[The Hill] The greatest threat to American journalism: the loss of neutral reporting

A personal example of how bad news is today - I wanted an update on the massive hurricane about to slam the US so I flipped on CNN. They could not stop injecting Trump into every single interview with their idiot reporters standing in the windy drizzle.

Wolf: 'Do you think Trump's response to this hurricane will be better than Puerto Rico where new data indicates nearly as many people died as the 9/11 attacks?'

Small county commissioner: 'Uhhh we're just trying to evacuate everyone safely...'

Fox and MSNBC are worse and NPR is boring AF.

I've been watching CBS online a lot lately - it's bare bones but for the most part just gives the story without the constant editorial. It does lean to the left, but it seems to only come from specific reporters.

 

Talk show hosts masquerading as news anchors.

 

I have several newspapers from around the SpanAm War, and pay attention to old news reporting from the 19th Century. The "good old days" weren't nearly as good as people "remember".

 

I think one of the greatest threats is when news agencies feel the need to appear neutral and present facts as if they have two sides. I've posted before about Bush's claim to have tripled Aid to Africa. Then it was reported as people saying that it wasn't true were stating their side of the story while Condi Rice and Bush maintained the claim.

There aren't two sides to the story. There are only the facts. The facts are that he did not triple the aid to Africa. He did increase it, but it wasn't tripled. The Washington Post, NYT, and other supposedly "liberal" news outlets presented both sides to the story as if there were two sides. That is only the truth. The truth is that he didn't triple it and it was false to make that claim. There is no other side.

 

Well said, FB. KC complained earlier about CNN's coverage of the hurricane, saying that they, "could not stop injecting Trump into every single interview with their idiotreporters standing in the windy drizzle." I watched a lot of their coverage at the time and I think KC exaggerated, but certainly there was some of that. My complaint about CNN? The same as your own, FB. They give far too much time to trump extremists in an attempt to be "fair," which is given no credit whatsoever by the Right or anyone else, in my opinion.

They are considered by many the most "middle of the road" of the 3 major cable news services, but by constantly giving far-right extremists a platform for their outright lies, and the guests are well aware that they are putting out lies, all CNN is doing is helping those who are forever attacking them and other mainstream media of being nothing but "fake news," and playing into trump's hands. More free advertising for the Liar in Chief.

 

This reminds me of Mark Berman when the Astros won the World Series. He would not and did not celebrate the win on the air. One of the other 26 crew members tried to give him a hat or t-shirt. He made a comment along the lines that he has to remain neutral in his reporting.

 

The biggest issues with CNN isn't bias but rather their clickbaitness level coverage of politics.

90% of news coverage is covered through a political lense rather than a policy lense. Rather than discuss the nuances of healthcare policy they discuss the GOP/Democrat paradigm and how it plays with voters.

If you look at their YouTube channel, it's all titles about a "HEATED exchange" between pundits. Most of their news coverage is pundit panelists yelling over each other. It isn't news. It's the internet comment section. It's the D&D with even less nuance. But it draws views. Nuanced coverage about health care doesn't apparently.

 

what constitutes a fact has come to be blurred, as soon as one introduces outside details, it's no longer a fact, it's analysis or a model, "politifact" is exemplary at blurring the lines for partisan reasons for example.

Using your example, some things are straight forward, but of it was instead, "using this accounting method", or "adjusting for inflation", you're no longer dealing in facts, you're now dealing in an analysis. Then of course is the fabled mind reading ability, they know your intent and motivations for something you're doing or saying, because well, they think they do?

On July 4th i think it was, CNN's coverage of Trump's speech was video of him the background, and 2 guys just talking about how awful Trump is, haha. I'd never watched any of them much if at all other than when i was sick recently, just to see what the complaints were like, but maybe it's a change to Fox that's happened since effective control was turned over to lachlan murdoch (who loathed roger ailes) this last year, they are very transparent about whether something is news, opinion or commentary, it'll either be in the title of the show, or if a host switches from news to opinion, they put it in giant writing across the screen, whereas CNN and NBC seem to now be making a business out of having people think opinion is news.

 

The fairness doctrine of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, was a policy that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was—in the FCC's view—honest, equitable, and balanced. The FCC eliminated the policy in 1987 and removed the rule that implemented the policy from the Federal Register in August 2011.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine



Yay for de-regulation! A big L in the L column for America.

 

It is a comparison made by people who haven't the slightest clue about the fires that were in Southern California.

 

I don't think reporting was ever neutral , its just must easier to question now with the internet and so many sources. The media got away with it before the internet and now they get called out.

 

also people who doesn't know who owns the forest land in Calif;

US Govt owns ~ 60%
Corp own ~ 35%
State / local gov own ~ 3%​