DaddySatyr
Posts: 9381
Joined: 8/29/2011
From: Pittston, Pennsyltucky
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
Since we're endlessly debating this on every thread, apparently it needs a thread of its own.
From yellow journalism to Breitbart to Fox News to MSNBC to CNN to Pravda, everybody's got an opinion. But opinions aren't simply truth either.
Nasty journalism isn't new. Breitbart's leader acknowledged that Breitbart makes up news for its particular clientele (unless he's lying...fake news about fake news...). MSNBC and CNN have clearly given up on balanced. Fox was founded NOT to be balanced (i.e., to tell the "other" side). And the NY Times and the Washington Post have clearly spun things their way.
But denouncing anything we don't want to hear as "fake news" simply keeps us stupid.
To me, this means (it actually always did), that looking at the actual story, including evidence presented and sources, matters, whatever the news/source.
To others, it means getting your news from the "right" source.
Still others (including me, and Michael mentioned this recently) like to check news from a variety of sources, whether we "agree" or not.
How do we proceed, short of simply making up what we want, in an era of "Fake News" (and simply labeling dissenting voices as "fake news")?
Mark this day on your calendar! You and I (according to this post) agree entirely!
That said, I know a little something about journalism and while the profession has been in decline for quite some time, the advent of "fake" news is scary to me.
Why? Well, "fake" news is an issue. I think it was Denzel Washington who said, recently: "If you don't read the news, you're uninformed. If you do read the news, you're misinformed." I could be wrong, but that sounds like a Rogers quote to me.
No matter who said it, it is painfully accurate in the current climate.
Sure, no one does their job without any slant what-so-ever and it's pretty easy (now a days) to figure out what their slant is. My main objection is that the purveyors of journalism should make us well aware of what their particular slant is.
I was hired by my boss because of my slant, but even with that, there are still journalistic ethics that must be met. That's where the rubber meets the road.
The recent story about President-Elect Trumps alleged ties to Russia never should have been published.
Also, I think it's interesting to note that BuzzFeed is owned by NBC, an outlet that has shown their bias in spades, for, at least five years, now.
The job of the media (in this country) has always been to hold the government's feet to the fire. The media is supposed to be the window of transparency through which the public gets to discriminate, when it comes time to vote. What kills me about "fake news" is that immediately on the heels of this new pronouncement were people calling on the government to "do something". We run a big risk, here.
There are people, running around, decrying President-Elect Trump as a "Fascist". You want to see Fascism? Put the government in charge of which news stories are real and which ones are "fake". That's the real danger, here.
Thank you, Tim.
Michael
< Message edited by DaddySatyr -- 1/12/2017 12:58:31 PM >
_____________________________
A Stone in My Shoe
Screen captures (and pissing on shadows) still RULE! Ya feel me?
"For that which I love, I will do horrible things"
|
So who started fake news? - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread