Rush to Judgment, or The Death of Objective Journalism

The following article could be summed up as "Don't believe every video you watch."  Or if you're a long-winded writer of quasi-intellectual mumbo-jumbo, it might read something like this:

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2019/01/viral-clash-students-and-native-americans-explained/580906/

Many years ago, most felt that they could trust the information disseminated by Walter Cronkite and his contemporaries.  At some point, journalists threw aside their objectivity, and with it their credibility.  In this, the twitter age, journalists shoot first and ask questions later, and the truth dies.

I wonder if it is possible to discuss this topic without descending into the chaos of politics.  At its heart, the issue has nothing to do with politics, but rather the casting aside of objectivity and resorting to the blatant manipulation of facts to further an objective and to sensationalize the ordinary.

The biggest problem with news is when it was forced to make money.

Once that happened, the "eyeballs first" mentality crept into the news system.

CNN was the first cable news network, and they have to make money to survive.  Others followed, especially when partisan views were not talked about on the various choices.

Anyway, IMHO, the big step was when ABC, CBS, and NBC made their news shows have to make money, based on CNN making money.  That changed journalism forever.  Newspapers quickly followed- especially on a big scale.  And then social media has really picked up the mantle and run with it- since you can subscribe to any news you want.

While you have a good example, another is when you see some kind of event- be it a natural disaster or major crime- and you see the channels just talk and talk and talk about it with no new information.  They just keep your eyeballs on them.

Kind of frustrating.

There are some journalism out there that is still kid of immune from it, but many of the for profiteers' challenge them to make us doubt them.  

I suspect this will become political and locked very quickly.

But anyway - I've always thought that the diversification of content on cable media may have been the beginning. Suddenly there are 100 channels instead of 4 or 5, then 400, etc. All those content streams have to be paid for by someone. When there were only 5 channels then advertisers funded the channel by buying into the popularity of the created content (shows, sports, etc) and supported the (less) biased news as a byproduct. The network didn't have to rely on drawing viewers with the news in order to sell ads and make a living. As channels multiplied the advertisers had more choice about where to spend their dollar, and higher viewing numbers were required to justify ad pricing. At the same time, news-only channels started. Now you have a channel with no popular created content. You have to draw viewers to the channel in large enough numbers to fund it through advertising, and sensationalized news does that - everyone tunes in when the E36 M3 hits the fan (see also The Weather Channel.)

Now in the internet age this same problem has grown exponentially. No content happens for free, every organized content stream that you can receive is there to turn a profit for its owners. Boring, fact-based, impartial, straight news doesn't draw the viewers that fist-pounding, screaming, partisan, end-times reporting does (see also Jim Cantore.)

So I think the decrease in rational news is a result of profit seekers pandering to the lizard part of our brains that cranks us up for emergencies.

EDIT: Alfadriver and I are on the same page, and were typing it at the same time!

Back in the 70s a law requiring news organizations to be balanced and objective was taken off the books. It's been a downward spiral in this country ever since to the point where the media has become judge jury and executioner, facts be damned. It's sickening, especially when you step back and see who, and how few, own the news organizations.

This isn't new. Yellow Journalism was the reason that law was put on the books. 

I'm not sure what can be done to fix it.

 

Sometimes the news really is fake

In reply to ultraclyde :

yeah, I'm wondering if journalism is actually less about truth finding now, or if it is just easier/more mainstream/whatever for people to think about what "information" they are being fed. Note that it is REALLY HARD to consider the sources of all of your information.

Perhaps that is the positive way to look at this. Rather than journalism getting worse, humanity is getting better at thinking independently.

Hard to know, but I like the above so i'll stick with it. PS - when was a newspapers' job NOT to make money?

Thank you gentlemen, for your thoughts thus far.  I find myself pretty much in agreement.

Was the rescinded law effective?  Should we petition legislators to enact (and most importantly, to enforce) a similar law in an effort to restore truth and credibility to news outlets?

I will also argue the following:

News = just another form of entertainment

am I wrong?

1988RedT2 said:

Was the rescinded law effective?  Should we petition legislators to enact (and most importantly, to enforce) a similar law in an effort to restore truth and credibility to news outlets?

