Dunne put it in an 1893 column, is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.
Could there be a better reason to give Donald J. Trump a rough ride?
Nevertheless, distrust of legitimate journalism is no joking matter. What happens to democracy when an uninformed, misinformed, or dis-informed populace tries to make sound decisions? The simple and terrible answer is, democracy fails.
We’ve reached this critical juncture thanks largely to the digital revolution. Until relatively recently, most people relied on a limited number of trusted news sources, which provided a basis for what we referred to as “common knowledge.” The country more or less also shared a set of common values.
Today, of course, we have thousands of news sources — or millions if you count social media. Everyone can pick his or her own outlet for consumption as well as a venue for invention. Personal journalists — that is, anyone with a smartphone to photograph or video in real time — have created virtual newsrooms of one that can communicate with countless others through tweets, retweets and created buzz on fact or fiction.
If you’re suddenly put in mind of insects, you’re not far off. Deafened by the dizzying din, it’s hard to hear the angels sing.
To those who complain that Trump received more negative coverage than Hillary Clinton did, I would merely point out that correctly quoting the man was inherently negative. He said a lot of awful stuff and offered little of substance to offset the headlines. Moreover, the media have covered every follicle of Hillary Clinton’s scalp for 25 to 30 years. Her flaws and failures are well known to anyone who’s been half-awake, while Trump was essentially new on the political stage.
Trump’s own criticism of the press was as trumped up as many of his other campaign slogans, created to rile the crowd and deflect attention from, among other things, the fact that his manipulation of the media was the engine that propelled him to the top of the heap. But he knew that media bashing was popular among his base and gave them what they wanted.
Also contributing to the growing distrust is the perceived blurring of news and opinion, which can be a legitimate beef. Advocacy journalism, in this opinion writer’s view, belongs on the editorial and op-ed pages, though many news organizations subscribe to the notion that advancing a social cause or, perhaps, derailing an unfit candidate, justifies aggressive, Page 1 coverage. Objectivity be damned.
Thus, one shouldn’t wonder why so many have lost faith. It is worth noting, however, that when a mainstream reporter or editor is found to be deliberately dishonest, he or she is quickly dispatched to the outer darkness. The same can’t be said of the alternative news world or of social media. On Facebook, “fake” news creator Paul Horner recently marveled that his viral, made-up stories helped get Trump elected.
Fortunately, only 4 percent of Americans trust social media “a lot” as a news source, and 30 percent trust it “some,” according to Pew. But sometimes it’s hard to tell fake from true, or advocacy from propaganda, and therein lies perhaps the greatest challenge of our time.
What’s clear is that news consumers must be extra vigilant in selecting news sources, while also being self-critical about those choices. The mainstream media need to work harder at presenting balanced reporting to rebuild trust. And education programs aimed at teaching students how to evaluate news, such as those created by The Literacy Project, need greater public support and an accelerated timeline.
Words to this effect from our next president wouldn’t hurt. Trump would see headlines change quickly in his favor, the world would rejoice, and the Trump brand would be golden forever. Come on, do it. — Kathleen Parker’s email address is kathleenparker@washpost.com.
[Image: Image_1.jpg]

Ms. Parker expresses a view I share and have tried (and failed) to make here often

Really?


the problem and explained clearly why fact based professional journalism is important and why there are dangers of not supporting it.

I can't argue with that, I totally agree. This election may have had a winner from NON fact based so called journalism.
WE may have for the first time have a president elected by Facebook.

Now what You might mean is no one here wants to subscribe to newspapers around the country like you do.
The newspaper industry is circling the drain. So what kind of "support" for fact based professional journalism
are you talking about?

I regret that I can't add anything that will help you understand.
 
 Bullshit. I haven't asked any mystifying questions that are SO hard to answer.

See post 4533 at the "Tax Cut For The Rich" Topic.
Reply
#9
(11-21-2016, 02:10 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(11-21-2016, 02:04 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(11-21-2016, 01:57 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(11-21-2016, 12:39 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(11-21-2016, 09:50 AM)Wonky3 Wrote: K. Parker's column from todays (11/21) Mail tribune. I don't post this as "news"...that it is a definitive and conclusive fact proving a point. It's only a pundits opinion. However, Ms. Parker expresses a view I share and have tried (and failed) to make here often. I think she has "nailed" the problem and explained clearly why fact based professional journalism is important and why there are dangers of not supporting it. 



"It seems we’ve forgotten that the purpose of a newspaper, as Chicago Evening Post journalist and humorist Finley Peter Dunne put it in an 1893 column, is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable."


