How to restore trust in media

[Stevicus]

I came across this story about Elon Musk's idea of implementing a voting system for media: https://www.washingtonpost.com/life...m_term=.58c9017d9eb1&wpisrc=nl_az_most&wpmk=1

Entrepreneur Elon Musk thinks journalism needs fixing, and he’s got just the answer.

Enraged last week by negative media coverage of Tesla, his car company, the tech billionaire proposed a rating system in which the public would vote on the credibility of individual journalists and news sites.

As with all things Musk, the sketchy idea brought rave reviews from his obsessive fans, even though his explanations (by tweetstorm) of how journalism works show that he’s way out of his depth.

“Problem is journos are under constant pressure to get max clicks & earn advertising dollars or get fired. Tricky situation, as Tesla doesn’t advertise, but fossil fuel companies & gas/diesel car companies are among world’s biggest advertisers.”

It doesn’t work that way. Journalists are not under pressure to earn ad dollars through their news stories and in fact go out of their way not to write favorably — or at all — about their company’s advertisers.

Musk should stick with his plans for colonizing Mars with his SpaceX venture.

I don't know if a voting system would really tell us which media outlets or journalists are the most credible. It would only tell us which are the most popular.

The article also mentioned that there are other efforts and projects currently in place to gauge media credibility and report on which outlets are trustworthy and which ones aren't.

There’s the Trust Project from Google and the Knight Foundation. There’s the News Integrity Initiative from the CUNY Graduate School of Journalism. There’s the Trust & News Initiative from Duke University.

There are so many of these worthy efforts and the names are so confusingly similar that the Nieman Lab at Harvard provided a puckishly titled guide to seven of them, “So what is that, er, Trusted News Integrity Trust Project all about?” All of these projects also speak to the troubled condition of news media today, which has suffered from a trust deficit for many years.

But then, this may bring us back to square one, with so many different competing organizations out there trying to tell us which media outlets can be trusted.

The article mentioned that many people still trust their own local news media, but local media has been in a "death spiral." Besides, many of them are owned by national conglomerates, not the locally-owned "mom and pop" newspapers of the past.

The horrors of what’s happening at papers owned by Digital First Media, such as the Denver Post, are well known: The company’s vulture capitalist owners at Alden Global Capital are shrinking newsroom staffs at a frightening pace, with no apparent regard for the important role that these papers play in their communities.

Brian Tierney, a Philadelphia investor who once fought with Alden Global Capital’s investors over control of the Philadelphia Inquirer, told me that he was stunned by how little they knew — or cared — about the public-service role of newspapers.

“When you talk about the civic good, they go ‘Huh?’ It’s not their world — it’s a piece of meat with the word newspaper stamped on it,” Tierney said.

The article then pointed out the difficulty for local media outlets to survive, as many are losing revenue and advertising - unable to compete. And they're competing with people who are chomping at the bit to get their product out for free. There are so many bloggers and website owners who have their own "message" that they're willing to pay for out of their own pockets. They don't care if they make a profit or not; they have some cause to promote.

Local philanthropy and eventual nonprofit status are probably a part of the solution — if there is one.

This is a good point. I found an article from nearly 20 years ago which lamented how news outlets were going more for profitability than anything else: http://niemanreports.org/articles/the-transformation-of-network-news/

It notes that, in past eras, news divisions of major networks would typically lose money:

Twenty years ago, there was no network news “business.” The Big Three broadcast television networks—ABC, CBS and NBC—all covered news, but none generally made money doing so. Nor did they expect to turn a profit from news programming. They presented news programming for the prestige it would bring to their network, to satisfy the public-service requirements of Congress and the Federal Communications Commission, and more broadly so that they would be seen as good corporate citizens.

Back then, the networks earned enough money from entertainment programming that they could afford to run their news operations at a loss. And so they did. Former CBS correspondent Marvin Kalb recalls Owner and Chairman William Paley instructing news reporters at a meeting in the early 1960’s that they shouldn’t be concerned about costs. “I have Jack Benny to make money,” he told them.

