Newspaper Shooting in Maryland

What's all the ruckus? (The Debate Subforum)

Re: Newspaper Shooting in Maryland

Postby iMURDAu » Sat Jun 30, 2018 1:46 pm

Windy wrote:The real question is why is Milo advocating for himself to be shot?


To go from famous to infamous?
  • 2

“This is going to become a bad meme,” Todd observed.
User avatar
iMURDAu
TCS Chomper
TCS Chomper
 
Posts: 6318
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 10:08 am
Location: Route 11 by Scoopalicious
Show rep
Title: King of Fuh

Re: Newspaper Shooting in Maryland

Postby Deathclaw_Puncher » Sat Jun 30, 2018 5:43 pm

  • 1

"Schmibby Dibby Kabibby"- Alex Hirsch

"When in doubt, meow it out!"- Bex Taylor-Klaus
User avatar
Deathclaw_Puncher
Knight Writer
Knight Writer
 
Posts: 12168
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 9:42 pm
Location: Fair Oaks, CA
Show rep
Title: Queen of the Cerignola Olives

Re: Newspaper Shooting in Maryland

Postby gisambards » Sat Jun 30, 2018 6:26 pm



But all the evidence suggests that the shooting was personally motivated, so what do his politics have to do with anything?
  • 7

User avatar
gisambards
Time Waster
Time Waster
 
Posts: 1968
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2015 11:45 pm
Show rep

Re: Newspaper Shooting in Maryland

Postby Ceiling_Squid » Sat Jun 30, 2018 7:30 pm

No decision is made in a vacuum based on a singular motivator.

The whole of a person's personal and political views can make them more prone to pulling that trigger, especially if they're violently-charged. I don't think its unreasonable to examine the ideology of a man who decided to murder 5 people.

You are right in that it's unhelpful to start trying to string together a narrative or conclusion out of disconnected facts at this stage, though. It would be presumptive and premature.

But they mustn't be totally ignored.
  • 2

User avatar
Ceiling_Squid
TCS Regular
TCS Regular
 
Posts: 371
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2015 3:22 am
Location: San Diego, CA
Show rep

Re: Newspaper Shooting in Maryland

Postby Krashlia » Sat Jun 30, 2018 7:44 pm

Windy wrote:The real question is why is Milo advocating for himself to be shot?


Do you know Ben Shapiro? Have you heard of the story of "Why he doesn't like Milo?"

Here it is:
When Ben's wife had recently given birth, at a time in which there should be joy in their becoming new parents and congratulations all around, Milo decided to send Ben a picture of a Black baby.
"Woah! Ben's a racist! He hates Black babies!"
Except no. Whether Ben Shapiro is a racist or not (and I guess he's not) is a seperate matter. The issue is the insinuation meant by the black new born, shortly after Ben just became a father.

And thats why Ben Shapiro thinks Milo is a terrible person. Because he *is* a terrible person.

He might be a narccissist, so even if he thought of himself as a journalist He doesn't think the rules apply to him.

Or he just hates himself.
  • 2

User avatar
Krashlia
Time Waster
Time Waster
 
Posts: 1837
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2015 6:44 am
Show rep

Re: Newspaper Shooting in Maryland

Postby gisambards » Sat Jun 30, 2018 7:50 pm

The whole of a person's personal and political views can make them more prone to pulling that trigger, especially if they're violently-charged. I don't think its unreasonable to examine the ideology of a man who decided to murder 5 people.

You are right in that it's unhelpful to start trying to string together a narrative or conclusion out of disconnected facts at this stage, though. It would be presumptive and premature.

But they mustn't be totally ignored.

Reading DP's linked article, it is made more clear from that that Peroutka's membership in the League of the South might be relevant to what Ramos decided to do, because the League of the South's supports paramilitary action and its leader has spoken openly about killing journalists. The article - baiting headline notwithstanding - offers a more interesting glimpse into the possible motives of Ramos. What I find unnecessary, however, is on bringing up Peroutka's connections to the alt-right and Roy Moore, who don't have anything to do with anything - I feel like his connections to a pro-killing journalists paramilitary are all that really need to be mentioned.
  • 6

User avatar
gisambards
Time Waster
Time Waster
 
Posts: 1968
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2015 11:45 pm
Show rep

Re: Newspaper Shooting in Maryland

Postby SandTea » Sat Jun 30, 2018 8:34 pm

Is it just me or does the guy-
Spoiler: show
Image

-look like the bizzaro world version of Jason Schwartzman?
Spoiler: show
Image


I bet he does think of himself as a should be Wes Anderson flick character.
  • 1

"Draw me not without reason; sheath me not without honor."
User avatar
SandTea
Time Waster
Time Waster
 
Posts: 1209
Joined: Sun Mar 15, 2015 5:01 pm
Show rep
Title: 3rdAeolus

Re: Newspaper Shooting in Maryland

Postby Deathclaw_Puncher » Sat Jun 30, 2018 9:55 pm

gisambards wrote:
The whole of a person's personal and political views can make them more prone to pulling that trigger, especially if they're violently-charged. I don't think its unreasonable to examine the ideology of a man who decided to murder 5 people.