         *************************************************************************
Ms. Parker: 
Of all the losers in this season of discontent, the mainstream media top the list. I don’t say this lightly, and sincerely fear that loss of faith in journalism ultimately will cause more harm to the nation than any outside enemy could hope to.
Only 18 percent of Americans trust national news and just 22 percent trust local news, according to the Pew Research Center. That said, three-fourths of Americans think news organizations keep political leaders in line, though about the same percentage think the news media are biased.
Not surprisingly, Republicans more than Democrats think this way. It hasn’t helped that Republican politicos and conservative cable and radio outlets have convinced their constituents that the media are the enemy. It seems we’ve forgotten that the purpose of a newspaper, as Chicago Evening Post journalist and humorist Finley Peter Dunne put it in an 1893 column, is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.
Could there be a better reason to give Donald J. Trump a rough ride?
Nevertheless, distrust of legitimate journalism is no joking matter. What happens to democracy when an uninformed, misinformed, or dis-informed populace tries to make sound decisions? The simple and terrible answer is, democracy fails.
We’ve reached this critical juncture thanks largely to the digital revolution. Until relatively recently, most people relied on a limited number of trusted news sources, which provided a basis for what we referred to as “common knowledge.” The country more or less also shared a set of common values.
Today, of course, we have thousands of news sources — or millions if you count social media. Everyone can pick his or her own outlet for consumption as well as a venue for invention. Personal journalists — that is, anyone with a smartphone to photograph or video in real time — have created virtual newsrooms of one that can communicate with countless others through tweets, retweets and created buzz on fact or fiction.
If you’re suddenly put in mind of insects, you’re not far off. Deafened by the dizzying din, it’s hard to hear the angels sing.
To those who complain that Trump received more negative coverage than Hillary Clinton did, I would merely point out that correctly quoting the man was inherently negative. He said a lot of awful stuff and offered little of substance to offset the headlines. Moreover, the media have covered every follicle of Hillary Clinton’s scalp for 25 to 30 years. Her flaws and failures are well known to anyone who’s been half-awake, while Trump was essentially new on the political stage.
Trump’s own criticism of the press was as trumped up as many of his other campaign slogans, created to rile the crowd and deflect attention from, among other things, the fact that his manipulation of the media was the engine that propelled him to the top of the heap. But he knew that media bashing was popular among his base and gave them what they wanted.
Also contributing to the growing distrust is the perceived blurring of news and opinion, which can be a legitimate beef. Advocacy journalism, in this opinion writer’s view, belongs on the editorial and op-ed pages, though many news organizations subscribe to the notion that advancing a social cause or, perhaps, derailing an unfit candidate, justifies aggressive, Page 1 coverage. Objectivity be damned.
Thus, one shouldn’t wonder why so many have lost faith. It is worth noting, however, that when a mainstream reporter or editor is found to be deliberately dishonest, he or she is quickly dispatched to the outer darkness. The same can’t be said of the alternative news world or of social media. On Facebook, “fake” news creator Paul Horner recently marveled that his viral, made-up stories helped get Trump elected.
Fortunately, only 4 percent of Americans trust social media “a lot” as a news source, and 30 percent trust it “some,” according to Pew. But sometimes it’s hard to tell fake from true, or advocacy from propaganda, and therein lies perhaps the greatest challenge of our time.
What’s clear is that news consumers must be extra vigilant in selecting news sources, while also being self-critical about those choices. The mainstream media need to work harder at presenting balanced reporting to rebuild trust. And education programs aimed at teaching students how to evaluate news, such as those created by The Literacy Project, need greater public support and an accelerated timeline.
Words to this effect from our next president wouldn’t hurt. Trump would see headlines change quickly in his favor, the world would rejoice, and the Trump brand would be golden forever. Come on, do it. — Kathleen Parker’s email address is kathleenparker@washpost.com.
[Image: Image_1.jpg]

Ms. Parker expresses a view I share and have tried (and failed) to make here often

Really?


the problem and explained clearly why fact based professional journalism is important and why there are dangers of not supporting it.

I can't argue with that, I totally agree. This election may have had a winner from NON fact based so called journalism.
WE may have for the first time have a president elected by Facebook.

Now what You might mean is no one here wants to subscribe to newspapers around the country like you do.
The newspaper industry is circling the drain. So what kind of "support" for fact based professional journalism
are you talking about?

I regret that I can't add anything that will help you understand.
 
