Journalistic Integrity Is Dead. Tucker Carlson Confronts NYT Public Editor

You say discourse dissolved. Starts here. Why Clutch subtitle: "Monkeys flinging poo"? B/c level of discourse= very bad in here.

Want better discourse? Dump tRUMP. Our soon to be President brings discourse down to Green Eggs and Ham level (TY, DR. S!)

 

Am radio- loud, insults, immature- bad example. NPR- reasoned, mature, adult- much better. AM- No!

 

The internet ruined journalism, man. Anyone can post an article or link or opinion piece or a website to anything and claim that its a FACT that says anything and with no way to accurately fact check it, aside from using other articles that were also made by 3rd parties and are also not fact checkable to the dudes standards. Basically, anyone who wants to can post anything they want and claim that its a fact when in fact it might not be fact, man.

Television news has to keep up and keep people watching, so they're up to the same bull **** now. None of it is really news anymore and it hasn't been for several years now.

Let's perform an experiment here. If I want FACTS where should I go for news? Dude is just curious to see the type of stuff that's about to be posted here.

 

You can get facts anywhere, even from biased news sources (and every news source has some sort of bias).

It's a matter of filtering out the noise -- and that's hard to do. I think the best (but not easiest) approach is to read from a variety of sources while trying not to be swayed by all the suggestion and opinion stuffed into the news articles. Consume just the facts and try to form your own opinion. I'm not particularly good at it, myself, but I think that's the right approach to take ultimately.

The thing is, it is human nature to seek out news that confirms our own beliefs, and as you point out it's so easy to do that now. News sites and television channels are largely in the business of trying to appeal to people with certain political viewpoints. Even when the article itself is informative, headlines are often crafted to appeal to certain people (and, consequentially, turn off others).

 

TheresTheDagger, just wanted to pop in and say THANKS for the sincere reply. Few quick notes.

1. I think we just will agree to disagree on FoxNews and WaPo. Maybe we can hash that out another time. I do keep track of Fox (at least on the web) b/c it's the only way I can keep communicating with my parents.

2. I hear you on that Rather bit, but I'm not sure I agree with closing off an entire outlet over one or two acts, especially if they are years ago.

3. I will read up on this fundraising thing -- seems to come up a lot in your response and I don't know much about it. Seems like you've shut down entire outlets completely over this.

Agree with you and Okierock both on several bits. Okierock on the fact that some of these outlets are less political than they are just trying to make money (or even financially survive). I've always thought Fox was just a brilliant money making engine, even more than the GOP mouthpiece. Anyway, cheers.

 

Thanks B-bob. Look forward to hearing more from you.

Meanwhile....on the important front....

Can you believe this last minute Utah offer for Dmo?!?!?!?

 

That's always been the case, so it couldn't be what created Trump.

But this seems to be the common perception amongst Democrats, and I hope like heck it continues. Because it completely ignores all the actual factors that put so many Republicans in office...not just Trump.

 

FWIW..journalistic integrity died a long time ago. None of the supposed news outlets is about 'news'...they are all about ratings. And you get ratings by sensationalizing, and throwing out opinions, as opposed to facts. Look at anything they are talking about on the news, and ask yourself: Is this really the most *important* thing happening right now, on planet earth? And the answer is almost never 'yes'. So, why is it on the news then? To get ratings.

In this drive for ratings, journalistic integrity seems to have no place. People don't want news...they want to have their opinions validated and/or be entertained They don't want actual information, apparently.

 

She's getting attacked by her own for this interview to the point of backing down a bit. That type of stuff convinces me that for some liberalism is a mental disorder. In fairness, any political ideology can be mental disorder. It just seems that on the liberal side, it affects more "normal" people than on the conservative side.

 

Let's just agree that painting any political ideology as a mental disorder encourages those who insulate themselves in that belief to reject valid, opposing opinions.

I don't envy Spayd. Quite a tightrope she has to walk. As the public editor, she's realizing that many have simply tuned out a historically respected, national paper of which a chunk of it's revenue comes from online subscription revenue. Most of those online subscribers are those who are used to having their views represented (Americans, liberals, foreigners, centrists, oh yeah- New Yorkers) & whatever you think about the electoral college/popular vote debate, only about 27% of the voting age citizens of this country voted for Trump.

In that respect, the post-election headline, "Democrats, students, and foreign allies face the reality of a Trump presidency." is factually consistent and I'd argue was the biggest story that day. It's definitely more reasonable than that now infamous Daily Mirror headline from 2004, "How can 59 million or so people be so DUMB?" So let's pump the brakes a bit; the NYT is not yet a tabloid, neither is journalistic integrity "dead" in this country. Jesus Christ.

Also, while I understand the broad appeal of Twitter, it should be taken away from both news journalists and presidents alike. All of these issues take a whole hell of a lot more than 140 characters to encapsulate and it only serves to embolden the hyper-partisan, under-informed.

For the time being, sports journalists shall continue to tweet. GOTTA HAVE MY D-MO UPDATES!