You are right in that it's unhelpful to start trying to string together a narrative or conclusion out of disconnected facts at this stage, though. It would be presumptive and premature.

But they mustn't be totally ignored.

Reading DP's linked article, it is made more clear from that that Peroutka's membership in the League of the South might be relevant to what Ramos decided to do, because the League of the South's supports paramilitary action and its leader has spoken openly about killing journalists. The article - baiting headline notwithstanding - offers a more interesting glimpse into the possible motives of Ramos. What I find unnecessary, however, is on bringing up Peroutka's connections to the alt-right and Roy Moore, who don't have anything to do with anything - I feel like his connections to a pro-killing journalists paramilitary are all that really need to be mentioned.


It may overlap with politics, but my focus is primarily on their off the wall stances, which isn't necessarily tied to party. They're not exactly standard-bearers. You've one guy who's drawn to the other guy who's drawn to another guy. It cases like that, the guy who both follows and is followed would have a larger influence, if that makes any sense.
  • 0

"Schmibby Dibby Kabibby"- Alex Hirsch

"When in doubt, meow it out!"- Bex Taylor-Klaus
User avatar
Deathclaw_Puncher
Knight Writer
Knight Writer
 
Posts: 12168
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 9:42 pm
Location: Fair Oaks, CA
Show rep
Title: Queen of the Cerignola Olives

Re: Newspaper Shooting in Maryland

Postby gisambards » Sat Jun 30, 2018 10:47 pm

It may overlap with politics, but my focus is primarily on their off the wall stances, which isn't necessarily tied to party. They're not exactly standard-bearers. You've one guy who's drawn to the other guy who's drawn to another guy. It cases like that, the guy who both follows and is followed would have a larger influence, if that makes any sense.

It doesn't make sense. Roy Moore is an awful human being who's done a lot of terrible things - but he never called for the murder of journalists. We also have no evidence for what Ramos himself thought of Roy Moore - he was just a fan of someone who was a fan of him. Ascribing Moore influence over Ramos' actions via Peroutka is just nonsense. Ramos' links to the League of the South are relevant to the discussion of motive. Talking about his political leanings in general just looks like an attempt to tarnish people with similar politics.
  • 10

User avatar
gisambards
Time Waster
Time Waster
 
Posts: 1968
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2015 11:45 pm
Show rep

Re: Newspaper Shooting in Maryland

Postby thedogknows » Tue Jul 03, 2018 5:23 am

I'm probably a bit late two the party, but a few observations:

A Combustible Lemon wrote:a) It can't be objective
Totalitarianism proved that press as an independent body cannot work without the support of people and government.
All journalists have biases, and their cultural refusal to recuse themselves from political stories in the service of the greater good is absolutely harmful.


I'm gonna echo some of the other commentors here and say this isn't so much a media problem as much as it is a humanity problem. I mean, most of the commentors seem to agree that there's significant reforms they'd like to see the media make, but as far as I can tell from your continued agrument it seems like you think the media should be entirely disbanded. Even if there was some mechanism that miraculously caused that to happen, I bet you all my money that it would immediately be replaced by an even more shortsighted and biased system of local politics, gossip, and Facebook status updates.

Speaking of which, how do we even define when a story is political (or for that matter, what constitutes "media") ? If the beginning of this thread proved anything, it's that even the classification of what's political is highly controversial and depends on ones biases. To me, it really seems like you're throwing around a lot of very subjective opinions while acting like a paragon of objectivity and logic. And you know what? It's not a problem that you aren't 100% objective, because we're humans and none of us are! The thing I see people taking issue with is the fact that you refuse to even acknowledge you have biases in the first place, which is the exact type of mindset that leads to the type of media behavior you hate so much.

For instance, you refute the idea that widening your sources makes you better informed. To my mind, this leaves two options:

1) You believe no one should consume media at all.

2) You believe you have found the secret to a completely unbiased news source and that everyone should get their news from the same source.

If it's the former, then I want you to work at a large institution and honestly tell me that you think it would run smoother if everyone had no clue what was going on in the outside world except via word of mouth and online forums.

If it's the latter, I would request you really think deeply about why you have such unshakable belief in whatever manner you obtain your news. After all, I doubt you're traveling around the world to personally witness every major news story. And, as an aside I would argue that having a single source for news makes it a lot easier for the government to exert the kind of media control you object to in many of your posts.

