Dismantle Mass Media News

The Economist published an article where they worried that wanting MSM outlets fined or shut down for fake news is "Unconstitutional":

"Attitudes toward the Media take an unconstitutional turn"



The article misses the mark.

The reason we want the MSM fined or even shut down is not to stifle freedom of speech but because all major news organizations are owned by a handful of people that all repeat the same messages, sometimes verbatim. This points to them being owned by the same group of people. Talk about Unconstitutional! Articles like these, frame us as anti-free-speech and anti-free-market, when its actually the covert agenda of the MSM that is both.

Highly Recommended Viewing:

Reposted a better version of the Video. If you are short on time, begin at the 0:52 mark.

This is a little dated, but it makes the point:




Source

a reply to: Skyfloating

Not only does the article miss the mark, the Economist, and Yougov miss the mark in asking the polling questions.

If the same poll was conducted 3 years ago, and Trump was replaced with Obama, the poll results would be a mirror image, with Democrats trusting Obama more than the news outlets.

I don't think the disparity, in raw percentages might not be as stark, since the media as comparatively very kind to Obama, mostly by omission of facts, but the results would be similar.

I also don't think news outlets need to be fined or shut down, they will eventually do that to themselves. The only thing they sell is credibility, which is being rapidly eroded due to the dilutive effect of more, independent news outlets online, and the proliferation of news on social media. (The censorship by social media outlets is another story, but eventually that will come back to bite them as well. Ya hear me FB, YT, Twot...?).

I think tradiditonal news outlets, and the control exerted by large conglomrates who have consolidated are going to meet a swift end as the baby boomer generation cycles out. Television on the whole, 24 hour news shows, and print news are on the way out, IMO. Let them die peacefully, and let the free market rule the day.

wanting MSM outlets fined or shut down for fake news is "Unconstitutional

It is unconstitutional, obviously. Maybe they could have disclosures though if their people aren't actually trained. Oops, that would backfire on them wouldn't it?

Wait, Republicans always say if you don't like the way a business is run then start your own business.

As if it's easy for anyone to have tons of money to start a business and break into a market successfully.

originally posted by: CoramDeo

I also don't think news outlets need to be fined or shut down, they will eventually do that to themselves. The only thing they sell is credibility, which is being rapidly eroded due to the dilutive effect of more, independent news outlets online, and the proliferation of news on social media. (The censorship by social media outlets is another story, but eventually that will come back to bite them as well. Ya hear me FB, YT, Twot...?).

I agree that the free market naturally disposes of bad apples. Except when actual crime organizations are involved, manipulating the market behind the scenes, which I suspect to be the case with some of these news outlets.

Capitalism rewards bad apples and gives them all the power, what are you smoking? Trump is the ultimate proof of that.

originally posted by: CB328
Capitalism rewards bad apples and gives them all the power..........

Indeed, and if we take Michelle Wolfe for example, she was greatly rewarded for her efforts, and given her own TV show on Nexflix, until it got cancelled today.

Funny how the mass media works innit - throw em to the trash, go on to the next flavour, like Amarosas 200+ tapes.

You're not really into the dismantling bit, so you're missing the point of the OP.

a reply to: CB328

Capitalism rewards bad apples and gives them all the power, what are you smoking? Trump is the ultimate proof of that.

Capitalism aslo rewards normal Joe's who sock away 10% of their paycheck in a 401K as well. Must be a lot of bad apples.

As if it's easy for anyone to have tons of money to start a business and break into a market successfully.

It's not always necessary to have a lot of money to break into a market, but it's also not impossible. The news business is one of those areas that can be effective and profitable with very low startup cost. I've seen people on ATS doing reseach that puts paid news staff to shame on a daily basis, for free.

The only overhead is a crappy PC and a bottle of whiskey.

originally posted by: Skyfloating
The Economist published an article where they worried that wanting MSM outlets fined or shut down for fake news is "Unconstitutional":

"Attitudes toward the Media take an unconstitutional turn"

The article misses the mark.

The reason we want the MSM fined or even shut down is not to stifle freedom of speech but because all major news organizations are owned by a handful of people that all repeat the same messages, sometimes verbatim. This points to them being owned by the same group of people. Talk about Unconstitutional! Articles like these, frame us as anti-free-speech and anti-free-market, when its actually the covert agenda of the MSM that is both.

Highly Recommended Viewing:

If you add all of the numbers together, you get interesting results.

CNN is at around 115% of people polled, while at the bottom, Fox gets around 80% polled.

