What I mean there is that just because I reject a news source or story doesn’t mean my critical reasoning is poor. — Brett

Okay.

If i said The New York Times was not just a poor newspaper but a bad one what would you reply?

‘Bad’ is a subjective judgement.

I shouldn’t have used that word.

If i said The New York Times was not just a poor newspaper — Brett

What is your reason why you say The New York Times is a poor newspaper.

Do you think it is or not?

No, not everything The New York Times writes is bad (I hate using that word).

But what do you think of it as a news source?

Much better than a lot that’s out there, but not perfect.

If I don’t think that then how do we decide if it is or isn’t?

That’s a really, really good question.

If I don’t think that then how do we decide if it is or isn’t? — Brett

We need a criteria for judging media.

The other problem is the demand for bad media, and is totally on us. — Wheatley

There is a feedback loop, with media adjusting content to what sells the most copy, and consumers voting with their cash for the content they like to see. Consumers might not know what kind of content they want to see in advance, and vendors might not know that something is going to sell in advance. Ultimately it's a conspiracy between consumers and capitalists to produce content that is like the content those consumers want.

An example in my country is the development of an entire media dedicated to the fantasy that the middle class is under constant attack. This sort of fantasy, while obviously appealing to a surprising majority of middle class English suburbanites with delicious victimisation complexes, can be very easily hijacked by the political interests of the owners and their affiliates.

If, for instance, it were politically expedient for such owners to get the ball properly rolling on climate change action, they would cast resistance to such action as an attack on the middle class from both sides: the laziness of the working and unemployed classes expecting the middle classes to suffer for their inaction; the cynicism of the financial elite class letting the world burn in the knowledge that they can always buy themselves into a safety zone. However, while the trend is shifting toward this (in a Who can we blame? sort of way), the current editorial stance is to resist climate change action, since it tends to impact other interests the owners have (since they are capitalists). As such, climate change action is an attack of the middle classes by virtue of them footing the bulk of the bill through government spending on wasteful solutions to unproven climate concern and hikes in utility bills targeted at them, the majority of bill-payers. The stance fulfils the full gamut of the paranoid consumers: they are being robbed by literally everyone, and they are being lied to about it.

So it's a two-way street. Such readers are believing what they are told because of who is telling them. And the vendors are creating content that such readers have endorsed in the past.

You are right, though, such readers are absolutely free to choose media that has no vested political interest or financial affiliations, and they typically do not. Ultimately, the game is only played this way because they insist on playing it, therefore do deserve the lion's share of the blame.

I think that we can't avoid having the news media being involved in the democratic process and that's not something we want to avoid but I think it could be good to do an investigation on how the news makes it money and whether that incentivises practices that help inform the public fairly or not.

https://tinyurl.com/yaxsa5pz

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/375368-cable-news-ad-revenue-up-25-percent-over-2017-with-msnbcs-rising-62-percent

Distrust of the news is increasing but profits are soaring.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/267047/americans-trust-mass-media-edges-down.aspx

Are the business aspects of increasing viewership and ad revenue at odds with fair reporting? One of the things that really stood out to me was the 2016 election. Mostly, how much more coverage Trump got than other candidates.

https://shorensteincenter.org/research-media-coverage-2016-election/

The reporting can be measured by positive versus negative reports, who decides how much they do of each and what is their reasoning?

https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-2016-general-election/

Another consideration is that some news outlets are publicly listed companies, they're tasked with providing value for their shareholders. Jobs are kept and lost based on the same metrics any business would use, the ideals of journalism aren't part of that. I'm sure sometimes it's good to be seen as doing a good job but equally sometimes doing a good job may lose on the business metrics of $$$.

I don't think the answer is to remove them but to restructure how succeeding on the business side of things isn't at odds with our ideals about their role but what are our ideals about their role? Is it possible for the news to be objectively reported in the first place? Is it bad for the news to be politically motivated and if we expect them to comment on politics then how can we draw a line between that and intent to manipulate the viewer into voting a particular way? Is it wrong for them to do that in the first place?

Another consideration is that some news outlets are publicly listed companies, they're tasked with providing value for their shareholders. — Judaka

Even a privately owned outlet has to make a profit. Maybe not to quite the same degree. But they need a loyal readership. There could be any number of reasons for someone sticking to one outlet. How do you hold on to them, by being totally unbiased or by targeting their political and social leanings? Can any outlet operate on a totally unbiased platform?
In some ways it might be better to have them obviously biased, at least we’d know what’s behind their stories, no more pretence of objectivity.

