Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They didn't invent it but they didn't do any investigative journalism to verify the claims of the liars in charge.
They have effectively become stenographers of the US state, the PR arm used to propagate lies to convince the public to back their wars. Noah Chomsky calls it manufacturing consent, which they are an integral part of.
You are quite correct.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daryl_G
Yep.
...
Fox News finally cracked the code when they took Limbaugh style, CNN 24 hour concept, and added the visual flair needed to capture attention so they stop and listen (breaking news flashed, constant alerts, bright flashy pop ups, women in short skirts, on and on).
It’s all about revenue via ads so the game is keeping you tuned in instead of informing you of news. The money interest broke it and its remained broken since. Now every story is ... providing dramatic flairs to constantly to hook and capture attention, and it works.
Other than the fact that media and "news" never was anything but broken, you are right about Fox News. Frankly, there are outlets that are More Right, and More Accurate, but they don't have the "flair" and the "chemistry" to attract a bigger audience.
But, CNN and MSNBC are a different variety of animal. They are simply Leftist propaganda outlets. Their audiences are small enough, in a free market, advertisers wouldn't naturally support them. Their support is simply supplied to keep the propaganda channels running.
I don't know. I read the WSJ and they seem to just cover the news. I'm not seeing the slant. But I'm not a long time reader.
I have been reading the Los Angeles Times for decades. There is no question about the slant there. However, they have won numerous awards for investigative journalism and exposed things like the scandal and the Los Angeles Dept of Water and Power. No slant.
Couple of years ago they had an expose' of "Dirty John." That was no fairy tale, that was a scary tale. But I think those days are over. 100 out of 500 in the newsroom laid off.
So you're assuming there was once a time when the news WAS "only the news"? With no opinion thrown in, no politics, no rancor, no joy etc?
Where on earth did you get that notion?
Love them or hate them, but back when Walter Cronkite and David Brinkley dominated the national 6:00 PM news, and there was not cable or 24/7 news cycle -- Cronkite and Brinkley NEVER opined on the news. They were just anchormen and all they did was report the who, what, when, where, and why. There was no analysis. It was "just the news".
The first opinion shows were all on PBS like the McLaughlin Group and William F. Buckley's panels. Crossfire on CNN kind of stepped that up in their early days. 60 Minutes turbocharged that in the 70s or 80s, even though it was on TV much longer than that.
The 6 PM national news hour had no opinion whatsoever. It was strictly news and strictly REPORTING news. There was no analysis. There was no room for politics in broadcast news back in the day. People would not have stood for it. Back then, people did not appreciate being told WHAT TO THINK about the news. They demanded you just report it.
I am not at all saying there was no news bias. There is always been a bias skew as to what was reported. William Randolph Hearst was demonic as to his extreme bias. But no, there was no politics, opinion, or analysis on the 6 national news with Cronkite or with Chet Huntley and David Brinkley.
It seems like these days, it's all driven by clicks for views (i.e. profit from advertisers) or pushing an agenda with all these "opinion" pieces. Even the non-opinion articles are leading you to a conclusion that they want you to have.
Nobody straight up reports news without any bias these days.
They started bending in the 1960s. The newsies hated Nixon with such a passion that they started to say anything to hurt him. It just ballooned from there. Walter Cronkite, "the most trusted man in America." Hahahaha that is a laugh. Maybe trusted by people who can't read the look, the tone of voice, the choice of what to report and how to report it and what not to report.
Now they just lie blatantly, other than Fox, OAN, and I forget the other one, who report from the right.
Love them or hate them, but back when Walter Cronkite and David Brinkley dominated the national 6:00 PM news, and there was not cable or 24/7 news cycle -- Cronkite and Brinkley NEVER opined on the news.
Of course they did. But their editorial opinions were clearly labeled as such. Cronkite's opinion piece on Vietnam was legendary, and possibly changed the course of policy concerning the war. Locally in Cincinnati, for instance, Jerry Springer's commentaries were always a topic around the water cooler the next morning. Again, his commentaries were labeled as such, and labeled as his opinion only and not that of the TV station or its management (and if all you know of Jerry Springer is his TV talk show, by all means watch some of his commentaries!).
I am not at all saying there was no news bias. There is always been a bias skew as to what was reported.
Even deciding where to place a news item on the pages or in the broadcast is subject to bias - news folk are not robots. We are all humans, and we have biases. What did happen back in the day was reporting by committee. Depending on the size of the newspaper, there could be anywhere from 2 or 3 up to a dozen people determining which stories to cover, and where to place them in the paper. It was called a budget meeting. Now newspapers are so thin on staff - both reporters and editors - that budget meetings may just be a committee of one, depending on how the paper is staffed.
They started bending in the 1960s. The newsies hated Nixon with such a passion that they started to say anything to hurt him. It just ballooned from there. Walter Cronkite, "the most trusted man in America." Hahahaha that is a laugh. Maybe trusted by people who can't read the look, the tone of voice, the choice of what to report and how to report it and what not to report.
Now they just lie blatantly, other than Fox, OAN, and I forget the other one, who report from the right.
Newsmax?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leo58
Are you trying to say that Fox and OAN don't blatantly lie? Oh boy, are you naive or what?
OAN is rated as extremely biased to the right, and ...
When you are Left of the 3rd base line, the whole ballpark appears to be far right.
It seems like these days, it's all driven by clicks for views (i.e. profit from advertisers) or pushing an agenda with all these "opinion" pieces. Even the non-opinion articles are leading you to a conclusion that they want you to have.
Nobody straight up reports news without any bias these days.
It's all related to the rise of postmodernist-inspired Critical Social Justice (CSJ) ideology. And that rise is attributed to radicals commandeering education over many decades, leading to indoctrination in CSJ. This ideology posits that there is no such thing as objective truth, and that there are only "power struggles" between 'oppressors' and 'the oppressed'. It demands the politicization of EVERYTHING, with those who self-anoint themselves as being "on the right side of history" being pushed to be activists for "correct" ideas. So, these journalists have abandoned all pretense of objectivity or neutrality, denying its existence in the first place. There was an article a year or so ago in the Washington Post which effectively admitted that the "journalists" quite simply no longer believe in being neutral. They argue that "neutrality is on the side of the oppressor", and is thus bad.
The project reached a "critical mass" of sorts right around the time social media became highly influential (the late 2000s or thereabouts). That's when enough people had been through the CSJ indoctrination program to be sufficiently ubiquitous in many key fields (education, the arts and the media). While some outlets deliberately seek a clickbait, highly partisan approach by design, many others are simply overrun with radical "progressive" activists. If I started my own media company today, and solicited applications from journalists, no matter how much I might try to find objective, legitimate journalists, I'd end up being inundated with applications from radical leftist activists. Meaning, there isn't necessarily a conspiracy among media companies to push leftist ideology. There's just an overwhelmingly dominant lean in the applicant pool towards leftist activists who are trying their "long march through the institutions".
The above ideology itself must be confronted and defeated. This is EXTREMELY difficult for people because it is human nature to seek a "bad guy" or "bad group" to attack. It's more natural for people to want to scapegoat a Gavin Newsom or CNN or "the Democrats" than it is to attack an ideology. While there is no shortage of invertebrates among the aforementioned group, individuals and political parties are not the root problem. Bad ideas are at the root of the problem. Most people lack the skills and/or will to confront and refute an ideology, particularly one with a built-in rhetorical fortress built on euphemisms that cut to the heart of people's emotions and feelings.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
