Continued Bad Reporting Across Many News Outlets

[JamesATyler]

I flip between several news and political analysis channels. There is so much bad reporting. Facts are changed slightly or omitted. They might say “some officials are doing this” when the facts show that the report should be “one official is doing this.” Slight change but an important one. I can watch a report on one channel and after gathering the facts, form an opinion. Then watch another channel and realize that important facts were omitted and form a different opinion.

There seems to be a lack of journalistic integrity and/or skill. We really have to be extremely careful to pay attention to what facts are given and ask about what facts are omitted. Too many reports are being generated that are meant to produce a particular resulting opinion. When journalists care more about creating a popular opinion, rather than providing all the important facts in an accurate way, they cannot be trusted anymore. Even when they occasionally do generate an accurate report it becomes difficult to place much trust in it.

 

[EricF]

Those outlets are for-profit organizations. They will play to their base. CNN does it. They play to the far left. FOX plays to the worst of the right. Everyone has an agenda.

 

[christofirst]

Way back before electronic media, people knew that certain newspapers had an editorial bias, either conservative or progressive. Wealthy men bought newspapers just to skew the news to suit their worldview. That much hasn’t changed. Today’s social media, however, let’s almost anyone assume the role of editor or publisher, regardless of whether their motives are honest or nefarious. I agree with the OP that it is often more difficult than ever to get to the unvarnished facts of a matter, which is why it helps to consult a variety of sources.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Way back before electronic media, people knew that certain newspapers had an editorial bias, either conservative or progressive. Wealthy men bought newspapers just to skew the news to suit their worldview. That much hasn’t changed. Today’s social media, however, let’s almost anyone assume the role of editor or publisher, regardless of whether their motives are honest or nefarious. I agree with the OP that it is often more difficult than ever to get to the unvarnished facts of a matter, which is why it helps to consult a variety of sources.

Having social media added to the mix does not make it more difficult than it was before. You can chose to ignore social media and have what you always had. Getting information from a variety of sources is useful only if those sources are of approximately equal reliability. Taking an “average” of the views on social media just shows who can scream the loudest, or who has access to the best bots. More useful than consulting many sources is learning how to evaluate sources. Otherwise those views are about as useful as what you might find written on a public bathroom stall.

 

[christofirst]

When I said a variety of sources, I meant legitimate sources in that they have to answer to someone, such as an editor or other fact-checkers, and show their source material. I’m not a big consumer of social media, such as facebook or twitter, but these days stories that start there sometimes find their way to the more established and trusted media outlets, only to later be debunked. We are navigating new waters in this way, I think.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

There seems to be a lack of journalistic integrity and/or skill. We really have to be extremely careful to pay attention to what facts are given and ask about what facts are omitted.

No kidding. It’s been this way for literally years at this point.
I pretty much stopped watching and reading the news several years ago, around the time CNN was airing every alleged instance of “police brutality” in USA (culminating of course in a bunch of police officers being killed, which is exactly what I thought would happen) and running that asinine “Snowmageddon” report.

The vast majority of the newspapers I read for many years have become unreadable due to the extremely poor quality “journalism” and seemingly a complete lack of an editor for many of the pieces. I have seen stuff published in once-respectable newspapers that would have gotten a D in my high school journalism class for editorializing or just plain bad writing. When you criticize the reporters who write same by putting a comment about it in the comment section, you find yourself blocked or in some cases the reporter himself starts posting and yelling at you like a child. I try to care about layoffs at news media because a couple of my friends or their children rely on these jobs for their bread and butter, but honestly I think a lot of those media outlets should go out of business rather than keep putting out such poor quality work.

 

[Hereiam]

Its all in the eye of the beholder…one only need to visit the “World News” thread to see this…the integrity of reporting is way down the list of concerns for those with preconceived political ideology and/or agendas.

 

[HarryStotle]

Its all in the eye of the beholder…one only need to visit the “World News” thread to see this…the integrity of reporting is way down the list of concerns for those with preconceived political ideology and/or agendas.

And we can safely assume “preconceived political ideology and/or agendas” applies only to “those” others, yes?

 

[HarryStotle]

Otherwise those views are about as useful as what you might find written on a public bathroom stall.

I recently saw CNN’s name and phone number scratched into one of those public bathroom stalls.

Just sayin’.

 

[Hereiam]

And we can safely assume “preconceived political ideology and/or agendas” applies only to “those” others, yes?

Had me thinking until I saw your next post, which beckons to ask if your comment was self-righteous indignation or if “those” also apply to you.

 

[HarryStotle]

Of course, it does. I am my own biggest critic.

Which is why I don’t side with anyone, not even myself.

The truth, on the other hand – different story.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

And we can safely assume “preconceived political ideology and/or agendas” applies only to “those” others, yes?

Had me thinking until I saw your next post, which beckons to ask if your comment was self-righteous indignation or if “those” also apply to you.

Why did you stop thinking with my next post?

Perhaps some bias of yours kicked in to stop the actual thinking? Why should it have?

Why couldn’t you just a chuckle and move on?

Sacred cow was in jeopardy, perhaps?

 

[gam197]

Also sloppy, sloppy reporting when recently CBS news said First Lady Ivanka Trump would be going to Olympics or sloppy writing as many don’t seem to proofread what they have written so words are misspelled giving different meaning to the sentence.

 

[TheOldColonel]

The dishonest media is but a mirror of the moral decrepitude of society. Most care more about opinion than truth. If enough people want to hear that the sky is green and the grass is blue, someone will start reporting it.

 

[Kei]

It feels really bad since the election.

Is DONALD TRUMP trying to get HILLARY CLINTON assassinated because he said something about second amendment people?!
Big news: Donald Trump eats his fried chicken with a knife and fork!

Let’s focus on the president’s Twitter comments instead of all the things that are actually happening in the white house or around the world~!

 

[EricF]

@TheOldColonel this may be the truest statement I have ever read in this forum. If what’s being reported doesn’t fit with how I perceive the world, then obviously the reporting is garbage and not to be trusted.