Fox didn’t do that. The NYT, CNN, and MSNBC destroyed their reputations through their own bad acts.
Ok. I’m assuming you are a fully functioning, fairly healthy, mental fit man who is fully employed and of at least average intelligence. Ok. So given these assumptions, I want to know by what rubric do you grade a news organizations trustworthiness? And please answer me fully and directly without the use of weasel words or vague handwaving.
@ the OP: Believe it or not, the best way to combat Fox News is actually to convince Trumpers that Fox has gone over to the liberal side. Right now, there is a significant amount of anger among Trumpers who feel that Fox is gradually being commandeered on the inside into morphing into another CNN/MSNBC-like liberal outlet. If that perception takes root, Fox News will crash and burn among its viewership.
Cite please? Don’t just throw out a sentence to derail the debate. Please quantify the bad acts from some objective source.
Well if were just asserting outcomes here, why not go whole hog? The best way to combat Fox News is to actually convince the world it doesnt exist! Or would that be the best way for Fox News to win?? Foxzer Sousay News!! And Poof!! It’s gone!
The best way is to simply expose it for what it is. Jon Stewart did a great job of this. There is no shame in calling out bullshit as bullshit, and I wish more standard over-the-air media outlets did so. (Hell, Faux news and the so-called president have no problem calling actual, real things “fake news”) The people who are tricked by Faux are misinformed. The answer is to inform them. The problem is, lots of them don’t care to be. But if there are those who just naively think they’re being informed, perhaps a reminder that they’re not could actually help.
I think that’s like claiming a piece of paper is saying the words somebody wrote on it.
Sure people watch Fox because it reflects their strongly held beliefs. But they got these strongly held beliefs from watching Fox. Look at climate change for an example; do you think the people who believe it’s all a hoax are basing that belief on some scientific research that they conducted?
Telling somebody they already know everything they need to know is a lot more attractive message than telling them they need to learn something.
Fox viewer: “Climate control is a hoax.”
Non-Fox viewer: “I think you’re misinformed. Here’s the evidence that climate change is real.”
Fox: “Did you hear that? He just called you stupid! He’s attacking you! So ignore what he’s saying!”
Fox viewer: “Hey mister, I don’t like that kind of talk.”
Fox: “And all his evidence is just lies put out by the lamestream media! Don’t believe it!”
Fox viewer: “And I don’t need to hear any of your fake news.”
Fox: “And you’re an independent thinker who doesn’t just repeat what people tell you.”
Fox viewer: “And I’m an independent thinker who doesn’t just repeat what people tell you… uh… I mean me.”
Jackmannii, of course Fox News is giving a segment of the population news that conforms to and confirms their own worldview. Furthermore, they do it in a way even less-educated people can understand. That’s why people with no more than high school diploma are much more likely to watch Fox. Clear back in 1994, Rupert Murdoch had a clear ideaof what Fox News would offer, and it wasn’t responsible journalism for discerning viewers:
But those whose views Fox News reflects and shapes were part of the population long before 1996, when FN first aired; they were simply not convinced they were well-informed or mainstream, and they were not the political force they’ve become. As Fox surged ahead in popularity, CNN was forced to employ some of the same tactics. MSNBC didn’t take to the airwaves as the liberal’s Fox News until 2002. And Fox News is consistently found to contain more bias than any other news network. So the “Gee, Ma, all the kids are doing it!” defense is a dud.
’
Sure, there’s some straight reporting on Fox–covering a hurricane or a 42-car pileup–but what gets reported and what doesn’t is also important. Fox had confirmation on the Stormy Daniels story by October 2016 but killed it so it wouldn’t interfere with the election.
And its symbiotic relationship with the Trump White House is unprecedented.
That’s putting it mildly. And it’s why you should be concerned–very, very concerned.
We, the people, don’t care about trustworthiness. We care about power. That’s why we have rewarded dishonesty and corruption in government for all these decades regardless of who or what party was nominally in control. As long as enough lucre is flowing to the right special interests nothing will change.
The news media are tailored to be profitable by acquiring mindshare. You don’t get mindshare unless you emotionally resonate with your audience.
I just now realized I somehow cut off the last sentence of the first paragraph in the OP. It should have read “highly effective conservative propaganda machine.” I guess people could figure that out, but it bothers me that I left a fragment in there. My apologies.
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Exhibit A: how Fox News convinces regular viewers they can’t trust any other news network.
Come on man. Im holding my breath and im beginning to struggle!
That’s an idea. I don’t know how many Fox viewers watched Jon Stewart. I’m guessing most of his audience skewed liberal even though he also called out liberal politicians’ BS. We’d need a viewer vehicle that, like Murdoch’s tabloids, is geared toward conservative concrete thinkers who don’t like their thinking challenged but that also challenges Fox in a subtle (at first) way. In more fanciful moments, I imagine subliminal messages embedded in NASCAR racers: F-o-o-o-O-X I-I-I-S fa-a-a-AKE n-e-e-EWS.