 Bullshit. I haven't asked any mystifying questions that are SO hard to answer.

See post 4533 at the "Tax Cut For The Rich" Topic.

Trumps "Tax Cut For The Rich" Topic.?? there are only 27 posts?

If it's some other old thread couldn't you just C&P or post a link?
Reply
#10
(11-21-2016, 02:18 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(11-21-2016, 02:10 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(11-21-2016, 02:04 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(11-21-2016, 01:57 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(11-21-2016, 12:39 PM)tvguy Wrote:
Ms. Parker expresses a view I share and have tried (and failed) to make here often

Really?


the problem and explained clearly why fact based professional journalism is important and why there are dangers of not supporting it.

I can't argue with that, I totally agree. This election may have had a winner from NON fact based so called journalism.
WE may have for the first time have a president elected by Facebook.

Now what You might mean is no one here wants to subscribe to newspapers around the country like you do.
The newspaper industry is circling the drain. So what kind of "support" for fact based professional journalism
are you talking about?

I regret that I can't add anything that will help you understand.
 
 Bullshit. I haven't asked any mystifying questions that are SO hard to answer.

See post 4533 at the "Tax Cut For The Rich" Topic.

Trumps "Tax Cut For The Rich" Topic.?? there are only 27 posts?

If it's some other old thread couldn't you just C&P or post a link?
Embarrassed Sorry...post 24. (I was looking at total posted).

Whatever. I'm getting tired of this, but for what it's worth here is the post:


Or, maybe he is BOTH "incredibly stupid AND a racist"? 

But, I wonder. Trump had benefit of a pretty fair education and while he was not an outstanding student he did not "flunk out" and I suspect he has basic native intelligence. So, I don't think he is "stupid", but remains "ignorant", of his own choosing because his attention and efforts have been all about satisfying his insatiable ego. We all know that educations is a life long process but Trump seems to be another that has rejected the effort. 

So, we will will watch and listen.

And that may not be enough. 

We can only hope that there will remain news organizations with deep pockets who can afford to assign journalists to monitor this guys actions that may not be visable to most of us. (Remember how long it took for the Washington Post to bring down Dick Nixon or the Spotlight Team of the Boston Globe to expose the abuses of the Catholic Church) 

Early on I had hopes (however slight) that Trump would realize his limitations and souround himslelf with bright and pragmatic advisors. That does not look to be the case. 

What can WE do? Investigate the avenues available to us and act. I pay annual dues to Common Cause in hopes they will help in watching "Washington". There are many "oversight" organizations to choose from. I also subscibe to several national publications who (IMHO) do a good job of providing realiable information. But that's just me....we can each find what works for us. We should do what we can. 

This much we do know. Millions of our fellow citizens voted for this guy and now he will be our president and commander in chief. One can't help but wonder just how much information those good citizens missed and didn't even make an effort to discover. 

Let's not be guilty of the same thing.
Reply
#11
Quote:"The reality is that Mr. Trump didn’t prevail on Election Day because of fake news stories or voter suppression or ascendant bigotry in America. He won because a lot of people who voted for Barack Obama in previous elections cast ballots for Mr. Trump this time. In Wisconsin, he dominated the Mississippi River Valley region on the state’s western border, which went for Mr. Obama in 2012. In Ohio’s Trumbull County, where the auto industry is a major employer and the population is 89% white, Mr. Obama beat Mitt Romney, 60% to 38%. This year, Trumbull went for Mr. Trump, 51% to 45%. Iowa went for Mr. Obama easily in 2008 and 2012, but this year Mr. Trump won the state by 10 points. Either these previous Obama supporters are closet racists or they’re voting on other issues.
'Trump switched white voters in key states who were blue-collar primarily—coal counties, manufacturing counties,' the Republican strategist Whit Ayres told me this week. 'These are blue-collar whites who voted for Barack Obama. And that’s a very uncomfortable thing to admit by the left. It’s much easier to say a basket of deplorables elected Trump. But I’m sorry, that just does not conform to the data in those states that made a major swing from one party to the other.'
Mr. Trump was able to muster an Electoral College majority by taking advantage of lax support for Mrs. Clinton in the metro areas of large, consequential states like Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. That the Democratic nominee failed to speak to the concerns of Obama voters is not the fault of the alt-right.
'Trump swept the areas that keep the lights on and the motors turning,' demographer Joel Kotkin wrote recently. 'Trump seized on the widespread sense that American life was destined to get worse from generation to generation. Americans wanted opportunity for the next generation, not a managed decline.' The press mostly missed this story because it was so focused on the candidate’s tone and temperament. What mattered most to the media was Mr. Trump’s character flaws—and it was inconceivable that voters would have different priorities.
Around two-thirds of the electorate consistently told pollsters that the country was moving in the wrong direction. Mr. Trump represented change. Millions of people in the nation’s interior ultimately decided that they didn’t have the luxury of obsessing over his personal shortcomings. They haven’t had a raise in a decade. College is no longer affordable. Health-care costs were supposed to come down, but premiums have risen. Mr. Trump, they decided, may be crude and unpolished in manner, but he also sounded like someone who could shake things up in Washington. By contrast, a vote for Mrs. Clinton was a vote for more of the same.
Not everyone on the left is blaming racist voters for Mrs. Clinton’s defeat. Sen. Bernie Sanders credited Mr. Trump with understanding 'the anger and angst and pain that many working class people are feeling' and added, 'I come from the white working class, and I am deeply humiliated that the Democratic Party cannot talk to where I came from.'
Yet regardless of the facts, most liberals and their friends in the media continue to view Mr. Trump’s victory through a self-serving racial lens. Today, race is the Democratic Party’s organizing principle. Group identity is a doctrine and group grievances are to be nurtured and exploited politically no matter the damage to civil discourse. It’s the type of thinking that allows the left to be outraged that the likes of Steve Bannon have Mr. Trump’s ear, and indifferent that the likes of Al Sharpton have had Mr. Obama’s."