This situation started to change in the 1970s and 80s, as networks were starting to get more competition from cable and other outlets. The networks also changed hands a few times and the pressure for news to become more profitable was ratcheted up:

The formula for making network news into a profitable business was thus established:

• Make the product more entertaining. As Hewitt proved with “60 Minutes,” when you tell stories in ways that engage the audience, often by touching their emotions, news programming can generate high ratings and revenues.
• Produce more programming. As Arledge established, in business terms a network news operation can be seen as a factory with a lot of fixed costs: bureaus, studios, equipment, correspondents, producers, editors, executives and network overhead. The more programs that the factory can churn out, the more revenues can be generated to recoup these set costs. Once those fixed costs have been paid for, the marginal costs of producing more hours become relatively low.
• Control spending. Wright, Tisch and Capital Cities did this, and today’s owners are continuing to do it. The networks have, among other things, closed foreign and domestic bureaus, laid off staff, eliminated some money-losing documentary units, and curbed convention and election coverage.

So, in this era where various factions accuse each other of "fake news," how can trust in media be restored? Or is that even a laudable goal?

Should non-profit news outlets be trusted more than for-profit enterprises? Should I trust a news source which is easily accessible versus those which have a paywall and restrict access?

Should local news be revitalized and made more independent?

What is more important to the corporate media: Telling the truth or making a profit? They may reach a point where they have to choose between the two.

 

[David T]

I came across this story about Elon Musk's idea of implementing a voting system for media: https://www.washingtonpost.com/life...m_term=.58c9017d9eb1&wpisrc=nl_az_most&wpmk=1



I don't know if a voting system would really tell us which media outlets or journalists are the most credible. It would only tell us which are the most popular.

The article also mentioned that there are other efforts and projects currently in place to gauge media credibility and report on which outlets are trustworthy and which ones aren't.



But then, this may bring us back to square one, with so many different competing organizations out there trying to tell us which media outlets can be trusted.

The article mentioned that many people still trust their own local news media, but local media has been in a "death spiral." Besides, many of them are owned by national conglomerates, not the locally-owned "mom and pop" newspapers of the past.



The article then pointed out the difficulty for local media outlets to survive, as many are losing revenue and advertising - unable to compete. And they're competing with people who are chomping at the bit to get their product out for free. There are so many bloggers and website owners who have their own "message" that they're willing to pay for out of their own pockets. They don't care if they make a profit or not; they have some cause to promote.



This is a good point. I found an article from nearly 20 years ago which lamented how news outlets were going more for profitability than anything else: http://niemanreports.org/articles/the-transformation-of-network-news/

It notes that, in past eras, news divisions of major networks would typically lose money:



This situation started to change in the 1970s and 80s, as networks were starting to get more competition from cable and other outlets. The networks also changed hands a few times and the pressure for news to become more profitable was ratcheted up:


So, in this era where various factions accuse each other of "fake news," how can trust in media be restored? Or is that even a laudable goal?

Should non-profit news outlets be trusted more than for-profit enterprises? Should I trust a news source which is easily accessible versus those which have a paywall and restrict access?

Should local news be revitalized and made more independent?

What is more important to the corporate media: Telling the truth or making a profit? They may reach a point where they have to choose between the two.

Elon musk is convinced that there is a reality outside reality that creates reality. Sooooooo......maybe with the data overload its time to shut it down personally and practice some other way of being informed. Just saying.

 

[Cacotopia]

Voting systems? please, anything with humans involved is corrupt. Bias is built from influence and experience. But mainly influence, propaganda is everywhere. Did you trust the Commies as a kid(if you were born in the 70-80's)? They were the bad guys in movies and cartoons games and tv shows for about 20 years, and lately it's been middle eastern people, and very recently it's the North Koreans. People are fed symbolism that influences their behavior. Media outlets with agendas will be followed by people with similar alignments and they will eagerly gobble up the excrescence they want to hear.

Today's modern society does not appreciate or even like the truth because it is inconvenient, they want the convenient lie or partial truth.

Go on social media and be honest, watch the blocks, insults, and threats roll in.

 

[exchemist]

I came across this story about Elon Musk's idea of implementing a voting system for media: https://www.washingtonpost.com/life...m_term=.58c9017d9eb1&wpisrc=nl_az_most&wpmk=1



I don't know if a voting system would really tell us which media outlets or journalists are the most credible. It would only tell us which are the most popular.

