I've been noticing growing trend over the past decade of mainstream news getting increasingly lazy and shoddy. There's been less news and more political grandstanding.
I'm not singling out any particular news agency - every news source (from Fox to CBS to MSNBC) seems to be just as bad as any other. What I do want to know is why journalism has fallen into the toilet.
Muckraking and yellow journalism has a longstanding history in this country, dating back to the earliest days. You're noticing it more now, but that doesn't mean it was actually any better in the past.
I've been noticing growing trend over the past decade of mainstream news getting increasingly lazy and shoddy. There's been less news and more political grandstanding.
I'm not singling out any particular news agency - every news source (from Fox to CBS to MSNBC) seems to be just as bad as any other. What I do want to know is why journalism has fallen into the toilet.
I think it's largely because so many news consumers don't seem to care about detail, depth, accuracy, truth, or basic competency in reporting.
Muckraking and yellow journalism has a longstanding history in this country, dating back to the earliest days. You're noticing it more now, but that doesn't mean it was actually any better in the past.I've been noticing growing trend over the past decade of mainstream news getting increasingly lazy and shoddy. There's been less news and more political grandstanding.
I'm not singling out any particular news agency - every news source (from Fox to CBS to MSNBC) seems to be just as bad as any other. What I do want to know is why journalism has fallen into the toilet.
I'm not terribly concerned with the lack of objectivity. It doesn't bother me that "reporters" have a point of view. I am bothered by outright lies and falsehoods which are becoming common. The utterly superficial nature of media delivery (especially regarding legislation and elections) makes me nuts.
Ah…the good ole days that weren't.
Media also doesn't seem to want to be interested in investigative reporting or whistle blowing any more either.
Pro Publica seems to be a notable exception.
Ah…the good ole days that weren't.
I'm not so sure. I think writing, editing, and reporting in general have become gradually worse over the past 25 years fairly consistently.
For the sake of taking this in a slightly different direction, assuming you are correct, we have only ourselves to blame.
|
I've been noticing growing trend over the past decade of mainstream news getting increasingly lazy and shoddy. There's been less news and more political grandstanding.
I'm not singling out any particular news agency - every news source (from Fox to CBS to MSNBC) seems to be just as bad as any other. What I do want to know is why journalism has fallen into the toilet.
I have noticed that also, welcome to the new journalism! Where every source is only a mouthpiece for their favourite/aligned with/debts favours political party, here in Spain you wont find any independient mainstream news source not aligned with a political party, and completely despising the oposite group, its not good I tell you.
I've been noticing growing trend over the past decade of mainstream news getting increasingly lazy and shoddy. There's been less news and more political grandstanding.
I'm not singling out any particular news agency - every news source (from Fox to CBS to MSNBC) seems to be just as bad as any other. What I do want to know is why journalism has fallen into the toilet.
I hate to say it but, they are "giving the people what they want."
it's called media controlled by the corporations...
AND they want to cut off the independent media sources...once those are gone, we're done for.
For the sake of taking this in a slightly different direction, assuming you are correct, we have only ourselves to blame.
I tend to agree.
Media also doesn't seem to want to be interested in investigative reporting or whistle blowing any more either.
Pro Publica seems to be a notable exception.
I agree. I've definitely found myself drawn to Pro Publica's stories because of their excellent and in depth investigative journalism. The reality is that Fox news and MSNBC are following a model that is where the real money is but its nice to find that there is still at least a niche market for less biased more in depth news reporting.
The problem with MSNBC and Fox News is that they start with their opinion and then they go on the road to find sound bites that support their view point.
I'm not so sure that's true. I mean, I certainly don't want this kind of "journalism" (and I use the word, perhaps, too freely). As soon as I realize an article is of this type, I point my browser elsewhere.
Please explain Paris Hilton then.
We is a collective.
Don't look at me. I get my news from Aljazeera.
Muckraking and yellow journalism has a longstanding history in this country, dating back to the earliest days. You're noticing it more now, but that doesn't mean it was actually any better in the past.
Even though this is definitely true, with the 24 hour news organizations its even worse now. The news needs to make a profit for their corporate masters. So they have advertisers, advertisers that will pull their money if the news organization says anything bad about them. Its hard to run a story about how Dow Chemical is ruining the drinking water in some area if Dow keeps the light on at the news place. Plus, that same advertising dollars encourages the news organization to run positive stories about what they are doing. So the news becomes little more than a PR campaign for major corporations.
