There is not a single sentence of introspection as to whether the media actually can’t be trusted.
What’s the saying about convincing someone of something their job depends on them not understanding? Hm...
"Journalists, Illustrating How They Operate, Yesterday Spread a Significant Lie All Over Twitter"
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26509654
https://greenwald.substack.com/p/journalists-illustrating-ho....
Who is your favorite author that identifies as a progressive?
I'm lacking good progressive voices that I trust. Rather, I trust many of them to give me a sense of where the Democratic party in the US is heading, but not to reliably report the strengths and weaknesses of their position. Freddie Deboer might be the closest that I come, and while he's arguably very progressive, he's not typical. Any suggestions?
Edit: For non-media bloggers who touch on social issues, I'd suggest Andrew Gelman and Scott Aaronson as being good progressive voices. For media, I should have added Matt Taibbi, but he may also be in the very liberal but not-exactly-progressive camp.
None of these people will espouse things like raising the minimum wage, reducing our out of control military budget, or god forbid, universal healthcare for Americans. This is what modern progressives want and where the Democratic party is heading, eventually. No one cares about "cancel culture" or "SJWs" like you'll constantly read about with this list.
Odd, I have completely the opposite impression. I support all of these things, and I would have guessed that all 7 people I named each support at least one and often all of these. I'd put them more on the losing Sanders side of the Democratic party, which I think has more support for the things you list than the currently dominant and more centrist Biden side. By contrast, I'd say it's the NPR/CNN/NYT voice that does not particularly support the things you list, at least not to the same extent.
I could go through and try to pick out quotes to support this, but this probably wouldn't be persuasive. Instead, perhaps you could suggest some people that I should add to my reading list? I've given quite a few names that I think provide a useful contrast to the mainstream US media. Who else should I be reading to get a more complete picture? What are the trustworthy progressive sources, with "trustworthy" being defined as prioritizing things they believe are true over strategic communication?
The progressive side of the party is not dominant but clearly ascendant over the last several years, and Greenwald’s attacks on the party have become more intense the more the progressive side has become more ascendant. Greenwald may have once been a progressive, but what he has clearly since become is simply an anti-Democrat whose entire schtick is performative leftism to try to drive a wedge between progressives and the Democratic Party.
Matt Yglesias is, AFAICT—and while I kinda burned out on him fairly early in his blogging career I read him heavily then and occasionally since and this doesn't seem to have changed—a center-right figure of almost exactly the sort dominant in the Democratic Party. He sometimes has fairly intense disagreements on particular points with dominant figures, but he doesn't seem to be particularly to their left.
If you want truth, stop buying news and use that time to study higher levels of mathematics beyond what you understand now. Honestly, just don’t buy news unless you’re in a position to profit from it.
It's the only organization I've read that actually makes me think of journalism as opposed to news. They have an About page that they've very much followed [1].
Most of my friends who have checked out an article have ended up subscribing!
Are we talking about the Tim Pool who thought Trump would win in a landslide, and who pushed the "little guy vs big guy" narrative of GME (even though the big guys made billions)?
> He is very critical of most of the media as well.
He embodies the very problem of the media: they want views over anything else so they resort to click bait and fear and outrage. I mean, just read his video titles...
"Trump Supporters HAVE TAKEN OVER THE CAPITOL, Shots Fired INSIDE, Electoral Count Session ENDED"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0M8bginejxE
Which is it?
Also if you look at his videos, every single one is lying in the title. This person is a living satire of clickbait and misinformation.
Depending on how you define "media sources", TNP's lack of original reporting may disqualify them, but you may want to check them out anyway.
I think "trust CEOs" is significantly less supported by Edelman's data than "reduce press freedom, emulate China," but I'm just a random internet commentator, not a high quality journalist like Felix Salmon.
I'd also note that the 3% drop also appears to be barely outside the survey's margin of error (survey population size: n=1,150).
[0] Media trust chart is on page 49 https://www.edelman.com/sites/g/files/aatuss191/files/2021-0...
Sometimes things are malicious, sometimes things are ignorant, and sometimes it’s a mix. Is trying to be more specific about causes a “defence”?
Three sources of bias in polling.
No problem in politically uncontroversial polls, but cryptonite otherwise.
In other words, an organization with dubious motivations headquartered in Europe rates non-Western countries as low in their subjective measurement.
How surprising to see that all of the Anglosphere got glowing rankings!
The only way you could still think it's an objective ranking is if you REALLY think we're going to all these wars to free people.
You have 0 idea, guess what? me neither, that's why you know the ranking is bullshit.
I have lived in 4 of the countries mentioned above, they have wildly significant difference in rankings. My subjective take on the freedom of the press in those places?, it is very much the same.
No offense but you are exhibiting the classic case of western arrogance and ignorance. You are in no position to actually assess from 4 random picked countries in the world (Say, Bulgaria, Chile, Israel and Malaysia) who has more "freedom of the press" and by how much). Your unique rule of thumb is that you expect rich,white,western countries on top.
I'm asking this in earnest. If the primary goals of a company essentially boil down to personal and shareholder enrichment then why should I not consider all large companies an existential threat to my life itself?
Some recent headlines (from "moderate" publications - this is just one interest/topic so consider all the other unhinged propaganda they are peddling): https://twitter.com/isgoodrum/status/1372203410297032716
I'm not shocked considering most are owned by people who shouldn't be let anywhere near media (Bezos, Murdoch, Bloomberg etc) so the question "who profits from the narrative" along with over-consumption of news (compared to pre-Internet) is more urgent than it used to be. They not only control the narrative but also are able to tap into Intel journos generate (before it is news).