The article also mentioned that there are other efforts and projects currently in place to gauge media credibility and report on which outlets are trustworthy and which ones aren't.



But then, this may bring us back to square one, with so many different competing organizations out there trying to tell us which media outlets can be trusted.

The article mentioned that many people still trust their own local news media, but local media has been in a "death spiral." Besides, many of them are owned by national conglomerates, not the locally-owned "mom and pop" newspapers of the past.



The article then pointed out the difficulty for local media outlets to survive, as many are losing revenue and advertising - unable to compete. And they're competing with people who are chomping at the bit to get their product out for free. There are so many bloggers and website owners who have their own "message" that they're willing to pay for out of their own pockets. They don't care if they make a profit or not; they have some cause to promote.



This is a good point. I found an article from nearly 20 years ago which lamented how news outlets were going more for profitability than anything else: http://niemanreports.org/articles/the-transformation-of-network-news/

It notes that, in past eras, news divisions of major networks would typically lose money:



This situation started to change in the 1970s and 80s, as networks were starting to get more competition from cable and other outlets. The networks also changed hands a few times and the pressure for news to become more profitable was ratcheted up:


So, in this era where various factions accuse each other of "fake news," how can trust in media be restored? Or is that even a laudable goal?

Should non-profit news outlets be trusted more than for-profit enterprises? Should I trust a news source which is easily accessible versus those which have a paywall and restrict access?

Should local news be revitalized and made more independent?

What is more important to the corporate media: Telling the truth or making a profit? They may reach a point where they have to choose between the two.

Education.

Future generations of school children will need to be far more strongly educated in the value of reading other points of view and be able to compare sources, evaluate their reputation for truthfulness and make a considered judgement about who to trust. The fragmentation of media in the digital age, the confusion of news with entertainment and the danger of on-line "echo chambers" are new phenomena that future generations will need to be taught how to cope with.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I came across this story about Elon Musk's idea of implementing a voting system for media: https://www.washingtonpost.com/life...m_term=.58c9017d9eb1&wpisrc=nl_az_most&wpmk=1



I don't know if a voting system would really tell us which media outlets or journalists are the most credible. It would only tell us which are the most popular.

The article also mentioned that there are other efforts and projects currently in place to gauge media credibility and report on which outlets are trustworthy and which ones aren't.



But then, this may bring us back to square one, with so many different competing organizations out there trying to tell us which media outlets can be trusted.

The article mentioned that many people still trust their own local news media, but local media has been in a "death spiral." Besides, many of them are owned by national conglomerates, not the locally-owned "mom and pop" newspapers of the past.



The article then pointed out the difficulty for local media outlets to survive, as many are losing revenue and advertising - unable to compete. And they're competing with people who are chomping at the bit to get their product out for free. There are so many bloggers and website owners who have their own "message" that they're willing to pay for out of their own pockets. They don't care if they make a profit or not; they have some cause to promote.



This is a good point. I found an article from nearly 20 years ago which lamented how news outlets were going more for profitability than anything else: http://niemanreports.org/articles/the-transformation-of-network-news/

It notes that, in past eras, news divisions of major networks would typically lose money:



This situation started to change in the 1970s and 80s, as networks were starting to get more competition from cable and other outlets. The networks also changed hands a few times and the pressure for news to become more profitable was ratcheted up:


So, in this era where various factions accuse each other of "fake news," how can trust in media be restored? Or is that even a laudable goal?

Should non-profit news outlets be trusted more than for-profit enterprises? Should I trust a news source which is easily accessible versus those which have a paywall and restrict access?

Should local news be revitalized and made more independent?

What is more important to the corporate media: Telling the truth or making a profit? They may reach a point where they have to choose between the two.

There's no question tabloid reporting is more popular and profitable than direct reporting. There is freedom of the press, so I don't think there's anything that can be done to stop it, but like consumers, we should set up Watchdog groups and use our own discretion as to what news outlets are more on the level and direct.

