Do You Trust the Media?

[amcnj]

I am dismayed by the amount of "opinion" that is in news stories anymore, even from what were previously more objective sources of news. There was always a role for commentary and opinions, but it seems that even many news stories now contain it too. And it can be subtle, like just the choice of adjectives used to describe something. Just give me the facts and let me decide if something is "insert the adjective here" or not.

 

[sunshinehighway]

I am dismayed by the amount of "opinion" that is in news stories anymore, even from what were previously more objective sources of news. There was always a role for commentary and opinions, but it seems that even many news stories now contain it too. And it can be subtle, like just the choice of adjectives used to describe something. Just give me the facts and let me decide if something is "insert the adjective here" or not.

That's nothing new, at be least as far as using adjectives in articles. I think the problem now is people just want a way to dismiss what they don't like so they jump to it being biased and untrustworthy.

 

[AnnaFloridaLover]

I often cringe when I read report pieces from columnists in my local newspapers. All too frequently the writer's grammar, spelling and punctuation is 4th grade level, leaving me to ponder how one scores a top gig at a largely circulated daily.

I'm not interested in a journalist's opinion on any matter. Stick with the facts please and leave the drama and debating to the readers.

It appears to me that most journalists are shifting away from the objectivity that used to be heralded in the field. Although, quite possibly, I inaccurately assume that it used to be heralded when, in fact, the bias was as present then as it is now.

On the other hand, these really are dramatic and scary times.

 

[FlightlessDuck]

That depends on what you mean by "trust the media". If a news article tells me that there was an eclipse, I'm not going to assume they are lying as part of a conspiracy to hide the fact that the Earth is flat. If the media says something happened, it probably happened.

I don't trust the spin you see put on stuff. Like journalism has bad track record when it comes to reporting on scientific research, for example.

 

[JaneBanks]

I do but I choose where I get my news as best as I can.

 

[amberpi]

I trust a lot of major news sources more than some officials...Bloomberg and the Economist that are without a huge slant are my go-tos.

Here's something I think of often from a great show, The Newsroom:

Will McAvoy: What does winning look like to you?

Mackenzie MacHale: Reclaiming the fourth estate. Reclaiming journalism as an honorable profession. A nightly newscast that informs a debate worthy of a great nation. Civility, respect and a return to what's important; the death of *****iness; the death of gossip and voyeurism; speaking truth to stupid. No demographic sweet spot; a place where we can all come together.

That's what I seek in my news. I don't always agree with my go-to op-ed pieces, but I think they are a good source of news.

ETA:

Mackenzie MacHale: You know what you left out of your sermon? That America is the only country on the planet that, since its birth, has said over and over and over that we can do better. It's part of our DNA. People will want the news if you give it to them with integrity. Not everybody, not even a lot of people: 5%. And 5% more of anything is what makes the difference in this country. So we can do better.

 

[ELKA]

The free press is a vital part of our democracy. So, yes, I support the free press, and I choose multiple news sources who practice good journalism and support them with my $$$ by subscribing. When I hear people diss the media, it makes me angry, particularly when it comes to politicians who do that. Without the free press, we'd never have known about Watergate, for example. If our free press goes away, so does our democracy. There's a very, very important reason for the 1st Amendment to our Constitution, and that includes why it was first....

I agree that we would not have known about Watergate if we hadn’t a free press. Today’s journalists don’t have the same rules that was there in the 1970s. When I first learned what journalism is, the questions to be answered was who, what, where, when, why and how was what an article was supposed to tell. There were no stances to be taken and a story wasn’t the narrative and the goal. News organizations were upfront about when a journalist couldn’t write an accurate story because of censorship. Today a place that has censorship is treated the same way as a place with no censorship. In today’s News, the Kardashians have more interest than what is happening in Iran. This is what disgusts me, so our so called main stream media has become gossip mongers instead of truth mongers.

There is a movie coming out about the Pentagon Papers, the story of how the Washington Post dealt with the publishing of those papers. What is interesting is that the New York Times published the Pentagon Papers before the Washington Post. Publishing those papers led to Watergate. Nixon had a very interesting relationship with the media.

 

[wgeo]

That depends on what you mean by "trust the media". If a news article tells me that there was an eclipse, I'm not going to assume they are lying as part of a conspiracy to hide the fact that the Earth is flat. If the media says something happened, it probably happened.

I don't trust the spin you see put on stuff. Like journalism has bad track record when it comes to reporting on scientific research, for example.

This is an interesting topic. For example, the bolded sentence sounds like a fact. However it is actually opinion until there is verifiable proof given to show that it is correct. It could be a fact, but I'm not sure because I don't have other studies,or facts or empirical evidence to decide.

So I guess, for me at least, we are very much in a "trust but verify" age. Even with the places that I do consider to be better at factual reporting, I am still always looking to see who their source is or where they are getting their info from, what their proof actually is. And there are still places out there that provide that type of information regularly within their news articles.

 

[sam_gordon]

I agree that we would not have known about Watergate if we hadn’t a free press. Today’s journalists don’t have the same rules that was there in the 1970s.

Actually there are.

