Challenging the big bad media monster

ancapailldorcha

Gregor Samsa wrote: »

What makes the fact that anyone can post anything up in these sites, and make money from the simple fact of people viewing, inherently reliable?

That you choose to believe the content you’ve chosen to believe does not make it reliable.

They're also funded by advertising which is fine when they agree with your bias.

ancapailldorcha

Deleted User wrote: »

If you do that then I applaud you. However RTE had an ex CNN reporter on the news for days now to give us the "American" viewpoint. They might as well have had Tucker Carlson on - at least Tucker is funny. I would trust anything she said as much as I'd trust Tuckers viewpoint - that's to say not at all.

So someone who panders to your bias is fine but someone who doesn't isn't? You're not even pretending to care about fairness here.

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

So someone who panders to your bias is fine but someone who doesn't isn't? You're not even pretending to care about fairness here.

What? I don't trust either of them. They are both completely biased. That's my point.

Gregor Samsa

Richard Hillman wrote: »

1/3rd of the population voted against things like Same Sex Marriage and Abortion, where is their media representation? About 1 in 10 support Donald Trump, where is their media representation? About 1 in 10 are anti EU, where is their media representation?

You’re making it out like their media representation is being actively denied to them. This isn’t the case.

If there’s such a large market for these views, why hasn’t it been filled? Why haven’t the Irish Catholic and Alive! - who do cater to some of these viewpoints- got massive circulation numbers? The simple fact is that there isn’t really the market for it. If there was, there’s plenty of savvy business people that would take advantage. And maybe it will happen some day. But it’s not the “liberal media’s” fault that the “conservative media” doesn’t have a large presence here - that’s entirely up to “conservatives”.

Harry Palmr

Machine learning must be part of the reason grammar has biggly gone bad.

Here's an example of a story that won't make the news here but should because its a huge change. Why won't it make the news? Because the Trump administration was instrumental in it.

The whole cascade of peace deals all over the Middle East has also been completely ignored.

https://apnews.com/article/dubai-united-arab-emirates-honor-killings-travel-islam-bce74c423897dc77c7beb72e4f51a23a

The point is that whether a story is newsworthy should not depend on whether it shows a politician or party in a good or a bad light. Bad Trump and Boris Johnson stories are always run, whereas bad Jeremy Corbyn or Biden stories aren't. The truth is much more complex.

In the same debate where Trump said to the proud boys to stand by, Biden called ANTIFA "Just an idea" which is demonstrably nonsense - an idea burning down whole city blocks. He also compared Kim Jong Un to Hitler in the same debate. A great move for peace.

Also the armed rebellion predicted from Trump supporters has completely failed to materialise.

Meant To Say

Meant To Say wrote: »

Far too much of today's journalism is just boomers whinging about Trump, Brexit, Sinn Fein etc

Yeah we get it, you hate 'populism' fine whatever.

I want to know what's happening in the world but do I need to know Gene Kerrigan's opinion on it? Or Fintan O'Toole? Not really no.

It's a badge of honour and "rebellion" to call out these things when all you are doing is proclaiming your mainstream rightthink credentials.

TP_CM

TP_CM wrote: »

I think you're giving humans more credit than they have earned. As far as I can see, whatever gets published in mainstream media dictates how the majority of people feel and think. I'm not sure there is as much critical thinking happening as you're implying.

In fairness, you claim not to be a conspiracy theorist but are pushing a Biden senile narrative and seem to think we're not getting the science on covid(masks and hand cleaning do hold an important role btw), we are... You more seem to be annoyed by the lack of promoting questionable narratives which have no proof.

ancapailldorcha

Deleted User wrote: »

Here's an example of a story that won't make the news here but should because its a huge change. Why won't it make the news? Because the Trump administration was instrumental in it.

The whole cascade of peace deals all over the Middle East has also been completely ignored.

https://apnews.com/article/dubai-united-arab-emirates-honor-killings-travel-islam-bce74c423897dc77c7beb72e4f51a23a

It did:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/07/united-arab-emirates-to-relax-islamic-laws-on-personal-freedoms

TP_CM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

In fairness, you claim not to be a conspiracy theorist but are pushing a Biden senile narrative and seem to think we're not getting the science on covid(masks and hand cleaning do hold an important role btw), we are... You more seem to be annoyed by the lack of promoting questionable narratives which have no proof.

I have to pick some examples to help illustrate the point I am making. I really am not pushing my examples with links and proof purely because this is not the thread for that as I've mentioned before. Again, there is a "if you're not with us, you're against us" vibe here. I believe in masks, I would vote for Biden. It doesn't mean I enjoy the media which acts like he is a God, or that there aren't other opinions on the approach we should be taking during this pandemic. There are loads of scientists who think the approach we're taking is absolutely crazy. These are scientists with publications coming out of their ears and they're getting zero airtime simply because they don't fit in with the agenda.

