Media is broken

[slam212121]

Today's media is broken to a point where I just can't read anything and see value in it. Media from politics, finance, sports, or even hobbies, has become so embellished and sensationalized that there's only about 10% truth to any of it.

Like Denzil in Training Day, the morning paper is BS.

 

[slam212121]

Yes, this relates to college hoops and UK as well. Here's looking at you Tipton.

 

[bookerfan66]

I don't disagree but this belongs in the paddock.

 

[UKErik]

The media is a train wreck IMO, and gradually getting worse.

GBB!!!

 

[slam212121]

I don't disagree but this belongs in the paddock.

Never been there. Though when reading articles regarding OAD the general theme applies.

 

[brdmn22]

I don't know where you're getting your media from, but reputable organizations are pretty close to 100% true. Biased, sure, but they don't report falsehoods.

 

[slam212121]

The same with Pat Forde. Skews positives toward Cards and negatives toward the Cats. Its agenda driven by the media.

 

[slam212121]

I don't know where you're getting your media from, but reputable organizations are pretty close to 100% true. Biased, sure, but they don't report falsehoods.

All of it as a whole.

 

[brdmn22]

The same with Pat Forde. Skews positives toward Cards and negatives toward the Cats. Its agenda driven by the media.

Right, but that's biased coverage, not false media stories.

For example, if Forde is reporting on Cal embracing the one-and-done rule, then he's reporting on a true subject. If he then states how it's ruining college basketball, then that's an opinion piece. If he then let's that influence his future stories on Cal to be more negative, then that's biased coverage.

I just have a problem with you saying there's 10% truth. That's just not correct. Again, there's a difference between truth and bias.

 

[brdmn22]

All of it as a whole.

Maybe you should just stick to the reputable organizations then.

 

[slam212121]

Maybe you should just stick to the reputable organizations then.

Worked on Wall Street for years. Even the WSJ is in decline. Names of examples you think still uphold real journalism or reporting?

 

[MegaBlue05]

The problem is the average consumer doesn't know the difference between news and opinion and the cable TV news "InfoTainment" model shoulders a lot of the blame by blurring the lines between "news" and "commentary."

For example, a report from Reuters, AP, BBC, etc. deals primarily in facts obtained from printed documents/interviews with breathing humans and if it's good, shouldn't editorialize. That doesn't mean if they quote one person who, for example, says "Trump is a chode" and quote someone else as saying "Trump is prince charming" that they support either stance. They're just reporting what was said to them, what was said in a news conference or what was said in a public forum.

Contrast that with, say a Pat Forde column, a Rachel Maddow spot on TV, or a Sean Hannity radio segment. Those are opinion pieces and should be taken with a grain of salt (unless it fits your worldview and then, of course, it becomes gospel.)

 

[slam212121]

Right, but that's biased coverage, not false media stories.

For example, if Forde is reporting on Cal embracing the one-and-done rule, then he's reporting on a true subject. If he then states how it's ruining college basketball, then that's an opinion piece. If he then let's that influence his future stories on Cal to be more negative, then that's biased coverage.

I just have a problem with you saying there's 10% truth. That's just not correct. Again, there's a difference between truth and bias.

The truth lies in the facts. Actual facts. Those facts get cluttered around, watered down, and even misconstrued to a point that they are lost. But I get what you're saying.

 

[bigbluefattycat]

Yes, this relates to college hoops and UK as well. Here's looking at you Tipton.

Where were you Sunday morning between 9:45 a.m and 11 a.m.?

Newspaper office’s windows were shattered and damage from gunfire is suspected

Lexington Police on Monday confirmed that they are investigating the incident as criminal mischief, and that investigators believe the damage is consistent with small-caliber gunfire.

Based on a review of security camera footage, the windows were shattered Sunday morning between 9:45 a.m and 11 a.m. There would have been a small number of employees in the building at that time, but the press room is no longer in use. No employees were injured or near the area where the damage occurred.

 

[brdmn22]

The truth lies in the facts. Actual facts. Those facts get cluttered around, watered down, and even misconstrued to a point that they are lost. But I get what you're saying.