Distrust of the news is increasing but profits are soaring. — Judaka

This is one of the really interesting points I think. Why?
It looks like people have an insatiable appetite for news, even if they mistrust it. So why are they watching or reading it? It seems to me that news now means something different than it was. It serves some different purpose, like those people in the street who keep checking their phones every few minutes. I don’t think it’s about being informed. Which suggests it doesn’t really matter what the news is but that it’s just presented as news so that it fills the habitual desire to check the news. So let’s say it’s a drug.

Edit: that’s the msm.

This OP hasn’t really taken off. Probably because it’s not regarded as “philosophy”. But there is a big question buried in your OP.

Democrat is an agreed upon myth. If that is true and that the sharing in the belief in that myth is shrinking or fragmenting then what role is there for the news media. If the democracy myth is fragmenting then the idea of truth as we’ve been living it also fragments into a thousand versions of it. There’s no place for a news source to claim an objective truth telling any more. That does sort of play into the hands of relativism, but what other conclusion could I draw from what I see?

Yeah, a privately owned company has to make a profit but there's not much of a chance for shareholders caring about the ideals of journalism and democracy, their motivation can only be financial. Either way, criticism is just noise if it's not hurting their bottom line.

For the CEOs of the organisations, their financial rewards and job security depend on financial success, so the figures may show that financial success does not require trust in the reporting. Alternatively, you just need a loyal base even if larger percentages of the public are becoming sceptical. So yeah, it may be the case that people are there to be entertained rather than be informed. I think this could be fine as long as the news doesn't try to appear objective when it's not because that is manipulative.

When it comes to democracy, we know politicians lie and lie about really important things. The white house can't be trusted to tell the truth, their political opponents can't be trusted and the news is not only being described as "fake news" by the president but faith in the news has been declining even before Trump.

Huge money in politics, huge money in news reporting and where are the incentives or checks and balances for informing the public about the truth? I don't really see these issues being resolved any time soon.

I think you have to take into consideration the physical changes that have happened in the media that are partly the reason why impartial news coverage has diminished and more is commentary about events.

There was a time when people actually got their news from reading a newspaper that basically had everything that had happened the day before or earlier. That "deadline" when printing machine is turned on gave some time for journalists. But then not only came radio and television, but 24 hour news channels and finally us having computers disguised as phones in our pocket that instantly tell us about if anything important happens. And then people learn about things through the social media. The role of being like the Associated Press (AP), a not-for-profit news agency, is very limited today.

The blurring of a news and "news commentary" is the basic problem why we are talking about fake news. Old school journalism isn't popular anymore, it seems that we are going back to the 19th Century where the "workers newspapers" and the "newspapers of the bourgeoisie" described alternate universes. Once you started having national newspapers, these then applied a tone that felt good for the general public. And if earlier the political tone of a media outlet was subtle, today it isn't with many anymore. Perhaps it's an answer to the rise of the social media.

Sorry, kind a late to the party here but I thought this was an interesting post and I’d like to share my two cents. I think that the internet media like YouTube are more dangerous than traditional media even though the internet media is somewhat more democratic because story selection is based on viewership (really ‘clicks’) rather than large companies who are supplying ad revenue.

I think journalists in the traditional media could butt heads with their host networks and the large corporations supplying the money and occasionally get controversial stories on air. But, with Internet media, there is no one in particular to butt heads with. If a story in traditional media fought its way on air, it was guaranteed to be seen by many people due to lack of choice in media outlets. Now, a news site can publish quality journalism but there’s no guarantee that people will pay attention. And, given the way people’s attention span has shrunk in a click bait culture, there is no reason to think people will care unless that story isn’t interpreted in a really click baity way. In a weird way, censorship isn’t even necessary. The whole structure of the new media leans people into paying attention to the hyperbolic - “the watch ‘so and so’ destroy his or her rival” type headlines. We’ve effectively self-censored ourselves by shrinking our attention spans.
I think that’s why I take so much solace in philosophy. It’s hard to read - really hard, and it demands your attention. Even more than supplying critical thinking skills, I think it just forces you to sit still with a text and that’s invaluable and rare right now.

Once you started having national newspapers, these then applied a tone that felt good for the general public. — ssu

That would be the days of a shared narrative, the shared myth. The myth can only sustain so many people then it falls apart. I think that’s where we are now. How can objective news even mean anything anymore? How many people can it hold together? How many no longer relate to it? It’s so alien to them as an idea that they no longer trust it. A collective truth? That seems absurd these days.

That would be the days of a shared narrative, the shared myth. — Brett

There was a time of limited news outlets that we watched and listened to. And in many cases they did separate "the news" and the "the program discussing the news". Perhaps people don't know (or remember), but for example in the US Walter Cronkite was highly respected and trusted during his time.