Similarly - did you see the Trump voters who were generally getting airtime recently? Idiots who can't string a logical sentence together? No one will convince me that all Trump voters are like that, or that no Biden voters are like that. They choose them nicely. There are exceptions obviously but I think in general there was a certain demographic chosen for both. That's the type of lack of balance I think we're missing.

AllForIt

Fighting Tao wrote: »

It is quite simple. It is easy to pick and choose what news sources you want to read, and being outraged is a choice. Media is consumed and consummation is a choice.

If you don’t agree with something then there are enough echo chambers on the internet to hide in.

That is a load of nonsense. The OP was talking about the whole of the media and having an unbiased news source is crucial to a properly functioning democracy.

Dyr

I think one reporter put it like this "our job is to report the reality of whats out there"

The media and social media now justs gaslights people into believing that their agenda is the reality

440Hertz

I tend to find in the U.K. anyway, you’ll get people ranting about the BBC being biased and reading the Daily Express or Mail.

In reality it seems to always come down to people, usually on the right (but sometimes on the left) getting angry because a broad channel, paper or other outlet is airing stories they don’t like.

Look at the amount of niche right wing media in the US and UK is and has been enormous for years, particularly looking at say Fox News or most of the British tabloids, which have huge readership and there’s a growing array of online media outlets catering for every bubble you can think of.

I just find this whining about “de media” and “MSM” becomes rather tiresome, particularly when it almost always comes down to “my world view is x ... how dare the media attempt to reflect broader society!”

TP_CM

440Hertz wrote: »

I just find this whining about “de media” and “MSM” becomes rather tiresome, particularly when it almost always comes down to “my world view is x ... how dare the media attempt to reflect broader society!”

I think the difference in opinion here though is that I think the media is stronger than broader society. In other words, I think broader society reflects the media's ideas, as opposed to the other way around. How many opinions of Trump and Biden have been formulated on what people have read or seen on social media? Imo, a lot.

Fighting Tao

Deleted User wrote: »

Totally missing the point. The OPs point is that the mainstream media has largely become one of those echo chambers.

It hasn’t, unless you have extreme views which never got airtime. Just because you can read crap and on Infowars etc, doesn’t mean that crap should be on the 6 o’clock news.

Fighting Tao

AllForIt wrote: »

That is a load of nonsense. The OP was talking about the whole of the media and having an unbiased news source is crucial to a properly functioning democracy.

Yeah, you are right. ISIS, Iona Institute, IRA, UVF, etc., should all have a slot on all stations news, and columns in the papers. The sad thing is that some already do have regular slots.

Eric Cartman

All of these services are competing for ad revenue in order to stay afloat, as a result they have to target the most likely to spend and the most susceptible to advertising.

In this case it means media outlets have to pander to what they think women want to hear. Women are responsible for 80% of consumer spending and 85% of credit card debt.

Sadly this often leads to advertisers pulling out of media outlets that dont paint an increasingly ‘feelings over facts’ warm fuzzy safe space For their audience.

The only way youre going to have impartial broadcasting return is to fund news and current affairs out of something that isnt government taxation or advertising.

We see with government funded stations the same thing happens where politicians agree to fund the Warm fuzzy safe space ... hence RTE who now wont criticise anyone that a pbp voter likes

lemonTrees

The problem is lack of balance within the media and in years to come we will regret that dearly. The pendulum has swung too far to the left. In a media world that views someone like Margaret Cash as a saint and the "defund the police" shouts get louder you know we are truly in a bad spot.

Fighting Tao

lemonTrees wrote: »

The problem is lack of balance within the media and in years to come we will regret that dearly. The pendulum has swung too far to the left. In a media world that views someone like Margaret Cash as a saint and the "defund the police" shouts get louder you know we are truly in a bad spot.

It’s a race to get the story first these days due to the internet and dispersal of information. There are not hours to do the fact checking that used to be done. She was dropped rapidly when she was exposed for what she is. It would be great if all journalists had to do proper investigative journalism, but these days everyone can be a journalist and the internet does not refuse a good yarn. Sadly the internet is causing the demise of journalism.

440Hertz

TP_CM wrote: »

I think the difference in opinion here though is that I think the media is stronger than broader society. In other words, I think broader society reflects the media's ideas, as opposed to the other way around. How many opinions of Trump and Biden have been formulated on what people have read or seen on social media? Imo, a lot.

You’re conflating social media with the traditional media and also the US and UK have been exposed to giant public relations / political communication machines, driven by political parties and very powerful lobbyists in a way we don’t really see to anything like the same extent in Ireland.