Hell, I'd advertise on the news get them to run a story about my company and how we're doing the American economy proud by exporting to Europe if I had a few million lying around.
The news needs to make a profit for their corporate masters.
So…wait…what you are saying is that that Golden Rule still applies?
…just like 1,000 years ago?
Muckraking and yellow journalism has a longstanding history in this country, dating back to the earliest days. You're noticing it more now, but that doesn't mean it was actually any better in the past.
Precisely. It doesn't help that no news agency actually reports stories but instead just parrots AP and Reuters talking points. of the major news outlets, Fox does the most of their own research stories from what I've seen, as opposed to just re-reporting wire service memos.
You want real news? Stick with the local paper. Every news agency is baised, and none of them actually try for balanced reporting. You may just be noticing it more now, but things have always been this way.
"We" is often meant as "not me, of course, but everyone else". The problem is, when you've got a million people saying, "not me, of course", it begs the question as to who, exactly, "everyone else" is.I'm not so sure that's true. I mean, I certainly don't want this kind of "journalism" (and I use the word, perhaps, too freely). As soon as I realize an article is of this type, I point my browser elsewhere.
Please explain Paris Hilton then.
We is a collective.
This kind of reminds me of how at a certain point in the Clinton and Carter administrations it got tough to find someone who would admit that they voted for either of them.
On TV I'll get news and commentary from all the major networks, news networks and Fox business. I've had subscriptions to Time and Newsweek which are leftist crap piles. I don't follow talk radio. I have found the web to be the last hold out of decent national information, and I find issue advocacy groups have the best legislative and policy analysis by far. State and local politics are harder and harder to get substantive news and analysis. I've found being involved in local party politics tends to be my best source of local information.
This kind of reminds me of how at a certain point in the Clinton and Carter administrations it got tough to find someone who would admit that they voted for either of them.
On TV I'll get news and commentary from all the major networks, news networks and Fox business. I've had subscriptions to Time and Newsweek which are leftist crap piles. I don't follow talk radio. I have found the web to be the last hold out of decent national information, and I find issue advocacy groups have the best legislative and policy analysis by far. State and local politics are harder and harder to get substantive news and analysis. I've found being involved in local party politics tends to be my best source of local information.
Same here, almost exactly - except that when I can, I do listen to talk radio, and I avoid watching TV like the plague except for a select set of shows.
Muckraking and yellow journalism has a longstanding history in this country, dating back to the earliest days. You're noticing it more now, but that doesn't mean it was actually any better in the past.Precisely. It doesn't help that no news agency actually reports stories but instead just parrots AP and Reuters talking points. of the major news outlets, Fox does the most of their own research stories from what I've seen, as opposed to just re-reporting wire service memos.
You want real news? Stick with the local paper. Every news agency is baised, and none of them actually try for balanced reporting. You may just be noticing it more now, but things have always been this way.
Local papers seem to get most of their content off the wire too, and their staff and circulation is shrinking. Very few papers seem to even retain the capacity to cover state and local politics well.
Local papers seem to get most of their content off the wire too, and their staff and circulation is shrinking. Very few papers seem to even retain the capacity to cover state and local politics well.
By local, I don't mean, say, The Sacramento Times. I mean papers like...this:
http://www.thenewsandfarmer.com/
Local papers seem to get most of their content off the wire too, and their staff and circulation is shrinking. Very few papers seem to even retain the capacity to cover state and local politics well.By local, I don't mean, say, The Sacramento Times. I mean papers like...this:
http://www.thenewsandfarmer.com/
Cool. Do they have good election coverage?
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I suspect that the introduction of cable television is one of the root causes. Instead of three networks with plausibly neutral news teams, we now have dozens of news sources. And I think it's worthwhile to point out that, once a network gets a reputation as leaning one way or another, their business model requires them to cater to their clientele, so they have to remain biased.
For example, let's assume for the sake of argument that Sarah Palin, as a "Fox News" commentator, has gathered a reputation as right-leaning and opposed to the current administration. Then the people who turn in to listen to her are either liberals looking to get irritated or, more likely, conservatives who find her positions reassuring. If today, President Obama were to single-handedly cure cancer, Palin couldn't say nice things about him. She'd have to either (a) acknowledge that he'd done a tremendous thing, alienating her viewers, or (b) continue to demonize him, maintaining her marketshare.
I suspect that the introduction of cable television is one of the root causes. Instead of three networks with plausibly neutral news teams, we now have dozens of news sources. And I think it's worthwhile to point out that, once a network gets a reputation as leaning one way or another, their business model requires them to cater to their clientele, so they have to remain biased.
