Top | Newest First | Oldest First
SumKindaMunster · 51-55, M
@BizSuitStacy Yep. I posted this because it made me glad. Sorry for people losing their jobs, but we both know the people out of work would see us lose our jobs as well for some of the things we say and believe.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
AbbeyRhode · F
dancingtongue · 80-89, M
How about social media and broadcast media stealing all their reporting and distributing it for free, collecting all the advertising revenue, and paying nothing to those who did the actual original footwork to get the news? So the print media gets neither the revenue from subscriptions because so few us actually buy newspapers or have them delivered anymore, and their advertising revenue streams are cut because they can't match the audience size of those spreading their work for free? And the Big Tech companies fight like hell with their lobbyists and campaign funds to keep legislation requiring them to pay for using the fruit of print media's labor as the wire services do.
SumKindaMunster · 51-55, M
@dancingtongue HMO managers? Yeah that sounds a little dated.
Yes, and I would say another distinction is I am looking at the current state of journalism right now in 2024 and you seem to be taking a longer view over its decline. But to be clear, I don't disagree with your point, its been a long time coming, and absolutely the things you mentioned contributed to its decline. I just find the recent downturn to be more about poor journalism, as opposed to economic trends that are also contributing to the decline of journalism.
I'd like to believe I do this, however, we all have blind spots that need to be checked. I make a point about challenging people and ideas that I don't agree with to see if they can convince me or if I can successfully and relevantly rebut.
Thank you for your persistence in showing your data and making your point clear without resorting to insults or logical fallacies. I appreciated the discussion.
You attribute the plummeting trust in news media to it being biased; I believe it has more to do with what the economics of first broadcast media and then social media has done to eradicating true journalism. We seem to agree, the state of journalism has gone down the tubes. We just disagree on the primary cause(s).
Yes, and I would say another distinction is I am looking at the current state of journalism right now in 2024 and you seem to be taking a longer view over its decline. But to be clear, I don't disagree with your point, its been a long time coming, and absolutely the things you mentioned contributed to its decline. I just find the recent downturn to be more about poor journalism, as opposed to economic trends that are also contributing to the decline of journalism.
And, it would seem, whether should only seek news media that confirms one's biases or seek media that presents multiple viewpoints to check our biases.
I'd like to believe I do this, however, we all have blind spots that need to be checked. I make a point about challenging people and ideas that I don't agree with to see if they can convince me or if I can successfully and relevantly rebut.
Thank you for your persistence in showing your data and making your point clear without resorting to insults or logical fallacies. I appreciated the discussion.
LeopoldBloom · M
@SumKindaMunster It's misleading to poll people on trust in the media in general. I would expect that most people trust the specific media they personally follow. A OANN viewer might say he doesn't trust the media, but ask him if he trusts OANN and I'm sure he'll say he trusts them implicitly.
dancingtongue · 80-89, M
@SumKindaMunster
The term may be out of use, but all the rants about insurance company networks are the same.
My longer view is a product of my experience. I came out of college and the Army ready to pursue my profession in journalism -- and it was truly a profession then -- only to find where there had been 9 daily newspapers there were now 3. Largely because broadcast media had eaten into the market so much it could no longer support that many print outlets. Three dailies and 100s of veteran reporters searching for jobs, so I did what I said I would never do and went into PR -- but for a non-profit health care provider.
My best example of how much the news media changed during my 40 years of dealing with it: in the early 70's we were hit with a major strike. I was dealing with the labor reporters on the status of negotiations, the major issues. Most of the print ones were dedicated solely to labor, were knowledgeable in labor relations laws and the dance that negotiations are, had contacts in both labor and management in various industries. We were also dealing with specialized health care writers devoted solely to that field and therefore knowledgeable as well. I got a call from one of the health care writers asking how many patients we were continuing to see, since part of our message was we were still open and providing care. I had anticipated the question, had had staff feeding me stats on a daily basis, and I told him. His response was, "yeah. I've been sitting here in one of your waiting rooms for the past hour and those figures jibe with my count." Flash forward a decade. Another major strike. The reporters are all general assignment reporters, and not necessarily even in the same ones from day to day. Their knowledge of either labor-management negotiations or health care is zilch -- they are learning on the fly; have no experience; no real contacts to provide context. All part of the continuing shrinkage of staffing due to shrinking revenues. The union threw up a major picket line in front of our administrative offices, which spilled into the streets, blocking traffic. The next day the major regional daily newspaper ran a story about how we had pressured the police to send a SWAT team to break up the picket line. The local daily newspaper ran a more accurate story about how the police had cleared the street and forced the pickets to stay on the sidewalk. Neither had contacted me. The first reporter had bought the union's version hook, line & sinker with no effort to contact us or the police. Doesn't meet basic objective journalism standards. I called the second reporter and thanked him for the more objective report. He said "hell, I could see what was going on from my office window. She (the other reporter) must have confused the couple of motorcycle cops in their leathers and helmets for SWAT". She admitted she hadn't seen a thing, being clear across the other side of the Bay. She had just taken the union's side verbatim without checking because she was on deadline. Sloppy. Product of bias? Perhaps, a little. More a product of short cuts, lack of knowledge and specialization from being stretched too thin, imho. And it only has grown worse.