You’ve also got a situation in both of those political systems where media outlets act in an absolutely blatantly political way. It’s normal in the U.K. for example for tabloid newspapers to simply back a party or a candidate, or a single issue like Brexit and the US has similar on TV, notably with Fox News.

If you look at say the Daily Express. It’s basically just a pro Brexit jingoistic propaganda magazine and Fox News might as well have just called itself Trump TV, even if it has thrown him under the bus in recent weeks.

There is an issue, but the rhetoric I see is whipped up by those who would like to see the end of public service broadcasters like BBC, RTE, PBS, major very broad commercial networks like CBS, ABC, CNN etc and have it in for The Journal, The Irish Times etc etc

Most of those extremely anti “mainstream media” lines are driven by a PR machine that would like to have more control by eliminating critical analysis, investigative journalism resources at major media companies, broad based news and current affairs etc and absolutely get rid of public service broadcasting that doesn’t have to rely on commercial revenues.

So ironically, a world where you dismantle the traditional media outlets, rapidly becomes one where you’ll be watching totally biased tv with extreme agendas, getting all your news from “free” online sources of unknown quality, control by media moguls with political agendas etc etc

Basically, you’re sold a line that the problem is the media, by people who simply want to control the message and remove any layer of organise, well resourced, objective analysis and you’re being told that’s freedom.

TP_CM

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Yeah, you are right. ISIS, Iona Institute, IRA, UVF, etc., should all have a slot on all stations news, and columns in the papers. The sad thing is that some already do have regular slots.

We're talking about information, and facts. So yes, actually if for some reason they are in the news, any proven facts relevant to their side of the story should be given some airtime. At least then I could trust the side of me that dislikes them instead of questioning whether I've been led down a garden path.

Biker79

There should be no rules on freedom of speech - unless its something illegal..
Good ideas always trump bad ideas.

The debate over freedom of speech on (de facto) public platforms is commercial in nature, not philosophical or moral.

Eric Cartman

Eric Cartman wrote: »

All of these services are competing for ad revenue in order to stay afloat, as a result they have to target the most likely to spend and the most susceptible to advertising.

In this case it means media outlets have to pander to what they think women want to hear. Women are responsible for 80% of consumer spending and 85% of credit card debt.

Sadly this often leads to advertisers pulling out of media outlets that dont paint an increasingly ‘feelings over facts’ warm fuzzy safe space For their audience.

The only way youre going to have impartial broadcasting return is to fund news and current affairs out of something that isnt government taxation or advertising.

We see with government funded stations the same thing happens where politicians agree to fund the Warm fuzzy safe space ... hence RTE who now wont criticise anyone that a pbp voter likes

Huh? Government funded public broadcasting won't criticise the opposition?

Gregor Samsa

Some people have themselves in such a tizzy about RTÉ that they’ve convinced themselves that they’re both a centre right government mouthpiece AND an extreme left wing propaganda machine. It’s Schrödinger’s TV station.

440Hertz

440Hertz wrote: »

I tend to find in the U.K. anyway, you’ll get people ranting about the BBC being biased and reading the Daily Express or Mail.

In reality it seems to always come down to people, usually on the right (but sometimes on the left) getting angry because a broad channel, paper or other outlet is airing stories they don’t like.

Look at the amount of niche right wing media in the US and UK is and has been enormous for years, particularly looking at say Fox News or most of the British tabloids, which have huge readership and there’s a growing array of online media outlets catering for every bubble you can think of.

I just find this whining about “de media” and “MSM” becomes rather tiresome, particularly when it almost always comes down to “my world view is x ... how dare the media attempt to reflect broader society!”

440Hertz wrote: »

You’re conflating social media with the traditional media and also the US and UK have been exposed to giant public relations / political communication machines, driven by political parties and very powerful lobbyists in a way we don’t really see to anything like the same extent in Ireland.

You’ve also got a situation in both of those political systems where media outlets act in an absolutely blatantly political way. It’s normal in the U.K. for example for tabloid newspapers to simply back a party or a candidate, or a single issue like Brexit and the US has similar on TV, notably with Fox News.

If you look at say the Daily Express. It’s basically just a pro Brexit jingoistic propaganda magazine and Fox News might as well have just called itself Trump TV, even if it has thrown him under the bus in recent weeks.

There is an issue, but the rhetoric I see is whipped up by those who would like to see the end of public service broadcasters like BBC, RTE, PBS, major very broad commercial networks like CBS, ABC, CNN etc and have it in for The Journal, The Irish Times etc etc

Most of those extremely anti “mainstream media” lines are driven by a PR machine that would like to have more control by eliminating critical analysis, investigative journalism resources at major media companies, broad based news and current affairs etc and absolutely get rid of public service broadcasting that doesn’t have to rely on commercial revenues.