For example, let's assume for the sake of argument that Sarah Palin, as a "Fox News" commentator, has gathered a reputation as right-leaning and opposed to the current administration. Then the people who turn in to listen to her are either liberals looking to get irritated or, more likely, conservatives who find her positions reassuring. If today, President Obama were to single-handedly cure cancer, Palin couldn't say nice things about him. She'd have to either (a) acknowledge that he'd done a tremendous thing, alienating her viewers, or (b) continue to demonize him, maintaining her marketshare.
I don't know if I accept the premise that the drop in the quality of news is the result more opinionated news.
For example, Democracy Now and CBN both do some very insightful reporting at times even though they have clear agendas that I don't necessarily subscribe to.
I think reporting that advocates a position can still be accurate, factual and well produced.
I tend to think that a lot of our news is the product of intellectual laziness on the part of the consumers as well as the producers. It also seems to be consistent with a larger trend of people in America being willing to settle for less and less from many of our institutions.
What makes you think consumers have gotten lazier? Do you have something outside the current context?
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I have to agree with BT here.
I used to watch the first half of the 700 club for CBN (would just turn the volume off when Pat Robertson came on to 'interpret' the news). I first learned about the genocide in Rwanda, the persecutions of Sudan, and a dozen other issues long before they showed up in 'mainstream' outlets.
Mainstream vs. Non-traditional:
It also makes experts more available, if not articulate. We can pester people like Steve, Dale, (and Sean, Lisa, Vic, and Erik of course) about publishing questions. They're not 'businessmen with years of theory' they're businessmen who man the phones and work the warehouses. When I wanted 'boots on the ground' opinion about DADT, I went to Blackfive. I also was able to read input from ColoradoPatriot, other gay servicemen and my little brother (who's in the ONG, and straight). I'd argued that DADT was an archaeic policy whose time had passed. When I read that the report predicted a 30% drop in reenlistment rates, I said that I hoped it was wrong, or that they'd seriously look at that number before repealing DADT. The 'mainstream' made it sound like there would be no disruption, and they might be right. I hope they're right, for my brother's sake. If not for the 'non-conventional' media those concerns would never have made it past the policy wonks who read it.
The peril with relying on 'alternate media' vs. 'mainstream media' is that it is too easy to give into the echo chamber. There are two or three liberal posters on GP who can make an articulate argument, but there are also a number of 'trolls' who can't make an articulate post to save their lives. It's too easy to assume that those trolls are typical of the opposite side of the spectrum (the left for me). While one of the strengths of the GP community is that the regulars don't agree lockstep on everything, those things we agree on may lead to developing blind spots. The same goes for leftie blogs too, I'm sure.
Bernie Goldberg's book Bias argued that the mainstream media (NBC/CBS/ABC/CNN) aren't biased in the "Let's put this spin on the news," sense. Rather their bias is in the "Well it makes sense when you look at it this way, so it must be the right way to look at it," sense. I think that's part of the reason for media getting lazy.
To use the Fox example, I've read people say that Juan Williams' only purpose is to be the 'token liberal' to be beat on. (there are other 'token' accusations, but given the lily white nature of NBC, I find that offensive). It is easier (and lazier) to dismiss his presence as that, rather than look at why Charles Krauthammer eats his ideas for breakfast, and face the possibility that one's worldview might be wrong.
What makes you think consumers have gotten lazier? Do you have something outside the current context?
Commercial networks and most other news sources exist to sell advertisement time. Thier primary goal is to broaden the number of people watching. Unfortunately, their market research finds that people aren't willing to spend much time on the news: The news providers respond by covering the "headlines" in a cursory, abbreviated fashion. Their market audience thus feels well-informed, despite the minimal detail actually given to them.
What makes you think consumers have gotten lazier? Do you have something outside the current context?
This might just be projection on my part as a crotchety old guy, and I'm really only speaking from my life experience, so take it with a grain of salt.
That said, it seems to me that people seem more inclined to settle for less from businesses and institutions that we used to demand more from.
Take cell phone service for example. I have talked to a lot of people who have found inaccuracies on their bills, and when they checked on previous bills they found that their provider had been charging them a few bucks a month for something they never authorized. They argue with the provider for a couple of months; they get some of their money back, but it's too much hassle to keep fighting month after month just to get every penny back. I get that most people just aren't willing to spend the time and energy to keep fighting over a few bucks, but what gets me is how many of them wind up renewing their contracts for another year or two.