Thanks for the civil discussion as well.
HMO managers? Yeah that sounds a little dated.
The term may be out of use, but all the rants about insurance company networks are the same.
you seem to be taking a longer view over its decline
My longer view is a product of my experience. I came out of college and the Army ready to pursue my profession in journalism -- and it was truly a profession then -- only to find where there had been 9 daily newspapers there were now 3. Largely because broadcast media had eaten into the market so much it could no longer support that many print outlets. Three dailies and 100s of veteran reporters searching for jobs, so I did what I said I would never do and went into PR -- but for a non-profit health care provider.
My best example of how much the news media changed during my 40 years of dealing with it: in the early 70's we were hit with a major strike. I was dealing with the labor reporters on the status of negotiations, the major issues. Most of the print ones were dedicated solely to labor, were knowledgeable in labor relations laws and the dance that negotiations are, had contacts in both labor and management in various industries. We were also dealing with specialized health care writers devoted solely to that field and therefore knowledgeable as well. I got a call from one of the health care writers asking how many patients we were continuing to see, since part of our message was we were still open and providing care. I had anticipated the question, had had staff feeding me stats on a daily basis, and I told him. His response was, "yeah. I've been sitting here in one of your waiting rooms for the past hour and those figures jibe with my count." Flash forward a decade. Another major strike. The reporters are all general assignment reporters, and not necessarily even in the same ones from day to day. Their knowledge of either labor-management negotiations or health care is zilch -- they are learning on the fly; have no experience; no real contacts to provide context. All part of the continuing shrinkage of staffing due to shrinking revenues. The union threw up a major picket line in front of our administrative offices, which spilled into the streets, blocking traffic. The next day the major regional daily newspaper ran a story about how we had pressured the police to send a SWAT team to break up the picket line. The local daily newspaper ran a more accurate story about how the police had cleared the street and forced the pickets to stay on the sidewalk. Neither had contacted me. The first reporter had bought the union's version hook, line & sinker with no effort to contact us or the police. Doesn't meet basic objective journalism standards. I called the second reporter and thanked him for the more objective report. He said "hell, I could see what was going on from my office window. She (the other reporter) must have confused the couple of motorcycle cops in their leathers and helmets for SWAT". She admitted she hadn't seen a thing, being clear across the other side of the Bay. She had just taken the union's side verbatim without checking because she was on deadline. Sloppy. Product of bias? Perhaps, a little. More a product of short cuts, lack of knowledge and specialization from being stretched too thin, imho. And it only has grown worse.
Thanks for the civil discussion as well.
Heartlander · 80-89, M
It's all heading down that same rathole as AM radio, which was followed by FM radio, and airwaves TV.
The only reason for us to stray into ABC, NBC, CBS would be sports events. Meanwhile our big city newspaper have practically dwindled to the size of our weekly church bulletin. We cancelled our subscriptions years ago.
My general beliefs is that all of the above can be rescued if they tilted back to local programming. No one trusts MSM. But maybe with a shift to what's local, with programs and personalities familiar to our friends and neighbors, just maybe the media will reflect the focus and feelings of the audience rather than what we see as mostly political propaganda. I remember when both radio and TV was all local, before they attached to the network cable for practically all of their programming. Those radio and TV stations were part of the community and reflected the beliefs and interest of the people who lived there.
The only reason for us to stray into ABC, NBC, CBS would be sports events. Meanwhile our big city newspaper have practically dwindled to the size of our weekly church bulletin. We cancelled our subscriptions years ago.
My general beliefs is that all of the above can be rescued if they tilted back to local programming. No one trusts MSM. But maybe with a shift to what's local, with programs and personalities familiar to our friends and neighbors, just maybe the media will reflect the focus and feelings of the audience rather than what we see as mostly political propaganda. I remember when both radio and TV was all local, before they attached to the network cable for practically all of their programming. Those radio and TV stations were part of the community and reflected the beliefs and interest of the people who lived there.
SumKindaMunster · 51-55, M
@Heartlander Great comment, thank you.
I like your point about focusing our our local communities. Let's be frank, that matters more to your day to day life compared to what is going on in the Middle East. It's interesting you say this, because I do subscribe to my local paper for this exact reason, they do stories about the community, the national stuff is pushed to the bottom and not featured.
I wonder though, if it is possible as many of the things you mention are readily available on social media, Facebook in particular.
I like your point about focusing our our local communities. Let's be frank, that matters more to your day to day life compared to what is going on in the Middle East. It's interesting you say this, because I do subscribe to my local paper for this exact reason, they do stories about the community, the national stuff is pushed to the bottom and not featured.
I wonder though, if it is possible as many of the things you mention are readily available on social media, Facebook in particular.