Defining a standard of credibility and objectivity to news is going to be a cage match.

As to influencing politics: How much have you donated to the political party of your choice? 

when you click on a video on a news site and you have to watch an advertisement before the news plays, yeah, that's a problem.

RevRico said:

Back in the 70s a law requiring news organizations to be balanced and objective was taken off the books. It's been a downward spiral in this country ever since to the point where the media has become judge jury and executioner, facts be damned. It's sickening, especially when you step back and see who, and how few, own the news organizations.

I would love to learn more about this law?  Can you identify it?  Not Smith-Mundt is it?  That only seems to apply to state-generated propaganda.

Edit:  FCC Fairness Doctrine?  Repealed in 1987.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine

Saw the news about this. The way I see it, what was seen in the later videos is irrelevant to what was seen in the original release. One group showing up and being racist doesn't excuse or justify another in doing the same.

I agree that the media like just about everything else is trapped in a nasty race to the bottom, but this incident isn't a case in point.

GameboyRMH said:

Saw the news about this. The way I see it, what was seen in the later videos is irrelevant to what was seen in the original release. One group showing up and being racist doesn't excuse or justify another in doing the same.

I agree that the media like just about everything else is trapped in a nasty race to the bottom, but this incident isn't a case in point.

Unfortunately non of that is true. One group of students after attending a pro-life rally are berated by a small group of people, then "chief" singles kid out and starts banging drum in his face. The ONLU group beind racist has not been identified as such. Instead students from a catholic school have been labeled as such. This is the problem. The truth is out there but the narrative hasn't changed. The entire statement from the drum banger has been proved false, yet its still being pushed. 

I have a serious issue with this on many fronts. 1.) the media is no longer reporting news, they are making it with editing. 2.) once the truth comes out about what has been done it's ignored and swept under the rug. So the people that were labeled as racists etc are still dealing with this fallout with no repercussions from the people that created this false narrative. 

The public has some responsibility at this point (no real option any more really) to be HIGHLY suspicious of almost any "news" they hear.  The logic / reasoning of some people can be a bit sad.

I recently saw a HOT headline that noted how this fact HAD to be true because look at all the different new links that show the same information.... well.... they ALL where from the SAME original source.... yeah, that's not how that works.

Be very suspicious, do your best not to jump to conclusions, do your best to check it out yourself.

Yes, it is sad that we have to do that.

BREAKING NEWS!!!!: people being shiny happy people to each other

In other news: sky is blue, water is wet, and Earth is flat.....more at 11!

It's best to just ignore the MSM 'news'. Most all of it is so-called 'fake news' in that it is distorted to the point of being mere propaganda. Whether that is part of an attempt to attract viewers or something else, I do not know.  I have reached peak outrage and I try to not even pay attention to the people who are outraged about the outrage of the people who essentially make up things to drive some narrative. I gave up watching any TV news, and recently cut way back on watching people on YouTube picking apart the TV news and as a result I have made more productive use of my time.

I don't think one can stick their head in the sand and be totally oblivious, but there is no reason to focus on it either. They best we can do is treat them like trolls and ignore them and hope that they eventually go away.

alfadriver said:

The biggest problem with news is when it was forced to make money.

Once that happened, the "eyeballs first" mentality crept into the news system.

CNN was the first cable news network, and they have to make money to survive.  Others followed, especially when partisan views were not talked about on the various choices.

News has always been forced to make money, really. I agree that it was CNN, though. They had to fill the void of the 24 hour news cycle, which is a lot more pressure than trying to fill a newspaper or come up with a 30- or 60- minute newscast. They also had to be showing the absolute breaking news (because they could) so the time to fact-check or research stories took a back seat to being the first to air as competition grew amongst the 24 hour networks. When everyone was on air at the same time, it became the level of urgency that set one channel apart from another and the networks all grew BREAKING NEWS! banners that were on permanently.

The internet sites just put this on fast forward. All of a sudden there were hundreds of identical sources, created without the need to build any infrastructure, who had no way to distinguish themselves other than with more and more shocking content and more and more drama.