That's just one example, but I've seen similar things with auto techs, public schools, plumbers, taxes, cable, tickets, phone companies, churches, book stores, charities, banks, and so forth.
I keep hearing things like, "It's not worth the hassle." and "I know I should find a different (fill in the blank), but I just don't have the time.".
My intention is not to criticize those who handle these things differently than I would. Not everyone is as comfortable with confrontation as I am, and I can certainly hold a grudge. Unfortunately when we are willing to settle for less I think we tend to get less. I think settling for crappy news is part of this larger trend.
Does that help clarify where I'm coming from?
Does that help clarify where I'm coming from?
It does.
I have no frame of reference to use on if people used to be less willing to put up with corporate antics. People use to put up with monarchs, so it seems, at least possible, nothing has really changed.
|
|
The path of least resistance. It happens and people and I will include myself in this have a tendency to follow that path, but I would not say that people have become more lazy.
What I would say is that news is moving faster and there is more pressure to get it out more quickly and thus things are over looked more often. But ... that is my opinion.
Does that help clarify where I'm coming from?It does.
I have no frame of reference to use on if people used to be less willing to put up with corporate antics. People use to put up with monarchs, so it seems, at least possible, nothing has really changed.
I'm thinking more in terms of Americans in my adult life. I see people getting more and more accustom to settling for less from our schools, businesses, government, and media. It seems like we are willing to just live with increasing levels of incompetence, laziness, corruption and stupidity as the new normal.
Commercial networks and most other news sources exist to sell advertisement time. Their primary goal is to broaden the number of people watching...
Exactly. We the People aren't the consumers of corporate news. We are the product; our viewer ratings (or web clicks) are being sold to advertisers. Advertisers are the consumers. "News" corporations will reformulate their bait to Us to ensure a constant revenue stream from advertisers... if it gets ratings, it's news!
{goes back to plinking BBs at pesky youngsters on lawn}
Commercial networks and most other news sources exist to sell advertisement time. Their primary goal is to broaden the number of people watching...Exactly. We the People aren't the consumer's of corporate news. We are the product; our viewer ratings (or web clicks) are being sold to advertisers. Advertisers are the consumers. "News" corporations will reformulate their bait to Us to ensure a constant revenue stream from advertisers... if it gets ratings, it's news!
{goes back to plinking BBs at pesky youngsters on lawn}
Yes but if we won't consume they can't sell.
Pardon me, but:
It seems a little strange to lambast things like the equal time rule only to lament the sad state of corporate media in the very next breath. As long as (1) the media is controlled by corporations, and (2) there is more money to be made entertaining people than informing them, this trend will continue.
To use the Fox example, I've read people say that Juan Williams' only purpose is to be the 'token liberal' to be beat on. (there are other 'token' accusations, but given the lily white nature of NBC, I find that offensive). It is easier (and lazier) to dismiss his presence as that, rather than look at why Charles Krauthammer eats his ideas for breakfast, and face the possibility that one's worldview might be wrong.
Careful...that knife cuts both ways. Or do you spend a lot of time watching MSNBC facing the possibility that your worldview might be wrong? ;)
Pardon me, but:
It seems a little strange to lambast things like the equal time rule only to lament the sad state of corporate media in the very next breath.
As long as (1) the media is controlled by corporations, and (2) there is more money to be made entertaining people than informing them, this trend will continue.
What is your alternative to corporate media?
What is your alternative to corporate media?Pardon me, but:
It seems a little strange to lambast things like the equal time rule only to lament the sad state of corporate media in the very next breath.
As long as (1) the media is controlled by corporations, and (2) there is more money to be made entertaining people than informing them, this trend will continue.
I don't know that I have one, though I tend to lean toward some sort of tax-supported, public model.
Edit: Equal time was, as I understand it, an (imperfect) attempt to ensure all sides get a say.
What I do know is that the profit motive isn't conducive to reporting the (often unpleasant) truth.
What is your alternative to corporate media?Pardon me, but:
It seems a little strange to lambast things like the equal time rule only to lament the sad state of corporate media in the very next breath.
As long as (1) the media is controlled by corporations, and (2) there is more money to be made entertaining people than informing them, this trend will continue.
I don't know that I have one, though I tend to lean toward some sort of tax-supported, public model.
What I do know is that the profit motive isn't conducive to reporting the (often unpleasant) truth.
I don't think state run media outlets like the Corporation for Public Broadcasting do either, but that's part of why I think state control of media is so destructive.
EDIT: That's not to say the current state of the media is serving us well either.
