Does the mainstream media actually lie in it's reporting?

[Ulfreida]

My parents were in the newspaper business. I cut my teeth on the first amendment.

Many posters have made good points. Fact is that the news you get is always a balancing act. There’s what your advertisers will stand for, what your readers want to read, what you see your moral responsibilities to be (yes, this is a thing), and what you know to be true. These rarely completely align.

There is quite a difference between those organizations which are consciously attempting to present a progressive or conservative view of the world, and those whose moral stance is “fair presentation of the facts.”

In this bizarro new world, merely trying for fair presentation of the facts is howled at by the right wing as biased or even deliberate lies, which makes news production a lot more fraught than it already was.

[QuickSilver]

@Bricker

But this story is where preserving the narrative was important. The changes are outlined.

Agreed.

[GIGObuster]

@Velocity

The MSM rarely tells outright whopper lies. But it does report selective truth.

Say there are 500 stories that favor Agenda A and 500 stories that favor Agenda B. The MSM only has enough time and resources to report 100 stories a day. In that case, the MSM may select 90 stories that favor Agenda A, and only 10 stories that favor Agenda B. Even if all the stories are reported “truthfully,” it’s selective, and favors Agenda A.

And oftentimes, it’s not fully truthful. There will be subtle bias or slant to prop up a desired social message.

Well, on a very pertinent example, that is not the case.

Media coverage of climate change

The notion of balanced coverage may make perfect sense when covering a political convention, but in the culture of science, balancing opposing views may be neither fair nor truthful. As such, many experts argue that it is misleading to give scientific mavericks or advocates equal time with established mainstream scientists.[10]

Yet there is evidence that this is exactly what the media is doing. In a survey of 636 articles from four top United States newspapers between 1988 and 2002, two scholars[22] found that most articles gave as much time to the small group of climate change doubters as to the scientific consensus view. Given real consensus among climatologists over global warming, many scientists find the media’s desire to portray the topic as a scientific controversy to be a gross distortion. As Stephen Schneider put it:[17]

“a mainstream, well-established consensus may be ‘balanced’ against the opposing views of a few extremists, and to the uninformed, each position seems equally credible.”

Knowing how big the fossil fuel sponsors are, this observed false equivalency for sources that in the end benefit the narrative that nothing needs to be done is no coincidence. It does benefit the bottom line of the polluters.

[Bricker]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

Because the significance of the McCaskill incident was not that McCaskill is a liar. She probably isn’t. What really happened to her is exactly what happened to Sessions - she thought of those meetings/calls in a different context than what she was thinking about when she was commenting about Sessions, and thus they didn’t come up in her memory. So they were specifically relevant to the Sessions story as an indication that what Sessions did is something that just happens to people, and not an indication of some sinister plot.

True, although in further fairness McCaskill was not under oath. I expect an off-hand comment to be off-hand, and a statement under oath to be made with more deliberation and concern for candor.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@Bricker

True, although in further fairness McCaskill was not under oath. I expect an off-hand comment to be off-hand, and a statement under oath to be made with more deliberation and concern for candor.

The flip side of that was that when you’re testifying under oath you don’t have much time for deliberate responses. Plus you’ve been asked an enormous number of other questions, and this particular one does not stand out as being especially important based on your own knowledge of the issue as it relates to you.

By contrast, McCaskill was posting at her leisure, on an issue that was very much front and center, and was impugning the honesty of the AG. That’s something that would call for much deliberation, I would think.

[Velocity]

I recall, but am not fully certain, that around a decade ago, there was a story in which a British Muslim terrorist beheaded a British Muslim soldier. And the news story headline/title was, “Briton beheads Muslim.”

Given that the soldier was British, and that he was fighting under the British flag, and that the terrorist was fighting under the banner of Islam, it would have been more accurate and reasonable to depict it as “Muslim beheads Briton.” But the news outlet chose to run with the title, “Briton beheads Muslim,” so as to make “British” look bad, and Islam look good.

[watchwolf49]

@Ulfreida

My parents were in the newspaper business. I cut my teeth on the first amendment.

Many posters have made good points. Fact is that the news you get is always a balancing act. There’s what your advertisers will stand for, what your readers want to read, what you see your moral responsibilities to be (yes, this is a thing), and what you know to be true. These rarely completely align.

There is quite a difference between those organizations which are consciously attempting to present a progressive or conservative view of the world, and those whose moral stance is “fair presentation of the facts.”

In this bizarro new world, merely trying for fair presentation of the facts is howled at by the right wing as biased or even deliberate lies, which makes news production a lot more fraught than it already was.

Thank you for this “insider” information … what a specific commercial news outfit reports on has everything to do with pleasing their advertisers … if Merek Inc buys 7 minutes of commercials on XYZNews, then XYZNews will never report on how Merek is dumping dangerous drugs in third world nations … and if Merek buys enough commercial time on ALL the commercial news networks … that news is effectively snuffed out … unless we want to put up with all the tofu-puking Commie/Hippy/Liberal McGovernik bullcrap they run on public news networks …

Public news networks are stuck though, point #2, they have to deliver stories their tofu-puking Commie/Hippy/Liberal McGovernik want to hear or they won’t donate money … yeesh … and once we get into the moral values of the editor, point #3, then we have no choice but to accept completely biased stories, if the editor likes Jeff Sessons and thinks he’s the right man for the job, then the editor won’t be publishing any of Jeff’s racist remarks … simple …

“The Russians hacked the elections”

That’s a lie, voting and tabulating machines aren’t generally connected to the internet … they may have hacked into a private organization’s computers and made public embarrassing information they found … but that’s a far cry from altering the vote counts … numbers for which government officials have weeks to make sure are correct … but we have this statement above circulating around all the media outlets to the point many many people now believe it’s true …

Lies of omission are lies …

[BobLibDem]

By and large the mainstream media (Fox is NOT MSM) adheres to journalistic standards. Did Brian Williams mess up by bullshitting about his Iraq experience? Sure he did, and NBC took the anchor seat from him. Regarding Rolling Stone and Duke, RS ran with a false accusation. They didn’t make it up, they reported something later shown to be a lie on someone else’s part. Shit happens. Can they put a little spin on things? Sure, but with rare exceptions the factual content is there.