And I can see that argument.

I think MegaBlue summed it up perfectly. His last post was mostly spot-on.

 

[qwesley]

First there is a glut of media. 24 hour cable news, then talk radio, then the internet, then social media. The result is that it is primarily the most dramatic that get attention and make the most money. CNN went after MSNBCs share rather than carve out the middle....no hot takes in the middle. ESPN started devolving when they replaced David Aldridge with SA Smith.

Second, the vast majority that cover topics start with some sort of construct they feel is true and, whether or not they can admit it, they seek evidence to support that idea with much more attention than any possible evidence that could oppose it. Related, they also choose to only cover topics that align with their world view.

Third, most media only interact within their peer group and it creates a bubble where they are not challenged enough. That is the support they seek and they view outrage from readers as the price for educating the unwashed.

 

[dgtatu01]

Definitely not a lot of false news out there, but there is almost nothing that is unbiased anymore. There are also far too many "news" stories that are just reporting what so-and-so said about something that happened. That's really not news at all, it's just what someone thinks. For instance right now the 7 leading stories in their order on cnn.com are as follows:

1. Trump Lawyer Says He Won't Talk To Congress
2. Michael Cohen Says He Considers Russia Investigation "Total Fishing Expedition"
3. Cilizza (Editorial) Sean Spicer Wants You To Know That Everything Is Great
4. Borger (Editorial) Trump Is Back Home Angry And Alone
5. White House Communication Director Stepping Down
6. Russia Is A Bigger Threat Than Isis McCain Says
7. Trump Hotel Event Raises Ethics Concern

5 is a reported fact
1, 2, & 6 are a report of a quote
3 & 4 are editorials
7 is presenting a question that needs to be investigated

So out of 7 articles there is 1 piece of news.

 

[slam212121]

Factual:

Hillary Foundation sells millions of dollars worth of uranium to Russia.

Bill gets blowie from Monica who's 15 percent Russian.

 

[wkycatfan_rivals376690]

Can't trust very many media sources anymore. Your best bet to get your news from several sources and attempt to sift it down to some semblance of truth. Almost all have slants to their news now.

 

[KingOfBBN]

I don't know where you're getting your media from, but reputable organizations are pretty close to 100% true. Biased, sure, but they don't report falsehoods.

And Santa Claus is real too.

This is absurd.

 

[KingOfBBN]

First there is a glut of media. 24 hour cable news, then talk radio, then the internet, then social media. The result is that it is primarily the most dramatic that get attention and make the most money. CNN went after MSNBCs share rather than carve out the middle....no hot takes in the middle. ESPN started devolving when they replaced David Aldridge with SA Smith.

Second, the vast majority that cover topics start with some sort of construct they feel is true and, whether or not they can admit it, they seek evidence to support that idea with much more attention than any possible evidence that could oppose it. Related, they also choose to only cover topics that align with their world view.

Third, most media only interact within their peer group and it creates a bubble where they are not challenged enough. That is the support they seek and they view outrage from readers as the price for educating the unwashed.

Media is overwhelming to the left. I think the last numbers I saw were that only seven percent or less were conservatives.

So we have a ton of liberals in newsrooms who never have a different thought and the national organizations are all located in DC, NY (most here) and LA. So we get liberals from these three different places dictating the news for us. Of course it's going to be absolute trash.

 

[KingOfBBN]

My favorite tactic of the media is the one most used; use a sensationalized headline and then throughout the article prove that your own headline is bull crap.

 

[starchief]

My favorite tactic of the media is the one most used; use a sensationalized headline and then throughout the article prove that your own headline is bull crap.

I read in Huffington Post a couple of years ago about a northeastern state that was doing a test to see if drug testing for welfare recipients would work. 15 recipients were chosen at random to come in for testing. 13 failed to show up. 2 showed up and were tested. One passed and the other one failed.

The headline (paraphrased): Drug-testing welfare recipients fails. Only one person fails test.

 

[brdmn22]

And Santa Claus is real too.

This is absurd.

Okay, then please find me examples from reputable organizations where the story is factually not true (or was later corrected or clarified). It should be easy for you.

Not a biased story, but one that is simply just made up. There's a difference between untrue and biased.

 

[KingOfBBN]

Okay, then please find me examples from reputable organizations where the story is factually not true (or was later corrected or clarified). It should be easy for you.

Not a biased story, but one that is simply just made up. There's a difference between untrue and biased.

Have you not been paying attention to the Washington Post the last few months?

 

[brdmn22]

Have you not been paying attention to the Washington Post the last few months?

I have. It seems you're having trouble finding an article to site. That's probably because you can't find one, which makes sense considering virtually all of their articles are factually based.

 

[Mojocat_rivals48469]

For example, a report from Reuters, AP, BBC, etc. deals primarily in facts obtained from...

There is a lot of truth in this post - but I reject this part. I'm not sure that Reuters or the AP, to use those examples were ever truly neutral and independent. If they were, those days are long gone. Which "facts" they choose to chase, which stories they choose to write, how the facts are presented, whether the essence of it all is minimized and explained away, or sensationalized and 'really important stuff!' depends greatly on the array of facts and persons along the political spectrum. The writer - and often the institution he works for - has a perspective on all of that, and it profoundly impacts the final product. Human nature. My hope is eventually everyone simply acknowledges it all, that everyone is biased, and no one is neutral or objective.

qwelsey covered the basics, but at bottom these are all businesses, depending on viewers or readers or hits or whatever. Just the facts mam has given way to getting it first, to Hot Takes. The internet and social media forced everyone in that direction, and by now even the venerable have given way. It's all the same, it's all either left media or right media. Everyone has picked a side......

 

[Mojocat_rivals48469]

Okay, then please find me examples from reputable organizations where the story is factually not true (or was later corrected or clarified). It should be easy for you.

Not a biased story, but one that is simply just made up. There's a difference between untrue and biased.

we've left a simpler time when two independent sources verifying the same essential story were required before publication, to a time when an anonymous source can recite to a reporter on a phone call supposed margin notations on an unseen memorandum, and that alone is enough to be the center piece to a NYTimes expose, which is then repeated ad nauseum by many other outlets. In that kind of environment, there's plenty of made up stuff.....

 

[brdmn22]

we've left a simpler time when two independent sources verifying the same essential story were required before publication, to a time when an anonymous source can recite to a reporter on a phone call supposed margin notations on an unseen memorandum, and that alone is enough to be the center piece to a NYTimes expose, which is then repeated ad nauseum by many other outlets. In that kind of environment, there's plenty of made up stuff.....

When anonymous sources are used by reputable publications, the reporter pretty much always knows who that person is - it's just anonymous to the public (not saying you don't know that, but just wanted to clarify). In addition, the editor typically knows who the source is. The majority of the time there are multiple sources. For the most part, sources for reputable organizations are extremely credible. Does that mean it's always 100% accurate? No, hardly anything is, but it's pretty damn close.

I'm not sure which article by the Times you're referring to, but I'm not sure how you know it was only one source and an unseen memo. If the article explicitly mentioned that, then they are signaling to readers the information maybe isn't as strong as it typically is. That doesn't mean the info is fake. In order for that to get out, it would have to be a highly credible source.

Are sources sometimes wrong? Sure, but it's the exception, not the rule. The vast majority of information from reputable organizations is real, not fake like the ignorant POTUS likes to claim. Again, biased doesn't equal fake.

 

[gamecockcat]

First, Dan Rather got fired for reporting and continuing to follow a false story, just one example.
Second, biased, in my opinion, is or can be fake. If you completely omit and/or severely slant the 'facts' in order to represent your opinion in a 'news' story, in my opinion, your story is fake. Just like movies can be 'based on a true story' and yet much of the movie is, in fact, not what truly happened, too much of our news today is very much the same way. Ask any law enforcement officer - probably the worst evidence is an eye witness and more than one is even worse. Ask 10 people to describe the same event and you may get 6 different versions. The news is no different. However, if you are consciously slanting your version to present your bias, then, IMO, the 'news' is fake.