Instead, the Times realized that propaganda was profitable, Brooklynites or wannabe-Brooklynites were wealthy enough to fleece, and that "real news" was boring. And here we are: hoping that some random Silicon Valley startup can save the Truth for civilization.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intimidation
I suspect if this wasn’t some viral social media nonsense established publishers wouldn’t wasted any effort on this. When you are funded by advertising you go where the eyeballs are.
I used the incorrect legal term. More precisely the boy committed a lesser offense of disorderly conduct according to what the law says for that area.
https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/05/19/how-the-new-york-tim...
A current example of such bad journalism is the May 15, 2020
edition of the New York Times. On the front page of the
Times (and “above the fold” to boot) is Peter Baker’s article
on Trump’s latest campaign against President Barack
Obama, now given the politically charged catchphrase of
“Obamagate.” The charge is a typical Trumpian diversionary
tactic that has no substantive or evidentiary basis in fact.
Meanwhile, on the inside pages of the Times, we find the
testimony of a courageous whistleblower, Dr. Rick Bright, the
former director of the Biomedical Advanced Research and
Development Authority, who documented the Trump
administration’s dereliction of duty in responding to the
Covid-19 crisis. Bright’s testimony was definitely front
page news.
The “Obamagate” charge is disinformation, a total fraud. It
should be confined to the echo chambers of Fox News and
right-wing social media. But Baker’s article gives the story
greater legs, and it is a perfect example of the false
equivalence that has dominated the Times’ coverage of Trump
since his campaign in 2015. Half the article was devoted
to Trump’s grievances with his predecessor, and Senator
Lindsay Graham’s immediate willingness to investigate the
phony charges. And half was devoted to the fact that the
accusations involved “undefined and unspecified crimes.”
The following day, an article in the Times concluded that it
was Trump’s “unbending…belief” that Obama was “personally
involved in a plot against him.” It is impossible to know
what Trump actually believes so why would the Times give
him the benefit of the doubt?In short, the slanted media is what is being taught in school and writing slanted articles that please the corporate owner will get rewarded. Truth has no place under the current environment. However, there is hope.
Link to the speech: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4bxI803q6i8
However I still think it’s quite useful, just that I’d want a second opinion that might also be being paid to be slanted in another way. Somewhere in between is truth maybe.
Mainstream media is not necessarily left or right; it is corporate. Media bends to the demographics that can bring in revenue.
If it wasn’t apparent before 2016, that election stripped any façade of journalism being separated from the business of media companies. Everyone benefitted from Trump’s antics and they rode stories about them all the way to the bank.*
You would think only “right-wing” media would have benefitted from the Trump campaigns and presidency, but the death of the fairness doctrine made it easier for these media companies to target siloed demographics — left and right — and feed off them.
There was also a seismic shift in newsroom mentality when media companies downsized and went with cheaper, inexperienced journalists and editors. A great deal of the industrial knowledge accumulated by veterans was never appropriately passed on to the new generation.
Also: Too many journalist see themselves as personalities and brands because of the potential financial benefit outside of the newsroom. This has been exacerbated by social media influencer culture. It is hard to be impartial when you insert yourself into the story.
That said, there are good journalists out there who are not looking to do anything other than report on interesting and important matters. Unfortunately in the current media landscape, it can be very tough to filter signal from all the noise.
* not a political statement; simply an observation on how, regardless of leanings, media corporations exploited high ratings.
To be replaced by what though? How will one get the right input that is needed to create and inform one's opinion?
The easiest way to start is by not confusing mainstream journalism for its editorialists. Due to that I have completely written off FoxNews and anything that refers to itself as liberal or conservative news.
An ever better way to avoid nonsense and misinformation is not use social media as a news source.
If you aren’t willing to do, or incapable of, just those two things it’s hard to take you seriously.
Lately, I have really fallen into favor with France24 and Al Jazeera for news.
This is not my perception at all, do you have any evidence or anecdata for that claim?
The BBC has always produced a varied mix of palatable mainstream entertainment, niche entertainment, independent news and investigative reporting. Criticism of the BBC for being too mainstream or not mainstream enough is as old as the BBC.
In any case, compared to the US it's a completely different world.
At the end of the day society as a whole agrees how much they value independent journalism and if no consensus is found (or an existing consensus erodes), independent journalism will slowly separate from the main stream.
And while you can observe this progression in most Western democracies, the US sticks out. So the question becomes: Does the US have particularly bad journalists - or - are there US specific factors that fuel the decline of independent journalism in the US?
On most things post WWII, the US has lead the Western World by 5-15 years. And they also have a culture of very public, very loud debates.
150 million people read a newspaper every day in India alone. Your "whatabboutism" based on Substack, a tool that few outside the US bubble even know or care about, is really missing the mark here. I've lost count on how many massively complex investigations I've helped journalists work on to expose everything from war crimes to Trump's finances. Sometimes dozens of people working on it at a time, multiple countries, a few different news outlets, skills ranging from investigation to IT, with centuries of experience between everyone involved, over months or years. No way in hell a glorified blog is going to replace that.
The parent’s point seems to be that the “brave journalist” has become supplanted by the sensationalist masquerading as journalist. No doubt there are some brave journalists or even journalists with integrity, but they’re a dying breed.
Additionally your post seems condescending and snarky, which is always inappropriate and all the more so when you’re the one not following the plot.
Journalism takes a lot of resources. If you starve it of it, you kill it's integrity and end up with a least effort / highest impact product. Firing the fact checkers, because in "digital" you can fix stuff after publishing; reduce correspondents networks because you can now just copy stuff from some random person on Twitter that is supposedly there; offer people money to send in pictures of events so you don't have to pay a photographer/agency; maximizing reuse of content; hire journalists based on their klout score to increase reach; racing which outlet is the first to send the push notification and follow up story after an event, etc.
Independent journalists on blogs or Youtube, no matter how well their intentions, can not easily replace it. You don't have a legal department backing you up for critical stories; extensive network of sources and experts; you can't work extended periods of time on a single story because the algorithm overlords demand high frequency short form content. So they often end up doing not much more than summarizing what others have written. Which is valuable, but it is not where the heavy lifting is done.
I do hope, new, better forms of journalism evolve from it, but I'm a bit skeptical, given that so far it seems, that to be successful monetarily, the key ingredients are being loud, controversial and highly opinionated.
I also agree that Substack isn’t going to reinvent the Walter Cronkite era of journalism overnight if ever. Replacing sickly institutions (which evolved over many centuries) is hard, especially when those institutions’ illness is derived at least in part from the same cultural pathogens that the new platform is likewise subject to. On the other hand, it feels necessary to at least try something different than the mainstream toxicity. I doubt Substack will be the answer, but I think it could either be a first step toward a new media landscape or perhaps the threat that causes the established media to shape up.
First, Substack isn't even mentioned, but I'll assume the author removed it, which likely means it wasn't core to their argument and you missed the forest for the trees.
Second, whatabboutism implies a certain level of intent to derail a conversation in my eyes, it's not about simply saying "what about".
One of the problems I've noticed with modern discourse is that everybody has this narrative in their mind that the "others" are here in bad faith and have some box of psychological trickery at their disposal. In this way, maybe it's more expedient to people to attack the presenter instead of the idea, but it's impact on discourse is palpable.