[mazinger_z]

If one simply looks up Journalistic Scandal on Wiki, I believe this is a small sample size. In today’s crazy era, I’m starting to think it’s worse and that no news organization is immune from lying, omission, half-truth, etc. With the internet and the public’s whimsical selectivity, competition for attention/readership/viewership is greater than ever. Rather than increasing journalistic integrity, there is a race to see who is first, with truth and corrections coming a distant second. IIRC, I have heard that this is the Post-Information Age, where it’s better to be first than to be correct. Until we the public start demanding more integrity and quality with our news, we’re going to go the way of TMZ and Perez Hilton before going back to the standards reflected on in Shattered Glass.

[QuickSilver]

@watchwolf49

“The Russians hacked the elections”

That’s a lie, voting and tabulating machines aren’t generally connected to the internet … they may have hacked into a private organization’s computers and made public embarrassing information they found … but that’s a far cry from altering the vote counts … numbers for which government officials have weeks to make sure are correct … but we have this statement above circulating around all the media outlets to the point many many people now believe it’s true …

Lies of omission are lies …

The “election” is a process. Actual ‘voting’ is just one aspect of the process. Arguably, the most significant one.

To claim that an election can’t be influenced by means other than compromising actual voting results, is pretending that advertising, news, punditry, campaigning, funding, advocacy, lobbying have no impact on an election. So when you undermine any of those, you’re effectively working to ‘hack’ the election.

[Musicat]

Mainstream and reputable news organizations act as checks on each other. If one blatantly lies, the others will be all over him like white on rice.

[Velocity]

Adjectives can also be used to completely change the narrative, without ever telling an outright lie.
*
“North Korea defiantly tested missiles yesterday, despite U.N. sanctions and test bans”

“North Korea courageously tested missiles yesterday, despite U.N. sanctions and test bans”*

[Czarcasm]

@Velocity

I recall, but am not fully certain, that around a decade ago, there was a story in which a British Muslim terrorist beheaded a British Muslim soldier. And the news story headline/title was, “Briton beheads Muslim.”

Given that the soldier was British, and that he was fighting under the British flag, and that the terrorist was fighting under the banner of Islam, it would have been more accurate and reasonable to depict it as “Muslim beheads Briton.” But the news outlet chose to run with the title, “Briton beheads Muslim,” so as to make “British” look bad, and Islam look good.

Nice anecdote.

[CarnalK]

@Czarcasm

Nice anecdote.

:rolleyes:

Briton admits plot to behead Muslim soldier

A man has pleaded guilty to a plot to kidnap and kill a Muslim soldier in the British army by cutting off his head “like a pig”, a court was told on Tuesday.
<snip>
A British and Pakistani passport holder, Khan was “a man who has the most violent and extreme Islamist views” and who wanted to get physically involved in acts of terrorism, prosecutor Nigel Rumfitt said.

[QuickSilver]

@Velocity

Adjectives can also be used to completely change the narrative, without ever telling an outright lie.
*
“North Korea defiantly tested missiles yesterday, despite U.N. sanctions and test bans”

“North Korea courageously tested missiles yesterday, despite U.N. sanctions and test bans”*

However they choose to frame it, those guys better be careful with those things. One of these days they’ll end up actually hurting somebody.

[Czarcasm]

@CarnalK

:rolleyes:

Briton admits plot to behead Muslim soldier

:rolleyes:, yourself. The topic is lying, and the main thrust of the anecdote was this:

And the news story headline/title was, “Briton beheads Muslim.”

[Velocity]

Sorry I recalled wrong then, it was a plot that was not actually carried out. Nonetheless, the headline was of that gist/intention.

[Czarcasm]

@Velocity

Sorry I recalled wrong then, it was a plot that was not actually carried out. Nonetheless, the headline was of that gist/intention.

You were misremembered the story-Is it possible you also misremembered the supposed headline?

[CarnalK]

People are also talking about slanting a story and Velocity was clearly speaking to that. While his memory was off a little, the actual headline is still within the point he was making. The dual citizen radicalized Muslim who plotted the beheading is described as a Briton while the unnamed British soldier as a Muslim in the headline.

Eta: I posted the Reuters headline: Briton admits plot to behead Muslim soldier

[Fuzzy_wuzzy]

@CarnalK

People are also talking about slanting a story and Velocity was clearly speaking to that. While his memory was off a little, the actual headline is still within the point he was making. The dual citizen radicalized Muslim who plotted the beheading is described as a Briton while the unnamed British soldier as a Muslim in the headline.

Eta: I posted the Reuters headline: Briton admits plot to behead Muslim soldier

On a similar note we also had all those Asian gangs raping vulnerable teens in Northern England.