When I first learned what journalism is, the questions to be answered was who, what, where, when, why and how was what an article was supposed to tell. There were no stances to be taken and a story wasn’t the narrative and the goal. News organizations were upfront about when a journalist couldn’t write an accurate story because of censorship. Today a place that has censorship is treated the same way as a place with no censorship.

You need to make sure you differentiate between opinion and news pieces (in all forms of media)

In today’s News, the Kardashians have more interest than what is happening in Iran. This is what disgusts me, so our so called main stream media has become gossip mongers instead of truth mongers.

It's because the media is giving it's customers what they want. Is that a problem with the media or with the consumers?

 

[FlightlessDuck]

This is an interesting topic. For example, the bolded sentence sounds like a fact. However it is actually opinion until there is verifiable proof given to show that it is correct.

Right, it is more a problem with journalists latching on to one part of a study they can't hope to understand and declaring "coffee gives you cancer" or whatever.

 

[FlightlessDuck]

What you need to be more concerned about is stuff you don't hear about. Did you know 300+ people died in a Mogadishu truck bomb attack Saturday?

 

[Kitty 34]

Nope, I find lately they don't confirm before they launch a story. It seems the all want to yell "BREAKING NEWS"

And FWIW - it is not BREAKING NEWS 12hrs later.

Even the Weather Channel has jump into all the "Breaking News" stories. Yes many weather conditions (esp hurricanes and tornadoes) and their aftermath can be considered breaking news but my gosh....they try to turn every weather event into breaking news....drives me nuts!!!

 

[Pea-n-Me]

Not inherently. I utilize many news sources.

 

[AnnaFloridaLover]

I trust a lot of major news sources more than some officials...Bloomberg and the Economist that are without a huge slant are my go-tos.

Here's something I think of often from a great show, The Newsroom:

Will McAvoy: What does winning look like to you?

Mackenzie MacHale: Reclaiming the fourth estate. Reclaiming journalism as an honorable profession. A nightly newscast that informs a debate worthy of a great nation. Civility, respect and a return to what's important; the death of *****iness; the death of gossip and voyeurism; speaking truth to stupid. No demographic sweet spot; a place where we can all come together.

That's what I seek in my news. I don't always agree with my go-to op-ed pieces, but I think they are a good source of news.

ETA:

Mackenzie MacHale: You know what you left out of your sermon? That America is the only country on the planet that, since its birth, has said over and over and over that we can do better. It's part of our DNA. People will want the news if you give it to them with integrity. Not everybody, not even a lot of people: 5%. And 5% more of anything is what makes the difference in this country. So we can do better.

I find the bolded statement dramatic and imaginary.

 

[Marchand63]

Even the Weather Channel has jump into all the "Breaking News" stories. Yes many weather conditions (esp hurricanes and tornadoes) and their aftermath can be considered breaking news but my gosh....they try to turn every weather event into breaking news....drives me nuts!!!

Oh I know. Every snowstorm here is the blizzard of the century. Every rainstorm is a Nor'easter.

 

[Wishing on a star]

Sure, it is hard to be without bias and agenda...
But, when a supposedly true and journalistic news source is very very clearly all about bias and agenda...
NOPE, don't trust any of it.

When one digs to find the facts and the whole truth, instead of the agenda driven headlines, it all becomes so very clear.

 

[pigletto]

Absolutely not. Not on either end of the spectrum .
I took a Women's Studies class in my 20's and I remember them teaching us to critically analyze text and news etc. We were told to always ask ourselves this question..

"Who benefits, and to what purpose?"

When you ask yourself that, it leads to more questions, but you don't just blindly accept what you are being fed. There is always an agenda, and it's our job to figure it out.

 

[ELKA]

Actually there are.
You need to make sure you differentiate between opinion and news pieces (in all forms of media)
It's because the media is giving it's customers what they want. Is that a problem with the media or with the consumers?

I am not sure what exactly you are trying to discuss with me in your replies. A news story is supposed to give me a context of what is happening in what they are reporting to the best of their ability. I’m not going to say that mistakes don’t happen, but deliberately not reporting a fact, could lead to unnecessary violence. The woman who died in Charlottesville, funny that they didn’t run the picture of her in her black outfit, with a pack of cigarettes in her hand and didn’t report she died of heart attack. Yet they run a picture of her taken 30 years before. Why didn’t they show what she looked like on the day she died?

 

[sam_gordon]

I am not sure what exactly you are trying to discuss with me in your replies. A news story is supposed to give me a context of what is happening in what they are reporting to the best of their ability. I’m not going to say that mistakes don’t happen, but deliberately not reporting a fact, could lead to unnecessary violence. The woman who died in Charlottesville, funny that they didn’t run the picture of her in her black outfit, with a pack of cigarettes in her hand and didn’t report she died of heart attack. Yet they run a picture of her taken 30 years before. Why didn’t they show what she looked like on the day she died?

I don't want to get into specific instances, but just to give you two quick possible answers:
* That's the picture her family gave the media
* The media didn't have access to the one in her "black outfit"

 

[Jdbsfw]

Nope, and becuse of their biases, can’t trust the so called “fact check” sites either.....