http://www.wsj.com/articles/democrats-ar...ding_now_4
Reply
#12
https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2016/11/23/npr...y-learned/

NPR Tracked Down a Fake-News Creator in the Suburbs. Here’s What They Learned

(Snip)

Coler, a registered Democrat, says he has no regrets about his fake news empire. He doesn’t think fake news swayed the election.

“There are many factors as to why Trump won that don’t involve fake news,” he says. “As much as I like Hillary, she was a poor candidate. She brought in a lot of baggage.”
Reply
#13
(11-21-2016, 04:16 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(11-21-2016, 02:18 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(11-21-2016, 02:10 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(11-21-2016, 02:04 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(11-21-2016, 01:57 PM)Wonky3 Wrote: I regret that I can't add anything that will help you understand.
 
 Bullshit. I haven't asked any mystifying questions that are SO hard to answer.

See post 4533 at the "Tax Cut For The Rich" Topic.

Trumps "Tax Cut For The Rich" Topic.?? there are only 27 posts?

If it's some other old thread couldn't you just C&P or post a link?
Embarrassed Sorry...post 24. (I was looking at total posted).

Whatever. I'm getting tired of this, but for what it's worth here is the post:


Or, maybe he is BOTH "incredibly stupid AND a racist"? 

But, I wonder. Trump had benefit of a pretty fair education and while he was not an outstanding student he did not "flunk out" and I suspect he has basic native intelligence. So, I don't think he is "stupid", but remains "ignorant", of his own choosing because his attention and efforts have been all about satisfying his insatiable ego. We all know that educations is a life long process but Trump seems to be another that has rejected the effort. 

So, we will will watch and listen.

And that may not be enough. 

We can only hope that there will remain news organizations with deep pockets who can afford to assign journalists to monitor this guys actions that may not be visable to most of us. (Remember how long it took for the Washington Post to bring down Dick Nixon or the Spotlight Team of the Boston Globe to expose the abuses of the Catholic Church) 

Early on I had hopes (however slight) that Trump would realize his limitations and souround himslelf with bright and pragmatic advisors. That does not look to be the case. 

What can WE do? Investigate the avenues available to us and act. I pay annual dues to Common Cause in hopes they will help in watching "Washington". There are many "oversight" organizations to choose from. I also subscibe to several national publications who (IMHO) do a good job of providing realiable information. But that's just me....we can each find what works for us. We should do what we can. 

This much we do know. Millions of our fellow citizens voted for this guy and now he will be our president and commander in chief. One can't help but wonder just how much information those good citizens missed and didn't even make an effort to discover. 

Let's not be guilty of the same thing.


Wonky....What can WE do? Investigate the avenues available to us and act. I pay annual dues to Common Cause in hopes they will help in watching "Washington". There are many "oversight" organizations to choose from. I also subscibe to several national publications who (IMHO) do a good job of providing realiable information. But that's just me....we can each find what works for us. We should do what we can.