Same on the other graph. This is just crap again.

They don't even give a nod to anyone with a few brain cells who can see at first glance that the graphs are just wonky.

It is rather insulting.

P

a reply to: Skyfloating

Except when actual crime organizations are involved, manipulating the market behind the scenes, which I suspect to be the case with some of these news outlets.

I get where you are coming from, but I draw a strong distinction between criminality and being ethically challenged. I think journalistic integrity is out the window. This is driven in part because of an inability to seperate out political and personal bias while reporting, and a drive to put something, anything out with regard to a breaking news story since the field is so crowded.

The one place I do see a possibility of breaking the law would be when reporting is either slanderous or libelous. But who is checking the journalists? Aparently no one. I'd say this is damn near impossible to police or punish. News organizations publishing what they currenly know, and that being only part of the story could appear to be libelous, but it's just them trying to get the story out. There was a time when the editorial board would reject an incomplete story, but the news cycle is so fast that, again, they need to get something, anything, out to remain relevent.

I'm not sure how you police what is being published, fairly, without quashing freedom of the press. And let me be clear, when I say freedom of the press, I include you, and me, and everyone on this forum posting. Collectively, we are the press, all over the interwebs.

a reply to: pheonix358

Come on, now, with all your mathification.

Common core math says that 115%+80%=18 boxes and 3 dots.

You need to take your logic-bias-truth somewhere else.

originally posted by: pheonix358
t around 115% of people polled, while at the bottom, Fox gets around 80% polled.

Example #1 of why we need more education. When confronted with information, you don't know how to process it.

You're reading that graph wrong. It's not meant to sum to 100%, it's a graph of the percent of people who identify as Democrat/Republican/Independent who trust Trump more than that news outlet.

a reply to: Skyfloating

The point too many are missing is that many of these polls assume that the average American is too stupid to discern what is true and false in the media.

It's like they want us to be stupid so they can tell us what to think.

While many Americans ARE too stupid to discern the truth, they are probably watching CNN and MSNBC so it doesn't much matter any way.

a reply to: Aazadan

You're reading that graph wrong. It's not meant to sum to 100%, it's a graph of the percent of people who identify as Democrat/Republican/Independent who trust Trump more than that news outlet.

You can not poll over 100% of the people.

Graphs do have to add up.

I learnt this at school.

Your attack is baseless and clearly shows your distaste for the truth.

P

a reply to: Skyfloating

The reason we want the MSM fined or even shut down is not to stifle freedom of speech but because all major news organizations are owned by a handful of people that all repeat the same messages, sometimes verbatim. This points to them being owned by the same group of people. Talk about Unconstitutional! Articles like these, frame us as anti-free-speech and anti-free-market, when its actually the covert agenda of the MSM that is both.

The entire point of the freedom of the press is to spread an idea/your beliefs to others. That right still exists, whether the press is owned by a handful of people that repeat the same messages or not.

So yes, your reasoning is to stifle free speech and freedom of the press.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Skyfloating

The point too many are missing is that many of these polls assume that the average American is too stupid to discern what is true and false in the media.

It's like they want us to be stupid so they can tell us what to think.

While many Americans ARE too stupid to discern the truth, they are probably watching CNN and MSNBC so it doesn't much matter any way.

Well, I hope you can see the irony and humor in your hypocritical statements.

originally posted by: pheonix358
a reply to: Aazadan

You're reading that graph wrong. It's not meant to sum to 100%, it's a graph of the percent of people who identify as Democrat/Republican/Independent who trust Trump more than that news outlet.

You can not poll over 100% of the people.

Graphs do have to add up.

I learnt this at school.

Your attack is baseless and clearly shows your distaste for the truth.

P

If every person in every group found Trump more truthful than a particular news outlet, the graph for that station would sum to 300%. If no one did, it would sum to 0%.

originally posted by: introvert

So yes, your reasoning is to stifle free speech and freedom of the press.

You see it that way because you think the press is free. I wish it were.

originally posted by: Skyfloating

originally posted by: introvert

So yes, your reasoning is to stifle free speech and freedom of the press.

You see it that way because you think the press is free. I wish it were.

Just because you have the freedom, does not mean it is free or without a cost.

Regardless, your reasoning and logic is highly flawed and lazy.

Even if the media is owned by a handful of people and they repeat the same messages, that is their right. That is free speech and freedom of the press.

So if that is your reasoning, then yes, you want to stifle their rights. Not because you have bad intentions, but because you do not know what those rights even are.