Heartlander · 80-89, M
@SumKindaMunsterPart of the salvation of local media is based on them establishing a firm footprint on social media. From that point on, your local newspaper or TV station can practically operate out of someone's garage or basement.
Like the NYT bought up my home town newspaper 40 or 50 years ago, but then dumped it 10 or 12 years ago as they divested from the local markets in their efforts to salvage their home base, the NYT itself. Now, Facebook is the local newspaper's front door to their digital publication. I believe they can survive and strive as long as they can hold their ground as a center of all the local news and happening. Like they are enhancing FaceBook's value by taking it to the detailed level.
Like where else can you go to see who died yesterday, or who was arrested or what happened at last night's school board meeting? Most city/county functions broadcast their happening on YouTube, so local digital media can tap into what's happening at city hall for free, tap into the police blotter, the fire department, the local funeral homes, the schoolboard, etc. all from the comfort of the publisher's basement.
Like the NYT bought up my home town newspaper 40 or 50 years ago, but then dumped it 10 or 12 years ago as they divested from the local markets in their efforts to salvage their home base, the NYT itself. Now, Facebook is the local newspaper's front door to their digital publication. I believe they can survive and strive as long as they can hold their ground as a center of all the local news and happening. Like they are enhancing FaceBook's value by taking it to the detailed level.
Like where else can you go to see who died yesterday, or who was arrested or what happened at last night's school board meeting? Most city/county functions broadcast their happening on YouTube, so local digital media can tap into what's happening at city hall for free, tap into the police blotter, the fire department, the local funeral homes, the schoolboard, etc. all from the comfort of the publisher's basement.
spjennifer · 56-60, T
Has a lot more to do with the Internet than them either being Right or Left leaning politically, print media like news papers and magazines will eventually almost disappear same as Cable will be replaced by streaming services. The ease of availability has changed many things. Millennials want nothing to do with paper based media and it will die off when most of us do. Right, like Left MSM are all going to suffer the same fate eventually, only if they change the format in which they deliver their news will they survive...
DavidT8899 · 22-25, M
Just as progressive voters will continue to vote for such candidates even when the policies directly impact their lives,so shall these organizations continue to adhere to their ideology even as it causes their ruin.Leftism is as addictive and destructive as any illegal narcotic.
This message was deleted by the author of the main post.
LeopoldBloom · M
SumKindaMunster · 51-55, M
@LeopoldBloom Any relevant comments to the post at hand?
LeopoldBloom · M
@SumKindaMunster That is the reason. I gave up cable a few years ago, so I can't watch CNN even if I wanted to. I remember in the 90s, "Headline News" where in a half hour, they covered national news, international, business, entertainment, and sports, repeating throughout the day and changing with new events as they occurred. Now, it's mostly talking heads and "analysis." This is true for Fox News as well, which for some reason conservatives exempt from "mainstream media."
As for newspapers, other than local news (which I can also get for free), why would I want a print paper delivered? Magazines that have in-depth research or cover specialized topics will probably hang on for a while as there will always be a market for that.
In short, this has nothing to do with bullshit like "loss of trust" or "the deep state." Anyone still watching Fox hates CNN and MSNBC for those reasons, and vice versa for their ideological opposite. The reality is that "news" is a product, and people gravitate to the product that meets their needs. Legacy media just doesn't do that anymore.
As for newspapers, other than local news (which I can also get for free), why would I want a print paper delivered? Magazines that have in-depth research or cover specialized topics will probably hang on for a while as there will always be a market for that.
In short, this has nothing to do with bullshit like "loss of trust" or "the deep state." Anyone still watching Fox hates CNN and MSNBC for those reasons, and vice versa for their ideological opposite. The reality is that "news" is a product, and people gravitate to the product that meets their needs. Legacy media just doesn't do that anymore.
SumKindaMunster · 51-55, M
@LeopoldBloom I don't think we disagree all that much. Legacy news has declined by almost any metric you choose to measure. I have been aware of the lack of trust in the legacy media these last 8 years or so and have seen how it impacts their bottom line and credibility.
It's interesting you close with this:
We totally agree here, I just have a slightly different reason as to why it is this way.
It's interesting you close with this:
he reality is that "news" is a product, and people gravitate to the product that meets their needs. Legacy media just doesn't do that anymore.
We totally agree here, I just have a slightly different reason as to why it is this way.
Roundandroundwego · 61-69
Platform decay describes it.
All the media was bought by the rich. Now it's pretty useless.
Remember live, call in talk TV and radio,? Most popular programs everywhere! Even on the day they were all shut off. American people were silenced. They're fine with that. Nobody can hear any different!
All the media was bought by the rich. Now it's pretty useless.
Remember live, call in talk TV and radio,? Most popular programs everywhere! Even on the day they were all shut off. American people were silenced. They're fine with that. Nobody can hear any different!
FreestyleArt · 31-35, M
Did Trump once mention CNN will be the first to fall in 2024?