Personally I prefer Reuters and findings of Pew research groups where each news agency stands. Foreign media like the BBC for instance or the CBC tend to be less biased because many issues have nothing to do with them so they tend to be more straightforward in my view.

 

[Shushersbedamned]

Tie to the state a few good outlets that are controlled without bias

 

[Revoltingest]

There's too much trust in media now.
We should all have a permanently jaundiced
eye towards news & opinions thereof.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There's too much trust in media now.
We should all have a permanently jaundiced
eye towards news & opinions thereof.

Or one could rely totally on:

"THE WORLD'S ONLY RELIABLE NEWS"

It is right there in their motto. That means that if one cannot trust them one cannot trust anyone.

 

[Revoltingest]

Or one could rely totally on:

"THE WORLD'S ONLY RELIABLE NEWS"

It is right there in their motto. That means that if one cannot trust them one cannot trust anyone.

During pledge drive week, NPR will often announce that you
need no other source because you can trust them to be fair,
objective & honest. They're so clueless that they really believe
they've no bias.

 

[Subduction Zone]

During pledge drive week, NPR will often announce that you
need no other source because you can trust them to be fair,
objective & honest. They're so clueless that they really believe
they've no bias.

Yes, but I did not quote their motto. Of course they can't be trusted:

http://weeklyworldnews.com/

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes, but I did not quote their motto. Of course they can't be trusted:

http://weeklyworldnews.com/

I trust them to keep me informed of alien activity.

 

[Stevicus]

Yes, but I did not quote their motto. Of course they can't be trusted:

http://weeklyworldnews.com/

Ah, yes, the Weekly World News. I haven't thought of them in a while.

I should have been reading them more often, as I missed this story:

http://weeklyworldnews.com/headlines/41410/god-particle-found-in-new-jersey/

Physicists have been trying to find the “God particle” (the Higgs boson) for over forty years, so it’s no real surprise that they finally did it. But what IS a surprise is it was found it in an abandoned bank depository in Camden, New Jersey. And it was found by singer-actress, Taylor Momsen.

...

“Of course the universe began in New Jersey,” said Governor Chris Christie. “Everyone who lives here has known it all their lives. That’s why so many want to live here. They may not know it, but they are drawn to the universal source. It’s official now – New Jersey is the center of the universe.”

Some physicists speculate that Albert Einstein moved to New Jersey (he was a professor at Princeton) because he had an idea that the God particle was in New Jersey. “He just was in the wrong city,” said Christie. “Camden is where it all began.”

The God particle… works in mysterious ways…

 

[Cacotopia]

Education.

Future generations of school children will need to be far more strongly educated in the value of reading other points of view and be able to compare sources, evaluate their reputation for truthfulness and make a considered judgement about who to trust. The fragmentation of media in the digital age, the confusion of news with entertainment and the danger of on-line "echo chambers" are new phenomena that future generations will need to be taught how to cope with.

I would go as far to say even education has been corrupted, Colleges are breeding grounds for libtard hipster SJW weirdos, teachers still don't teach an accurate form of history, it's pro whatever country you are in. Like Columbus discovering America, and being some kind of hero, when it was "discovered" by peoples crossing the icebridge by ancient humans, or I guess you could say when Europeans came by it was the Vikings. But when the Vikings came, there was no printing press and global literacy was still controlled by religion. Read "Lies My Teacher Told Me" by James Loewen. Why is Hitler considered the worst dictator in modern history, when clearly a few other people did a better job at human genocide. Hell the Hutu peoples killed 6 million people the same figure Hitler was responsible for in 6 years, in two months. Why so much emphasis on the Holocaust, could it have been us nuking Japan? or firebombing their residential centers? Or the fact that Japan tried to surrender in 1944, but we made terms of surrender so ridiculous they were forced to continue to fight?

No.....you are forced to have the desire to know more and read beyond school to get a more complete picture of accurate and unbiased history, but who is to say what history is truly objective. The victors get the opportunity to write down the history that happens through their own lens and of course they are gonna wanna make themselves look good.

