Dis-Info Or No Info In The News Works...

Passive News Reports May Lead Readers to Feel They Can't Find the Truth

ScienceDaily (Mar. 8, 2011) — Passive news reporting that doesn't attempt to resolve factual disputes in politics may have detrimental effects on readers, new research suggests.

The study found that people are more likely to doubt their own ability to determine the truth in politics after reading an article that simply lists competing claims without offering any idea of which side is right.

I would have assumed that it would work better without some newscaster's opinions. Facts are always needed and I like the straight facts laid out so I can see what is up and what is down. I suppose others (from this study) like opinions with their facts. Depending on what station you rely on this could explain a lot of things. I seem to notice a lot more opinions/thoughts than facts being offered by ANY news source sadly.

Th are consequences to journalism that just reports what each side says with no fact checking," said Raymond Pingree, author of the study and assistant professor of communication at Ohio State University.

"It makes readers feel like they can't figure out what the truth is. And I would speculate that this attitude may lead people to tune out politics entirely, or to be more accepting of dishonesty by politicians."

Ahhh, is that not convenient?

Politicians everywhere are rubbing their hands together in glee... I notice more people becoming more accepting of dirty deeds and dis-info. Less people watching = less accountability.

While some disputes in politics involve subjective issues where there is no right or wrong answers, some involve factual issues that could be checked by reporters if they had the time and the desire, Pingree said.

"Choosing among government policies is simply not like choosing among flavors of ice cream. Policy questions quite frequently center on facts, and political disputes can and often do hinge on these facts, not only on subjective matters," he said.

If they had the time and desire? Isn't that what they draw a paycheck for? Just a pretty face anyone?

The issue of "he said/she said" journalism is especially critical today because many media outlets are understaffed and news cycles are faster than ever, meaning that reporters often have less time to check facts, he said.

Pingree emphasized that he is not being critical of all journalists. Many still do a good job of resolving factual disputes when they can.

"But I think it is clear that this happens less than it used to. As a result, there may be people out there who feel like there is no such thing as a political fact, or at least that they can't figure out what it is," he said.

"That may make it easier for people to just quit following politics at all, or to accept dishonesty in politicians."

I think that would be just fine for big government. Super convenient if nothing else. Is this done by design/purposefully or just a fluke?

You can read more here...
www.sciencedaily.com...

Hey, I have an idea. Maybe they should forgo the different issues and sides altogether and report only distorted information and made up studies, facts, and events that support the policies of the dominant politicians. That way we would all get fables and metaphor on the news, but the goal is in our best interests after all.

reply to post by Unity_99


LoL! That's practically where we're at now.

This study doesn't really surprise me, I feel it. When I watch the MSM news I'm left with a cloudy head and a sense of hopelessness.

Journalism is dead, at least how we knew it. It was killed off by money. Specifically, corporate interests who don't want their advertising to be associated with any one particular fact or idea or anything controversial or divisive - so we get nothing. Nothing that is but fluff, human interest stories, reports on corporate funded research and other info-bombs meant to confuse, distract and make us susceptible to yet more advertising.

the movie Network(1976) predicted the infotainment era that we now live in