The Anglosphere _mainstream_ media seems to me a lot more toxic than anything I consume in other languages. No of them are ranked in top-25: https://rsf.org/en/ranking with US at #45 being far behind "shithole countries".
Also with media in other countries people _know_ the media is corrupt because everything else is corrupt too. The corruption in US/Europe isn't any less present (compared to India or China). It has only moved further up (cost) so to "benefit", it takes 10s of thousands wired through shell/shelf companies rather than slipping a dirty cop some cash.
Also BBC is now controlled by ghouls:
The New BBC Chairman has Donated OVER £400,000 to the Conservatives https://bylinetimes.com/2021/01/06/new-bbc-chairman-richard-...
Some more headlines and excerpts:
Biden withdraws Trump rule on schools disclosing ties to Chinese state-run Confucius Institutes - https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/news/biden-trump-rul...
[China] has spent more than $158 million on schools in the U.S. since 2006. Many colleges didn't reveal they've accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars from China despite Education Department guidance that requires reporting of foreign gifts. - https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/27/china-college-conf...
Businesses with Chinese connections gave Australia's major parties more than $5.5 million between 2013 and 2015, making them easily the largest source of foreign-linked donations. - https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-21/australian-groups-str...
Apple Told Some Apple TV+ Show Developers Not To Anger China - https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/alexkantrowitz/apple-ch...
Chinese students in Australia fear reprisals at home if they speak out, inquiry hears - https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/mar/12/chine...
Perry Link, emeritus professor of East Asian Studies at Princeton University, says that [..] American scholars practice self-censorship about China and adopt the official narrative of the Chinese regime when talking about sensitive issues. “We don’t talk about ‘Taiwan independence.’ We talk about ‘the cross-Strait relations.’ We don’t talk about ‘the occupation of Tibet.’ We don’t call the June 4th Massacre ‘massacre.’ - https://www.theepochtimes.com/how-the-american-academy-misle...
Leica Camera has sought to distance itself from a promotional video depicting photographers covering the deadly Tiananmen Square crackdown three decades ago, after it landed the German company in hot water in China. - https://www.scmp.com/news/china/politics/article/3006817/lei...
Mercedes-Benz apologizes to Chinese for quoting Dalai Lama - https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mercedes-benz-china-gaffe...
Uyghur students in Egypt detained, sent back to China - https://www.refworld.org/docid/5971a88ea.html
Nearly a dozen Uyghurs repatriated from Malaysia to China are sent to prison for ‘separatism.’ - https://www.rfa.org/english/news/uyghur/malaysia-12202012181...
A national fibreoptic backbone will be built for Pakistan not only for internet traffic, Dawn reports, but also for terrestrial distribution of broadcast TV, which will cooperate with Chinese media in the “dissemination of Chinese culture”. - https://indianexpress.com/article/india/china-pakistan-econo...
I guess it's easy to portray this as unhinged if you don't include any headlines with substance.
> Apple Told Some Apple TV+ Show Developers Not To Anger China
I guess asking the mainstream media, which has for decades denigrated Asians constantly, to tone it down a little is just too much to ask?
Get out of your echo chamber.
Additionally, you'll have to have a lot stronger proof than that if you're going to claim that Muslim countries are ok with Muslims being genocided.
"Muslim countries are ok with Muslims being genocided."
So what I'm getting at is you can't take as evidence the way these Muslim countries present themselves to the world insofar as this particular geopolitical question is concerned because the incentives likely force them into the pro-CCP position irrespective of what the truth is. Expensive moral righteousness is only easy if you're rich.
First, this clouds the arguments being made against real racism (or at least what I think most people would have agreed on what this term meant in past years), and this weakens the voices of victims of that racism. Second, this gives governments and regimes a powerful mechanism to silence any dissent, by using the cover of racism to shut down cricitism far more effectively by potentially painting anyone who criticizes them as a racist.
The first point risks the word "racist" becoming a blunt label that ultimately reduces its effectiveness. Consider that when just about anyone could be considered a "racist" for discussion or behaviour that arguably has nothing to do with racism, then the term itself really starts to lose its meaning and risks devolving into just another derogatory term again any person with thoughts/behaviours one disagrees with. The second point has the insidious effect of shutting down any honest discussion about the statements and actions of governments and regimes around the world, arguably to the detriment of the vast majority of people in the world.
To me it seems more and more like the label "racist" is being thrown around with far too wide a net. As a result, the real victims of racism get their voices drowned out, while other interests get to co-opt the term as a powerful label to use for pushing their own agendas.
And it shows in this tweet, which is completely devoid of any sane and intellectually honest context.
Supposedly this is a bold new format of journalism that will win back trust and cater to our foreshortened attention spans. It regularly wins praise on this site and elsewhere, but I find it shallow.
"start of a novel"
> Media outlets can continue to report reliable facts, but that won't turn the trend around on its own.
(Emphasis mine)
What are we to make of the text before the comma? It straightforwardly implies that the media is, and has been, fully reliable. Is this a "bare fact" or is it opinion?
> Axios has a stated mission to "help restore trust in fact-based news.
And a link onward to a piece with the title Our promises to you: Axios Bill of Rights:
https://www.axios.com/axios-bill-of-rights-f4f96067-ff4c-47d...
First, the US Constitution's Bill Of Rights is not a list of promises; rather a list of demands that the central authority limit impositions of its power upon regional authorities and free citizens. Axios tries to slip into the more respected clothing that is the work of others -- but it does not fit.
Worse follows. As prolog to the Axios "Rights" we find this:
>Why it matters: Nothing matters more than winning the war for truth.
https://www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,5753,-21...
What is or could be a "war for truth"? When has gaining truth ever been the aim of war? When relations have degenerated to a state of warfare, hasn't truth always suffered violence rather than been "won"?