A Combustible Lemon wrote:c) People don't read the comments, ever


...Doesn't the history of the very forum you're arguing this in contradict this point at least a smidge?

e) Expert opinions are walking appeals to authority
Experts should be believed when they repeat facts. Experts need not be believed when they repeat conclusions. That's fundamental to science. Doubting conclusions is how the Particle-Wave idea was created.


Again, what's the line between fact and conclusion? You can't really "prove" anything in science, you merely construct models that have predictive power. Hardly anyone would disagree if I said it was a fact that gravity always pulls stuff down to earth, because most people basically define gravity as a thing that pulls stuff to Earth. But that doesn't really have much useful predictive power, and isn't even necessarily a fact! After all, what's to stop everything flying off the Earth suddenly tomorrow? We have no reason to think it would of course-- but by the same token we don't really have any reason to think it won't besides that it never happened in the past.

Now, what if instead I said that space and time actually behave like a mathematical object called a pseudo-Riemannian manifold that everywhere looks locally like Minkowski space, and that gravity is really just the result of moving along straight geodesics in this curved spacetime? Of course you could always say something like: "You're just using big words to look smart!" or "That's a conclusion, not a fact! There are probably several possible mathematical formalisms of gravity, and possibly ones more accurate than GR!" Both of these statements are true, but it doesn't change the fact that if you are trying to create a GPS company and dismiss the scientist telling you to correct for GR, barring something as miraculous as everything suddenly flying off Earth, you'll be left with a non-functioning product and a bag of flaming postdoc shit on your doorstep.

The point of this ramble is to show that yeah, while skepticism is important in science, so is realizing that you have to place some trust in expert conclusions, because frankly, coming up with your own conclusions and models for everything is really goddamn hard. I also think that a lot of people use this whole "science is about skepticism" reasoning to discredit conclusions that are against their own ideology while not actually having to do anything in return. If you want to be skeptical, that's fine. But if you actively want to refute the words of experts, I better see you crunching the data yourself and finding the flaws in their proofs.

With that being said, it's still very important to find the correct experts to put your faith in, but when doing so it's equally important to ask yourself just why you choose to believe the experts you believe.

A Combustible Lemon wrote:The world's in the grip of Asimov's sciencism and it's sorta disturbing. Stuff like questions of personhood, always the job of philosophers and priests, get shot down by the opinions of doctors.


While I agree that the question of personhood and consciousness are difficult to answer and far from resolved, I would contest the idea that somehow priests and philosophers are any more qualified to answer it. In fact, this sentence seems to directly contradict your previous sentence about facts trumping conclusions, because those professions rely almost exclusively on the latter.

A Combustible Lemon wrote:So when media whines about the Paris Climate stuff, it's by default accepting the argument that it's ok for China and India to pollute, something Trump and Trumpists vehemently disagree with. To shore this up, they bring in experts to talk about how important it is to "handle" climate change. Happily ignoring the fact that Trump doesn't think it's handling Climate Change. As long as the media think it's handling climate change, it's handling climate change, and we don't need to have any deeper argument about the why and how of the matter.


I think you're missing the point about why the Paris Climate stuff frustrates people. I would understand your point if it was just a disagreement over how to best deal with climate change, but Trump has on multiple occasions explicitly said that he doesn't believe climate change is real. I have a friend who works on environmental research at a national lab and is not allowed to even mention the term "climate change" on any business correspondence! I don't know about you, but to me that's incredibly ridiculous.

A Combustible Lemon wrote:Obviously none of this would happen if people were actually allowed to reasonably disagree with experts, which would happen if the experts weren't a gigantic club being wielded against them by our friends in the media. But then icky people like Flat Earthers and anti-vaccers would have their views heard.


I somewhat agree with you on this, in that people should definitely be able to reasonably disagree with experts. However, I would like to point out that if you disagree with something that has incredibly strong consensus and lots of evidence backing it, you better come up with some even better evidence in favor of your idea if you don't want to be refuted. So far anti-vaxxers and Flat-Earthers have not cleared this standard, hence their dismissal.

Being allowed to reasonably disagree does not mean you have to immediately be given an equal amount of support in your viewpoint. I think everyone would agree that it was ridiculous if a person who believed dogs were secretly cats in animatronic suits sued animal planet for not replacing half of their programming with conspiracy shows about the great feline deception. That's what the history channel is for.
  • 7

thedogknows
Commenter
Commenter
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2017 3:47 pm
Show rep

Re: Newspaper Shooting in Maryland

Postby A Combustible Lemon » Tue Jul 03, 2018 7:22 am

thedogknows wrote:I'm gonna echo some of the other commentors here and say this isn't so much a media problem as much as it is a humanity problem.


That's like saying it's not a communism problem, it's a humanity problem, when talking about centralization and totalitarianism. It's both, and only one of those is inherent. Journalism has always had tools to allow it to work. Recusal, Disclosure, the right to Rebuttal, standards of newsworthiness. None of those are followed by the modern press in any appreciable amounts.

thedogknows wrote:Even if there was some mechanism that miraculously caused that to happen, I bet you all my money that it would immediately be replaced by an even more shortsighted and biased system of local politics, gossip, and Facebook status updates.