The thing is, it's all developed this way because it works. Fox News is constantly in a state of panic because it gets lots of attention and attention equals money. The clickbait style of headline evolved because that's what people actually click on.

1988RedT2 said:

RevRico said:

Back in the 70s a law requiring news organizations to be balanced and objective was taken off the books. It's been a downward spiral in this country ever since to the point where the media has become judge jury and executioner, facts be damned. It's sickening, especially when you step back and see who, and how few, own the news organizations.

I would love to learn more about this law?  Can you identify it?  Not Smith-Mundt is it?  That only seems to apply to state-generated propaganda.

Edit:  FCC Fairness Doctrine?  Repealed in 1987.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine

That's what it was. I know why I was thinking 70s though, because of the movie Network came out in 76, and while "satirical" at the time, the main points seems to have come to fruition in the 40 years since. 

The CNN aspect of this I think can be traces to 911.  As noted, breaking and constantly updating news, 24 hours coverage, they were to the go to station.  They learned a lot from that.  Since then scrolls have become ubiquitous (needed then because so much was coming out).  Not long after that, CNN became the "disaster station" and, sadly, eventually went down the road of "if there isn't a disaster, lets make it seem like there is", because, that is what drew in the viewers / advertisers / money.  Others soon followed... because it worked.

To be realistic, about the Fairness Doctrine: Even if this was still in place, I suspect we would not be far off from where we are. Many stations DO show both sides... in the form of the most extreme examples of those "sides" screaming at each other while the vast majority of people (somewhere in the middle ) get a very distorted impression of the situation.

It also begs the question of definition of "side".  What if there are more then two sides?  At what point to they require representation (extreme views).  What about the (possibly vast majority) middle? Heck (unintended side effect), you could even actively be encouraging division (which of course is what is essentially happening now anyway of course) 

bobzilla said:

GameboyRMH said:

Saw the news about this. The way I see it, what was seen in the later videos is irrelevant to what was seen in the original release. One group showing up and being racist doesn't excuse or justify another in doing the same.

I agree that the media like just about everything else is trapped in a nasty race to the bottom, but this incident isn't a case in point.

Unfortunately non of that is true. One group of students after attending a pro-life rally are berated by a small group of people, then "chief" singles kid out and starts banging drum in his face. The ONLU group beind racist has not been identified as such. Instead students from a catholic school have been labeled as such. This is the problem. The truth is out there but the narrative hasn't changed. The entire statement from the drum banger has been proved false, yet its still being pushed. 

I have a serious issue with this on many fronts. 1.) the media is no longer reporting news, they are making it with editing. 2.) once the truth comes out about what has been done it's ignored and swept under the rug. So the people that were labeled as racists etc are still dealing with this fallout with no repercussions from the people that created this false narrative. 

I was trying not to get too political but there's no way for a group of people to show up to an Indigenous People's rally in MAGA hats without appearing to be part of a racist protest group:

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/01/21/opinions/maga-hat-has-become-a-potent-racist-symbol-bailey/index.html

At best the group unintentionally made a racist statement by doing so, which would still be their mistake. If they really just wanted to counter-protest the Hebrew Israelites, they should've left those hats at home and perhaps have donned some other uniform, maybe something from their school?

Good journalism is such that they try to be objective, and tell you when they are not. If they say or report on something that is false, they at least try to correct themselves and admit to wrongdoing. 

Bad journalism is always subjective, never mentions being so, and doesn't apologize or correct themselves when they spread fake news. 

I would like to see FCC rules that require a subjective interpretation of the news labeled as such, both in print and media. This would also include cases where news agencies acquire viral media without context of the situations being filmed. 

GameboyRMH said:

I was trying not to get too political but there's no way for a group of people to show up to an Indigenous People's rally in MAGA hats without appearing to be part of a racist protest group:

Honestly, probably best not discuss the specifics of the noted incident, lest this go down the wrong road.

(for fairness, hopefully, from what I read they did not "show up at the rally" they were there waiting for a their bus to go home, there is no simple answer to this situation... kind of the whole point)