On a more serious note, maybe the answer lies in online news sources and social media, where most people under 50 get their news, but I’m not sure how that would work. Name the source American Patriots News or something that would appeal to conservatives and frame stories so that they don’t put Fox viewers’ backs up? Honestly, I think the source would have to BE conservative but a Never Trumper conservative that would strongly appeal to the same demographic while actually giving the whole story AND slowly loosening the Fox stranglehold. AND it’d have to be almost ubiquitous.
Probably not too realistic, right?
…except I didn’t, then I didn’t do it again.
That’s all well-and-good and everything but it doesn’t mean jack-shit when the people targeted by the propaganda never actually get a chance to see it. We all personally curate what news we consume now. Twitter and facebook feeds show only the things that people want to see. If you follow Trump on Twitter and the Whitehouse and ICE and Fox News and a few other conservative commentators then all you will ever see and hear about is what it is they want to tell you.
The free press is not a counter to this. It doesn’t combat this. It runs parallel to this in what is essentially another reality.
Doing fine journalism most of the time really isn’t enough right now. Many have argued that the Hillary email story turned the last election. How they cover and how they frame impeachment could turn the next election.
But again: not the point. We are talking about countering propaganda. The free press isn’t the best method to counter propaganda, not in today’s information age.
I pointed you to the official Whitehouse twitter feed yesterday. Go look at it again today.
https://twitter.com/WhiteHouse
Look at how much more propaganda has been mainlined directly to the eyeballs of the people that follow it.
Look at this tweet.
Posted two hours ago. By the Whitehouse. Can you imagine that happening under any other administration? Do you remember a couple of years ago at the start of the Trump regime when the Whitehouse twitter feed at least pretended not to be so partisan?
I’ve just gone to Google News and searched for Obamacare and nobody has covered that. No mention of it at all. The only hit I got was the press release from the Whitehouse. The free press hasn’t done anything to counter this bit of propaganda. In the two hours since then the feed has retweeted 5 additional pieces of insanity, none of it countered by the free press.
The free press isn’t prepared nor is it able to counter this. Trump & Co are spending millions of dollars on facebook advertising that none of us ever get the chance to see because it isn’t targeted at us. The free press doesn’t counter any of this.
That isn’t what I said. I said:
“Here is an absolutely fawning profile of Kellyanne Conway by CNN.”
Did you read it? Did you watch it?
It was an absolutely fawning profile of Kellyanne Conway by CNN.
This is the same CNN that at one point hired Sarah Isgur as a political editor. (They have since redefined her role)
CNN can be anti-Trump and they can be ANGRY that they tried to ban Jim Acosta and still not be an effective counter to Whitehouse propaganda. Both can be true.
I’m not exaggerating at all. I’ve consistently said that by and large they do good journalism. But good journalism isn’t enough. And the lapses are important and big enough they actually make a difference. Good journalism isn’t enough to counter the flood of propaganda that has been unleashed by this administration. There is too much of it. Information overload. Its all over the place and its happening under the radar.
Yeah, that’s why I think over the air broadcast sources are good. You’re online idea is good, too. I think a lot of these numpties are getting turned online. 4-chan, Alex Jones, etc. The old folks in front of their TVs, not so much.
I almost never watch Fox News (I don’t have cable). The other networks have done plenty to erode the trust the public (once) had in them all on their own. Set aside the partisans for a moment; just look at the independents: 20 years ago, 55% of them trusted mass media. Today it’s only 36%. I don’t think independents got that way by watching Fox News 24/7. Do you?
It’s not ‘derailing’ the debate, it is the debate. Posts #2, #8, #9, #10, #11, #12, #14, #18, #19 ALL referenced other media outlets prior to my post #22. As for cites, I’m not sure what you’d like. I posted a graphic in my previous post showing the decline in independents’ trust in the media. How about these quotes from posters in this thread:
Ambivalid calls the “left of center media sources” “subtle and therefore insidious”. The only word I’d quibble with is “subtle”.
Jackmannii can see that CNN and the AP editorialize in the their news stories. So do many of the rest of us.
If wolfpup can notice that CNN is “on the warpath” and “vehemently anti-Trump” then I imagine a great many independents and conservatives can detect the same bias. People know CNN isn’t playing it straight.
If you don’t trust our fellow dopers, here are some additional cites:
NBC - Media bias against conservatives is real, and part of the reason no one trusts the news now
NY Post - Former NPR CEO opens up about liberal media bias
WaPo - Why bias gets worse, not better, in the MSM
’60 Minutes’ Lara Logan Calls Out the MSM on Their Bias
Would you like me to recount some of the MSM’s recent fuck-ups?
I don’t have a “rubric” and I don’t “grade” news organizations’ trustworthiness. Is that a direct-enough answer for you?