OK Wonky Thanks. That's a good answer. At least it's a good answer of what you think you can do to change anything.
I'm just way too much of a cynic to expect that doing all of that will make even the slightest change.

I think for you this is all basically a hobby because you have a big interest in this stuff. I just simply don't. Big Grin There are way too many other things I can waste my time doing.

That sounds offensive, Maybe I'm wrong maybe you and all the other people who donate money to common causes and subscribe to a lot of newspapers can help. Smiling
Reply
#14
[Image: 15171128_340913136273477_157359954306904...e=58D3C984]
Reply
#15
Ms. Parker: 

"Of all the losers in this season of discontent, the mainstream media top the list. I don’t say this lightly, and sincerely fear that loss of faith in journalism ultimately will cause more harm to the nation than any outside enemy could hope to."


I think she got right to the point in the first sentence. I've been thinking much the same for a while. Some people have trouble discriminating between news and opinion.
Reply
#16
(11-24-2016, 09:08 PM)Cuzz Wrote: Ms. Parker: 

"Of all the losers in this season of discontent, the mainstream media top the list. I don’t say this lightly, and sincerely fear that loss of faith in journalism ultimately will cause more harm to the nation than any outside enemy could hope to."


I think she got right to the point in the first sentence. I've been thinking much the same for a while. Some people have trouble discriminating between news and opinion.
Yep. And I find I'm often guilty of it. I too often have to remind myself that reading even a well written opinon piece (that I agree with of course  Embarrassed) is not NEWS. 
Not easy this stuff.
Reply
#17
(11-24-2016, 09:22 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(11-24-2016, 09:08 PM)Cuzz Wrote: Ms. Parker: 

"Of all the losers in this season of discontent, the mainstream media top the list. I don’t say this lightly, and sincerely fear that loss of faith in journalism ultimately will cause more harm to the nation than any outside enemy could hope to."


I think she got right to the point in the first sentence. I've been thinking much the same for a while. Some people have trouble discriminating between news and opinion.
Yep. And I find I'm often guilty of it. I too often have to remind myself that reading even a well written opinon piece (that I agree with of course  Embarrassed) is not NEWS. 
Not easy this stuff.

On the other hand there is nothing wrong with listening to the opinions of people you respect and know to be knowledgeable and who have their ear to the ground much more that most of us.
Reply
#18
(11-25-2016, 01:50 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(11-24-2016, 09:22 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(11-24-2016, 09:08 PM)Cuzz Wrote: Ms. Parker: 

"Of all the losers in this season of discontent, the mainstream media top the list. I don’t say this lightly, and sincerely fear that loss of faith in journalism ultimately will cause more harm to the nation than any outside enemy could hope to."


I think she got right to the point in the first sentence. I've been thinking much the same for a while. Some people have trouble discriminating between news and opinion.
Yep. And I find I'm often guilty of it. I too often have to remind myself that reading even a well written opinon piece (that I agree with of course  Embarrassed) is not NEWS. 
Not easy this stuff.

On the other hand there is nothing wrong with listening to the opinions of people you respect and know to be knowledgeable and who have their ear to the ground much more that most of us.

I agree. I do all the time. It's just good to know the difference.
Reply
#19
[Image: 15253374_170230146777165_182205547331452...e=58CC358A]
Reply
#20
(11-25-2016, 02:04 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(11-25-2016, 01:50 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(11-24-2016, 09:22 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(11-24-2016, 09:08 PM)Cuzz Wrote: Ms. Parker: 

"Of all the losers in this season of discontent, the mainstream media top the list. I don’t say this lightly, and sincerely fear that loss of faith in journalism ultimately will cause more harm to the nation than any outside enemy could hope to."


I think she got right to the point in the first sentence. I've been thinking much the same for a while. Some people have trouble discriminating between news and opinion.
Yep. And I find I'm often guilty of it. I too often have to remind myself that reading even a well written opinon piece (that I agree with of course  Embarrassed) is not NEWS. 
Not easy this stuff.

On the other hand there is nothing wrong with listening to the opinions of people you respect and know to be knowledgeable and who have their ear to the ground much more that most of us.

I agree. I do all the time. It's just good to know the difference.
Accepting the "news" as factual in my opinion is mostly a matter of faith. If the reader trusts the source, then the information is seen as accurate. Even for the people that look deeper into news stories, it is not likely that any coursery investigation will reveal something much different than the original story. Now if you fact check some Fox News or Breitbart articles, you will find plenty of stories are often nothing more than a steaming pile of bullshit.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)