How can objective news even mean anything anymore? How many people can it hold together? How many no longer relate to it? It’s so alien to them as an idea that they no longer trust it. A collective truth? That seems absurd these days. — Brett

Things that happen are true. We still can agree on such. Why they happened, what do they mean or are they important is a different matter.

The role of the news media in a democracy.

Should the news media support Democracy unquestionably, should it question and challenge aspects of Democracy when it senses a deviation, should it challenge governments on policies, even if those policies are developed to protect democracy but they deviate from democratic ideals?
To do that we would need well educated and experienced people at the helm of the news media. They would have to have integrity, a keen sense of morality, inside knowledge of what’s behind government actions and trust from those government institutions. They would have to be free from influence and coercion, unimpressed by offers of money and benefits, disinterested in power except in the interests of the news outlet.

In an ideal situation they would almost be a partner in the democratic process. Their own interests would be democracy itself. The part they play in the democratic process would also reward them and benefit them as a result.

But how or in what way could they be rewarded? What form could it take without perverting and corrupting itself over time?

If they actively disagree with an elected government how far should they go or be allowed to go? How much should they be allowed to reveal?

That is an interesting perspective, I think you might be right. I was reading an article that described the battle between FOX and CNN led CNN to change from its more objective news reporting approach.

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/fox-news-cnn-change-evolution-2010-2019-11?r=US&IR=T

One thing that wasn't explained is why CNN was only trusted by 40% of viewers compared to FOX's 50%+, in 2010 may have to try to dig for that. Certainly though, if CNN is forced to change its approach like this, it may be true that youtube news reporting/commentary will follow the same logic. Since this article makes it seem like at least for CNN, the change was the result of being unable to compete with their flashier, more entertaining competition.

How does Al Jazeera and Julian Assange fit into all this?

Assange has more to do with how Western governments withhold information from the public that they really shouldn't. The US commits war crimes, they perform covert operations and they don't answer to the public on these matters because they hide the occurrence. On some issues, it seems the US was wrong to withhold the information on others, it seems Assange has jeopardized military and intelligence agencies by releasing sensitive material.

I don't know anything about Al Jazeera.

t seems Assange has jeopardized military and intelligence agencies by releasing sensitive material. — Judaka

Possibly true, but it begs the question about the role of the news media in a democracy; just how much freedom is needed to protect a democracy?

I don't know anything about Al Jazeera. — Judaka

Nothing?

Well the matter of intelligence agencies is definitely interesting because by their nature, they need secrecy but that means doing it behind the backs of the people who are supposed to be your boss. I think much of what agencies have done that has been released such as staging coups and arming radical militants in foreign lands, would not have been supported by the public. The people of the US were never given a chance to have an opinion on these actions.

Also for military secrecy, from Vietnam to Afghanistan has the US in modern times fought a war without also fighting to withhold and control the information the public has access to? Later on, when the details come out, wars that seemed controversial just appear to be utterly foolish. If the American people had full knowledge of what the government knew, the wars would have been viewed even less favourably than they already were.

What has been done that the next president will think twice to control the information to manipulate the public? Or to have agencies perform controversial operations that the public wouldn't agree with? Nothing, it seems to me. If you want to call the government out on it, then you may lose your freedom. I'm not sure what the answer is though.

What point were you bringing up about Al Jazeera? I hadn't heard of them.

What point were you bringing up about Al Jazeera? I hadn't heard of them. — Judaka

Because it’s a respected and state funded international news service owned by Qatari as opposed to private ownership.

Yeah, I did read that after you mentioned it, it's interesting. I would have thought that was the solution but I am becoming more convinced that the issue is viewership and the fact that people aren't entertained by the hard facts. Would a government support a news service that wasn't getting viewership? Anyway, I'll look into Al Jazeera a bit more and formulate an opinion.

Interesting link! I wonder who the viewers in question were in that poll?- my guess is that Fox News viewers trust their station more, but that is ill-based trust nevertheless, whereas CNN attracts a more skeptical viewership by nature.

By the way, which YouTube news are you watching? I watch Democracy Now from time to time but unfortunately my brain is so accustomed to the dopamine fix of network news, I don’t stick with it for too long. That’s more my fault then Democracy Now’s fault though.
In all honesty, over the last few years, I rarely check the news on a daily basis. I don’t know if that is an ethically responsible position to take or a rational one for someone interested in politics. I just found that if you follow a news story daily, there’s so much repetition and overreaction. For every 10 sentences in a news article, you get maybe one sentence worth of new information each day. Journalists and content providers are desperate for content and produce so much more quantity than quality. What I’ve tried to do is identify a few journalists that I like reading and who I trust and just follow them. I get the news at a much slower pace but it’s more coherent overall and less manic in feel.