|
Silver2195 posted:Now, here's the interesting media criticism angle: Why doesn't someone at the Times do a quick Google search on the recommended books when they do book-recommendation book interviews like this? More importantly, why doesn't someone at the Times do a quick Google search on someone before interviewing them? The lizard people stuff is right there on her Wikipedia page. because they were trying to cut costs and fired their copy editors https://www.chronicle.com/blogs/linguafranca/2018/06/14/new-york-times-gets-rid-of-copy-editors-mistakes-ensue/ Rent-A-Cop posted:Because legacy media has abandoned any pretense of doing actual journalism in favor of just quoting whoever is currently standing in front of them.
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2018 20:08
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 06:12 |
|
|
Tab8715 posted:Is anyone able to give a fair synopsis of NY Times criticism? their news coverage is... they have some amazing stories. They have some of the best reporting in the business. they pretty regularly break national and international news on deeply reported stories that the public would never know about if they didn't do the legwork. They are one of the most trusted sources of news in the business. They also make some deeply loving questionable editorial calls, at times (iraq war, the amount of coverage given to clinton's emails, 'no fbi probe', etc etc etc). The first point makes the impact of the second point that much worse. they make dumb copy-editing level mistakes because as mentioned above, they fired everyone when they were losing money and they crank out a shitload of words a day so some of them are wrong. They also should be better about admitting mistakes/corrections on stories, see next point. They're deeply resistant to criticism. They seem to institutionally take being attacked from both sides as proof that they should double down when that is often extremely not the case (clinton, 'no fbi probe' story, etc) They lean towards overly moderate language especially in headlines. This isn't exactly 'truth-in-the-middleism', it's more being a little afraid to call a spade a spade. There is endless speculation to be made about why (capitalism, cowardice, centrism, trust that their readers can make their own judgements, who knows) but the reasons are probably case by case. It's worth noting that all these criticisms are of someone acting in good faith. for example, a criticism of fox news would be "they lie to their viewers consistently and knowingly to promote a specific worldview". The times otoh takes seriously their mission of informing - rather than influencing - their readers. They occasionally totally and utterly gently caress it up, but I think that's their goal and it's a good one. their op-ed section is garbage garbage garbage from an rear end e: oh also helsing et al will have completely different criticism coming from a completely different place. i'm coming from a place of cheerfully mainstream western capitalist culture. awesmoe fucked around with this message at 08:41 on Dec 18, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2018 08:37
|
|
|
There's a meaningful difference between misleading presentation/highlighting of facts (eg, fox's coverage of hilary's various scandals) and literal fake news (pizzagate, qanon, etc). Ytlaya has good points about the invisibility of propaganda for the status quo , but I'm gonna draw a line in the sand and say that reporting based in fact is better than reporting not based in fact.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2018 21:38
|
|
|
Helsing posted:This is why it's important to try and define the terms we use so we don't slip into overly broad or vague language. * your initial point of 'mainstream media is bad because the mainstream is bad' (jokingly paraphrased) * the ideological slants of mainstream news and how that affects coverage within the mainstream (eg biases of fox, nyt, politico, and how that plays out in hiring, coverage) * the politicization and commercialization of fake news - the way chain-forwards have been weaponized and the effect (if any!) that has on the populous * media literacy - the differences between op-eds and news, continued incredulity that the mainstream papers won't say use the word 'lie' in headlines, etc. * a bunch of other longass posts that I skim over cos i'm not super interested and that's not even getting into the other media news about journalistic violence etc. It's a great thread and I'm glad you've made it. Rent-A-Cop posted:Where does the entire leadup to the Iraq War fall on this spectrum for you?  e: like if you really believe they were obviously lies to everyone at the paper then yeah everyone at the nyt is a cackling ghoul sending young men off to die while grabbing bags of money if you accept that the lies were believable to a scoop-hungry zealot, then it's a massive journalistic failure for miller to trust those particular sources, and a massive editorial failure in giving her the trust to write the story without more vetting. But in this case, they printed it because they thought it was news, even if they were disastrously wrong. Either way it was an institutional fuckup that the paper's credibility will never recover from (and rightly so). awesmoe fucked around with this message at 22:46 on Dec 18, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2018 22:21
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:i guess it's less of an issue in yankeeland what with the authorities knowing everything anyway, but i understand that source protection through compartmentalisation is Good practice, and also of the paper has your sources they don't really need you That’s not really something that applies when the sources aren’t anonymous
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2018 04:19
|
|
|
Why should everything have to agitate for beneficial (as defined by you), meaningful change? Why is an informed citizenry not itself a worthy goal?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2018 05:11
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 06:12 |
|
|
eviltastic posted:Seems like the thread for this: Max Boot has an article out comparing Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to Sarah Palin. It reads about like you'd expect a Max Boot column comparing AOC to Sarah Palin to read, and isn't that interesting except as another example of a nevertrumper tut-tutting about leftists in America. I mention it here because the tone of many comments on the article differ pretty jarringly from the social media reaction. Basically, it looks to me like Boot is getting absolutely dragged on Twitter, but getting plenty of supportive chin scratching hrmery on the actual WaPo page. I wouldn't necessarily have expected that. e: I'm not super with it today so I'm just not sure what you're asking awesmoe fucked around with this message at 19:51 on Jan 8, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2019 19:46
|
|