 

[Cacotopia]

First report on Native Americans by the Admiral of the Columbus Expedition. "As I saw that they were very friendly to us, and perceived that they could be much more easily converted to our holy faith by gentle means than by force, I presented them with some red caps, and strings of beads to wear upon the neck, and many other trifles of small value, wherewith they were much delighted, and became wonderfully attached to us. Afterwards they came swimming to the boats, bringing parrots, balls of cotton thread, javelins, and many other things which they exchanged for articles we gave them, such as glass beads, and hawk's bells; which trade was carried on with the utmost good will. But they seemed on the whole to me, to be a very poor people. They all go completely naked, even the women, though I saw but one girl. All whom I saw were young, not above thirty years of age, well made, with fine shapes and faces; their hair short, and coarse like that of a horse's tail, combed toward the forehead, except a small portion which they suffer to hang down behind, and never cut. Some paint themselves with black, which makes them appear like those of the Canaries, neither black nor white; others with white, others with red, and others with such colors as they can find. Some paint the face, and some the whole body; others only the eyes, and others the nose. Weapons they have none, nor are acquainted with them, for I showed them swords which they grasped by the blades, and cut themselves through ignorance. They have no iron, their javelins being without it, and nothing more than sticks, though some have fish-bones or other things at the ends. They are all of a good size and stature, and handsomely formed. I saw some with scars of wounds upon their bodies, and demanded by signs the of them; they answered me in the same way, that there came people from the other islands in the neighborhood who endeavored to make prisoners of them, and they defended themselves. I thought then, and still believe, that these were from the continent. It appears to me, that the people are ingenious, and would be good servants and I am of opinion that they would very readily become Christians, as they appear to have no religion. They very quickly learn such words as are spoken to them. If it please our Lord, I intend at my return to carry home six of them to your Highnesses, that they may learn our language. I saw no beasts in the island, nor any sort of animals except parrots." These are the words of the Admiral.


First thought, convert and enslave good job there, but nooo let's not teach the kids that.

 

[exchemist]

First report on Native Americans by the Admiral of the Columbus Expedition. "As I saw that they were very friendly to us, and perceived that they could be much more easily converted to our holy faith by gentle means than by force, I presented them with some red caps, and strings of beads to wear upon the neck, and many other trifles of small value, wherewith they were much delighted, and became wonderfully attached to us. Afterwards they came swimming to the boats, bringing parrots, balls of cotton thread, javelins, and many other things which they exchanged for articles we gave them, such as glass beads, and hawk's bells; which trade was carried on with the utmost good will. But they seemed on the whole to me, to be a very poor people. They all go completely naked, even the women, though I saw but one girl. All whom I saw were young, not above thirty years of age, well made, with fine shapes and faces; their hair short, and coarse like that of a horse's tail, combed toward the forehead, except a small portion which they suffer to hang down behind, and never cut. Some paint themselves with black, which makes them appear like those of the Canaries, neither black nor white; others with white, others with red, and others with such colors as they can find. Some paint the face, and some the whole body; others only the eyes, and others the nose. Weapons they have none, nor are acquainted with them, for I showed them swords which they grasped by the blades, and cut themselves through ignorance. They have no iron, their javelins being without it, and nothing more than sticks, though some have fish-bones or other things at the ends. They are all of a good size and stature, and handsomely formed. I saw some with scars of wounds upon their bodies, and demanded by signs the of them; they answered me in the same way, that there came people from the other islands in the neighborhood who endeavored to make prisoners of them, and they defended themselves. I thought then, and still believe, that these were from the continent. It appears to me, that the people are ingenious, and would be good servants and I am of opinion that they would very readily become Christians, as they appear to have no religion. They very quickly learn such words as are spoken to them. If it please our Lord, I intend at my return to carry home six of them to your Highnesses, that they may learn our language. I saw no beasts in the island, nor any sort of animals except parrots." These are the words of the Admiral.


First thought, convert and enslave good job there, but nooo let's not teach the kids that.

Seems as if someone has put a nickel in your slot.

 

[Stevicus]

Voting systems? please, anything with humans involved is corrupt. Bias is built from influence and experience. But mainly influence, propaganda is everywhere. Did you trust the Commies as a kid(if you were born in the 70-80's)?