I don't think state run media outlets like the Corporation for Public Broadcasting do either, but that's part of why I think state control of media is so destructive.
I see both sides of it...I do. People will always try to control information for their own ends.
It just seems to me that corporations are openly out for one thing: profit. If you can make $2 airing a spot about Kim Kardasian, or $1 airing a spot about genocide in Africa, the choice is pretty clear, no? I don't see the public's interest being served.
I don't think state run media outlets like the Corporation for Public Broadcasting do either, but that's part of why I think state control of media is so destructive.I see both sides of it...I do. People will always try to control information for their own ends.
It just seems to me that corporations are openly out for one thing: profit. If you can make $2 airing a spot about Kim Kardasian, or $1 airing a spot about genocide in Africa, the choice is pretty clear, no?
Only if that's what the news consumer wants in the long run. The media's relentless tilt to the left made right wing media a huge industry. Maybe people who want intelligent, accurate, detailed reporting can spur a cottage industry at least?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
To use the Fox example, I've read people say that Juan Williams' only purpose is to be the 'token liberal' to be beat on. (there are other 'token' accusations, but given the lily white nature of NBC, I find that offensive). It is easier (and lazier) to dismiss his presence as that, rather than look at why Charles Krauthammer eats his ideas for breakfast, and face the possibility that one's worldview might be wrong.Careful...that knife cuts both ways. Or do you spend a lot of time watching MSNBC facing the possibility that your worldview might be wrong? ;)
Never meant to imply it didn't.
Only if that's what the news consumer wants in the long run. The media's relentless tilt to the left made right wing media a huge industry. Maybe people who want intelligent, accurate, detailed reporting can spur a cottage industry at least?
Perhaps. But I don't see how a cottage industry would compete. How would they get airtime? If you're talking about websites, most people would say they're already out there if you know where to look.
It seems we're getting exactly what we've asked for. :(
Never meant to imply it didn't.To use the Fox example, I've read people say that Juan Williams' only purpose is to be the 'token liberal' to be beat on. (there are other 'token' accusations, but given the lily white nature of NBC, I find that offensive). It is easier (and lazier) to dismiss his presence as that, rather than look at why Charles Krauthammer eats his ideas for breakfast, and face the possibility that one's worldview might be wrong.Careful...that knife cuts both ways. Or do you spend a lot of time watching MSNBC facing the possibility that your worldview might be wrong? ;)
Fair enough.
Only if that's what the news consumer wants in the long run. The media's relentless tilt to the left made right wing media a huge industry. Maybe people who want intelligent, accurate, detailed reporting can spur a cottage industry at least?Perhaps. But I don't see how a cottage industry would compete. How would they get airtime? If you're talking about websites, most people would say they're already out there if you know where to look.
It seems we're getting exactly what we've asked for. :(
Alas you're probably right. Besides Pro Publica I really can't cite a serious, in depth, analytical news source that's not really an issue advocate or policy/trade media of some kind. I suppose I can live with that, but it saddens me that we settle for this state of affairs.
I don't know that I have one, though I tend to lean toward some sort of tax-supported, public model.
Edit: Equal time was, as I understand it, an (imperfect) attempt to ensure all sides get a say.
What I do know is that the profit motive isn't conducive to reporting the (often unpleasant) truth.
The problem becomes one of control. If mass media resources are limited, they become an obvious "choke point" where big business (or big government) can restrict content. On the other hand, if numerous ways to reach the public become available, it becomes more difficult for powerful groups to keep information out of the public eye.
With more ways to reach the public, it becomes more likely that someone will find the support needed to present information before the public. No matter how "non-commercial" information is, someone out there can profit from its release.
Yes but if we won't consume they can't sell.Commercial networks and most other news sources exist to sell advertisement time. Their primary goal is to broaden the number of people watching...Exactly. We the People aren't the consumer's of corporate news. We are the product; our viewer ratings (or web clicks) are being sold to advertisers. Advertisers are the consumers. "News" corporations will reformulate their bait to Us to ensure a constant revenue stream from advertisers... if it gets ratings, it's news!
{goes back to plinking BBs at pesky youngsters on lawn}
which is why you have to identify your market and then tell them what they want to hear.
Solid fact finding news has become something of a niche market.
Keep in mind that over 80% of news stories are inspired by some sort of press release or announcement. This statistic hasn't changed in decades. Most news has its genesis in some special-interest group's announcements, a fact that colors the news we see.
There is no one source of news and information immune to bias or manipulation and never has been.