So ironically, a world where you dismantle the traditional media outlets, rapidly becomes one where you’ll be watching totally biased tv with extreme agendas, getting all your news from “free” online sources of unknown quality, control by media moguls with political agendas etc etc

Basically, you’re sold a line that the problem is the media, by people who simply want to control the message and remove any layer of organise, well resourced, objective analysis and you’re being told that’s freedom.

Had written a big response myself but I can't do nearly as good as this. Hit the nail on the head.

I see sheep

TP_CM wrote: »

Years ago, our favourite TV or radio programme would get our attention, and we begrudgingly sat through whatever advertisements as a trade-off and the world worked fine. Now we have so much control and choice about what we consume on the web, things have changed. To get our attention, headlines need to be scarier and more emotive than those on rival media pages.

The media companies have therefore become a bit unbalanced, to put it lightly. Instead of providing us with scientific research which puts our minds at ease regarding covid, for example, we are shown coffins and crowded hospitals and Tubridy having a freak attack about how to wash his hands. Instead of showing us how old and senile Biden is, we're shown nothing but compilations of Trump gaffes. The most recent headlines appear to show America celebrating Biden's win, despite the fact that very close to 50% of people wanted Trump back in office.

They have also somehow made it uncool to challenge what they're publishing. If you think Trump getting elected isn't actually a big deal, or Biden is senile, or Boris is quite an intelligent person, or with Covid, why not just protect the old, vulnerable and anyone who wants protection from Covid? You will be cut down and ostracized in social circles. Doesn't it feel a bit like Catholicism in Ireland in the 1940s and 50s? "If you sing from the same hymn sheet as us, you're fine, but if you don't, you will suffer the wrath"?.

This isn't a thread to speak of individual events because they have their own threads and they've been done to death.

But how do we ensure we don't get wrapped up in this very "selective" media which is getting published? Wouldn't it be nice to have a single "opposition" media company, akin to an opposition party in government, whose job is to challenge the other side and the agenda they're pushing. Biden is great? Here are 5 good things Trump has done over the last 4 years. Covid is dangerous? Here is a discussion with 5 top scientists who have data to say otherwise. Boris is a clown? Take a look at these things he has achieved.

I am not a conspiracy theorist, or tin foil hat man, but I am struggling to have any confidence in what I know these days. It's getting harder and harder to drill down to the information which is just information and not biased towards one idea or another. I'm also finding it difficult to chat to people who are wrapped up in it all. It's such a dramatic fantasy at this stage. It's like trying to join a conversation about a tv soap opera. Or am I missing something?

Conspiracy theory forum for this ****e

Gregor Samsa

Gregor Samsa wrote: »

Some people have themselves in such a tizzy about RTÉ that they’ve convinced themselves that they’re both a centre right government mouthpiece AND an extreme left wing propaganda machine. It’s Schrödinger’s TV station.

RTEs coverage of COVID has been shockingly bad. Misleading people that the death rate is much higher than it is and that it kills young people in large numbers. Not questioning people like Jerry Killen and Sam McConkey when they make demonstrably false or outlandish statements. Claire Byrne in particular has been atrocious. And Ryan Tubridy leading the canonisation of Tony Holohan show, a man who attempted to cover up the cervical cancer screening failures and oversaw the moving of 4000 patients untrested for COVID into nursing homes in March and April. WHY AREN'T THESE QUESTIONS BEING ASKED?

In fairness Miriam O Callaghan has been a notable exception. George Lee is a disgrace as a reporter with his breathless excitement at deaths and hyperbole and a failure as a politician.

The utter failure to question the lock it all down narrative and the attack on Leo Varadkar for daring to suggest there might be a more balanced approach to this is a shocking failure of a state broadcaster's primary role of finding the truth.

When the dust settles and all those excess cancer and other disease deaths due to the shuttering of testing and GP services start rolling in next year and we have destroyed the ability to fund the health service and RTE due to the destruction of a large chunk of the tax base and tens of billions borrowed and wasted it will be the ordinary people who suffer again. Its a **** show. And it's so bloody obvious... What the hell is wrong with everyone?

If that means I'm labelled pro Trump and far right then work away.

Richard Hillman

Gregor Samsa wrote: »

Some people have themselves in such a tizzy about RTÉ that they’ve convinced themselves that they’re both a centre right government mouthpiece AND an extreme left wing propaganda machine. It’s Schrödinger’s TV station.

Our government are not centre right. All of the parties are left wing. Somebody like Bernie Sanders would be labled far-right in Ireland.

mariaalice

RTE can be a little consensus orientated, however, they had Karl Detter on this morning and Brenda Power last week so there is an effort to have different viewpoints.

Its the belief that there is some sort of media conspiracy to suppresses certain views is nonsense.