-- Hannah Arendt, https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1978/10/26/hannah-arendt-fr...
We could force them to identify their owners, just like drugs have to list side-effects. Make them change 'NBC' to 'NBC (Comcast)'.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military%E2%80%93industrial%E2...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_of_media_ownersh...
It’s not clear to me that the press as an institution is still necessary in the age of the internet. It’s also not clear to me that the media, as it exists, deserves the protections that have developed over the years. The notion of writing articles that not only don’t cite sources, but keep them secret, is obsolete.
Americans no longer trust the press: https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2018/10/25/18022956/amazon-tru...
> The top five were the military, Amazon, Google, local police, and colleges and universities. The bottom five were the press, the executive branch, Facebook, political parties, and Congress.
And with good reason: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/a-certain-bloombe...
While Trump has undoubtedly degraded the office of the President, the blatant politicization of the media in response to him has degraded the press just as much: https://www.dailywire.com/news/leaked-transcript-nyt-staff-m...
The fact that a press is necessary to a free society does not mean that this press is what should serve that function. In this day and age of universal literacy and universal access to information via the Internet, we need reporting of facts, not self-appointed guardians of the “narrative.”
Go back and look at CNN tapes from the late 1980s or early 1990s. They’re unrecognizable compared to news broadcasts today. Neutral, unemotional, reporting of facts. No attempt to construct larger narratives or push them down viewers’ throats.
I am literally laughing out loud.
Also, CNN has always been pro-US-establishment pro-corporate pro-military, a general center–right outlook, with a focus on sensationalism and opinion, lots of time given to various “Washington insiders” and ex officials, and mediocre coverage of the news. It wasn’t (like Fox) explicitly set up to be a propaganda network, and there are many good journalists working for CNN, but the end product is still pretty bad. The whole concept of a 24–hour cable TV news station is absurd, in practice. It’s not that there couldn’t be enough material to fill the day, but since cable stations have to compete for channel-surfers, every incentive is to be as salacious and repetitive as possible. 1 hours per day is about the maximum most viewers have attention for TV news coverage, and e.g. the BBC or PBS are reasonably successful at filling a bit of TV time with news, but for extended coverage newspapers are inherently a much better format. All the small important stories on the later pages are never going to make it on TV.
> It’s not clear to me that the press as an institution is still necessary in the age of the internet. It’s also not clear to me that the media, as it exists, deserves the protections that have developed over the years. The notion of writing articles that not only don’t cite sources, but keep them secret, is obsolete.
That's a strange worldview. The press is not limited to dead trees but has encompassed all media that can be used to perform journalism, including the internet. It's very much an essential component of democracy, because it is the only party that is not directly or indirectly part of the government, as such they are closure to 'us' the voters than any of the other components and that is something precious. They're not called the fourth estate for nothing.
> Americans no longer trust the press: https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2018/10/25/18022956/amazon-tru....
They've been screamed at for years by buffoons that have a vested interest in getting people not to trust the press, so that shouldn't surprise you. And while you are being distracted they make off with billions and more if they can.
> The top five were the military, Amazon, Google, local police, and colleges and universities. The bottom five were the press, the executive branch, Facebook, political parties, and Congress.
Yes, and that's sad. But again, not surprising.
> And with good reason: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/a-certain-bloombe....
Talk about unbiased sources.
> While Trump has undoubtedly degraded the office of the President
No kidding. And besides that he's set back the United States about three decades in international relationships and harmed the planet in numerous ways. Whoever wanted those applecarts upset succeeded beyond their wildest imagination. And it isn't over yet, given the amount of fear in the American political system and the tendency to see personal gain as more important than the country or the planet there is a substantial chance you'll see another 5 years of this.
The damage is already larger than what will likely be recovered during my lifetime, if that happens we can add the lives of my children to that as well.
> the blatant politicization of the media in response to him has degraded the press just as much:
That happened well before Trump. Just tune in to Fox News ("Fair and Balanced", if you need to add that you know you're being taken for a ride) for a 1/2 hour if you can stomach it to see how far that BS has gone.
> https://www.dailywire.com/news/leaked-transcript-nyt-staff-m....
You do realize that you are quoting that very same press here to expose wrongdoing by one of their own?
> The fact that a press is necessary to a free society does not mean that this press is what should serve that function.
It's the best we've got. The only alternative that is viable would be to start something new. Some people are trying that, with mixed success, and the majority become part of the press establishment within a few years.
> In this day and age of universal literacy
Literacy is not enough. The ability to read does not yet equate to being a well informed voter. The degree to which people are willing to vote against their own interest never ceases to surprise me.
> and universal access to information via the Internet, we need reporting of facts, not self-appointed guardians of the “narrative.”
Yes, that would be nice. But it's a pipe dream that you'll get that off the ground in a vacuum. So it will have to be as an alternative to that which exists, it will have to be commercially viable and it will have to show that it is in for the long haul. And even then, people are lazy: they don't want just the facts, they want their thinking done for them, hence the 'editorial pages'.
> Go back and look at CNN tapes from the late 1980s or early 1990s. They’re unrecognizable compared to news broadcasts today. Neutral, unemotional, reporting of facts. No attempt to construct larger narratives or push them down viewers’ throats.
If you think CNN of the 90's is so good have a look at BBC news reporting from the same period.
CNN has always had a very clear slant: pro American. The whole idea that CNN was somehow neutral is hilarious. But it's still miles ahead of anything Fox, Breitbart, RT or any of the other fantasy news services spit out. You get the good with the bad. And that's fine. We still have some responsibility after all: read from multiple sources, try to remove the bias as much as possible and figure out what parts you want to believe. Follow the money and keep your eye firmly on those things that vested interest would like you to ignore.
In any story I'm familiar with, the only newspapers that do unbiased reporting are the Financial Times and the Neue Zuercher Zeitung.
Especially in SJW stories these are the only ones that do not misquote the targets.
This is not to criticize those journalists that really do justice to their subjects, for which we should definitely be thankful.
[0] https://www.pulitzer.org/prize-winners-by-category/214
[1] https://www.pulitzer.org/prize-winners-by-category/215
Yes, if you define propaganda as "intentional lies" then the media doesn't put out much of it. But that category also excludes things like "look at our wonderful town of Pripyat, the future of our glorious union!" and other such classic propaganda. (Would you describe a WW2 era poster of a Japanese soldier with a bayonetted baby as propaganda? After all, that kinda happened, and quite a few times) But I fail to see much difference between "news generated with the express purpose of changing people's minds" and "have an agenda and to select from the facts”.
The wonderful town of Pripyat can be ignored easily, the demonization of another country's inhabitants less so.
Propaganda: The press is lying to you.
Journalism: All news organizations have an agenda and will bias their writing to suit that agenda.
Which is why I say everything on that spectrum is some variety of propaganda, and the difference between journalism and propaganda is objectivity.
There are some orthogonal components as well though: for instance, one form of propaganda could simply be labelled as distraction, a bunch of feel-good happy-go-lucky stuff that serves to take your attention away from the stuff that actually matters. It can all be totally objective and still be propaganda, just like trolls that stir up the pot can be part of a propaganda machine, even if some of the stuff they write is true.
In the end, in propaganda the ends are what matters, much less the facts. In journalism the facts are what matters, and the ends - if there are any - much less so.