I was born in the 60s and started to become politically aware during the Vietnam-Watergate era. I didn't trust the Commies, although I did trust those who believed that our government was far too obsessed with Communism for the country's own good. But the press and academia also had a cynical, anti-government tinge about them back in the 60s and 70s, although this attitude started to evaporate during the Reagan era, when the media made him the Teflon President. That's when the media shifted back to being pro-government and pro-military.

They were the bad guys in movies and cartoons games and tv shows for about 20 years, and lately it's been middle eastern people, and very recently it's the North Koreans. People are fed symbolism that influences their behavior. Media outlets with agendas will be followed by people with similar alignments and they will eagerly gobble up the excrescence they want to hear.

You make a good point about the entertainment media also shaping people's views. A lot of people focus solely on news networks and programs, but the entertainment media might even be more influential overall.

 

[Stevicus]

There's no question tabloid reporting is more popular and profitable than direct reporting. There is freedom of the press, so I don't think there's anything that can be done to stop it, but like consumers, we should set up Watchdog groups and use our own discretion as to what news outlets are more on the level and direct.

Personally I prefer Reuters and findings of Pew research groups where each news agency stands. Foreign media like the BBC for instance or the CBC tend to be less biased because many issues have nothing to do with them so they tend to be more straightforward in my view.

What I find interesting about the article and the general trends is that, from a business standpoint, there's no profit in the media telling the truth. The network news divisions were typically losing money, but it was okay back in the day because entertainment programming was the real cash cow for TV networks. But since news divisions have been pressured to make more money, they've been steadily losing integrity to the point that we're at now - with charges of "fake news" being bandied about.

 

[Cacotopia]

Seems as if someone has put a nickel in your slot.

That wasn't from the book I searched the journals of oole chris columbus, first impressions are that they are A) inferior to them, B) adamant that they be converted to christianity.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

I came across this story about Elon Musk's idea of implementing a voting system for media:

Reality isn't something you vote on.

The problem is that some people don't like the media because they report on facts that those people don't like. There really isn't any way of fixing that.

The best and first method of judging journalism is the facts. If it accurately reports the facts then it is credible.

Second on the list is independence. Are there any conflicts of interests? Are you independent of the subjects you are reporting on? Do you share the same lawyer with the people you are reporting on?

 

[Stevicus]

Reality isn't something you vote on.

If that's another way of saying "the truth is not a democracy," then I agree. At least in theory. In practice, it's a lot more complicated. But I agree that a voting system would be a poor way to determine which media outlets are the most trustworthy.

The problem is that some people don't like the media because they report on facts that those people don't like. There really isn't any way of fixing that.

The best and first method of judging journalism is the facts. If it accurately reports the facts then it is credible.

The tagline from the film Absence of Malice mentions "accuracy": "Suppose you picked up this morning's newspaper and your life was a front page headline... And everything they said was accurate... But none of it was true?"

Another couple of lines from that movie:

"Where did that story come from? "Knowledgeable sources", you said. Now who is that? Somebody's trying to get to me. Somebody with no face and no name. You're the gofer. You listen to them, you write what they say - and then you help them hide. You say you've got a right to do that. And I got no right to know who they are."

"You don't write the truth. You write what people say. What you overhear, you eavesdrop. You don't come across truth that easy. Maybe it's just what you think, what you feel."

That, to me, is the key thing in judging journalism. Is there something concrete and provable that they're reporting on - or is just "what people say"? You can read between the lines, examine word choice and how things are phrased. Parse through it and try to differentiate the actual "facts" which are reported, as opposed to quoted opinions and how much the journalist/commentator puts their own opinions and supposition into it.

As for the idea that the media report on facts that some people don't like, that may be true. However, much of the criticism directed against media is also about the facts they don't report. Sometimes the facts seem highly selective which would indicate lies of omission.

Second on the list is independence. Are there any conflicts of interests? Are you independent of the subjects you are reporting on? Do you share the same lawyer with the people you are reporting on?

Yes, I would agree with this, although considering that most media outlets are corporate owned and generally part of huge conglomerates, which depend upon the goodwill and patronage of wealthy corporate sponsors, then certainly their "independence" can be called into question.