Did you miss the bit where I pointed out this is the press' biggest defence, while being a thing that in reality has already happened? The press is trying to crawl its way back into relevance after 2016 had it at the absolute lowest point of public trust. (at which point coincidentally the democrat trend on media trust reversed itself)

Conspiracy media, anti-vaxxer media, left media, neo-nazi media. They all already exist.

thedogknows wrote:...Doesn't the history of the very forum you're arguing this in contradict this point at least a smidge?

If you read the bit under it it's not about comments as much as how much the press attacks comments while they are very often the first line of defence against bad reporting. The guy commenting will always be "just some guy" as opposed to a "cracked writer who's done their research". Newspapers are closing comment sections left and right because they wanted to turn them into OC but they're filled with people who disagree with the article.
The history of the forum helps my point because it wouldn't have come to shit if Cracked wasn't hostile to commenters.

Can it be clearer than being like two sentences long and leading DIRECTLY into
A Combustible Lemon wrote:d) People don't read retractions and corrections and apologies, ever


thedogknows wrote:While I agree that the question of personhood and consciousness are difficult to answer and far from resolved, I would contest the idea that somehow priests and philosophers are any more qualified to answer it. In fact, this sentence seems to directly contradict your previous sentence about facts trumping conclusions, because those professions rely almost exclusively on the latter.


I'm not arguing for philosophers and priests to have the final say in the abortion debate, it's about who's position it is to argue what. When a doctor is consulted on abortion, his role should end at explaining either consciousness or dependency. If he explains further, it should be explicitly demarcated as entering the field of philosophy or ethics. And to maintain objectivity, he friggin shouldn't. "This bit is fact" and "this bit is opinion" is a gigantic friggin minefield. It's what recusal was created for, because some people recognize they mix facts with opinion freely.

A Combustible Lemon wrote:abortion should be decided at a fundamental level through dialogue, compromise and popular support.

Where in this do the philosophers come in except to inform, something the media claims is their job while putting the doctors in front to make ethics points and throwing community leaders like priests and thinkers like philosophers in the back seat.

I'm not about making sure the /correct/ experts are followed. I'm about making sure the stakeholders get final and absolute responsibility for their decisions. "Doctors say" and "Climatologists say" should absolutely never be your last defense on anything because people can disagree, and anything less is a direct vector for abuse. Experts control people who agree with them, nothing more, nothing less. When a few decades down the line people find out cocaine is deadly addictive, they shouldn't be able to hide behind experts when the honest thing to say would be "we didn't know". Except that allows more experts to be doubted which, of course, is politically inconvenient.

Facts and conclusions aren't freely interchangeable in the way you're saying, either. It's pretty clear all science that isn't maths is based on looking at meters which can be wrong and averaging them. That doesn't make them not objective. There is an implied "according to our knowledge and measurements so far" tacked on to the end of their statements. So yes, while every statement ever is /technically/ a conclusion if you take it literally, it's not pretending to be. Someone who says they're facts hasn't thought about it deeply enough. Which is fine. Language allows this.

"Newtonian physics models the near-earth pretty accurately" is a fact. It's a conclusion from a bunch of readings and experiments and people playing with flywheels and levers. But that it's been consistent with readings is a fact.

"Newtonian physics is correct" isn't. It's the conclusion from the fact "Newtonian physics models the near-earth pretty accurately".

What media reports is "Newtonian physics is correct". That will absolutely have killed the wave-particle in its inception except for the vague philosophical idea that truth will out.

thedogknows wrote:But if you actively want to refute the words of experts, I better see you crunching the data yourself and finding the flaws in their proofs.


A Combustible Lemon wrote:UKIP has its own problems in that they don't provide any answer to the expert opinions, and they should if they were being intellectually honest.

But it's a sovereignty question. Sovereignty isn't decided by experts, it's decided democratically. Experts aren't the end-all. They're a compounding factor.


thedogknows wrote:I think you're missing the point about why the Paris Climate stuff frustrates people. I would understand your point if it was just a disagreement over how to best deal with climate change, but Trump has on multiple occasions explicitly said that he doesn't believe climate change is real. I have a friend who works on environmental research at a national lab and is not allowed to even mention the term "climate change" on any business correspondence! I don't know about you, but to me that's incredibly ridiculous.


This doesn't explain anything about why the Paris Climate Stuff frustrates people. If the media story was that it was indicative, you'd have a point. The media story is that every other country is doing something correctly that Trump isn't. While ignoring the fact that the US has entirely unique problems in the agreement. It should be up to the elected president to pull out of something he disagrees with. China and India wouldn't pull out of it because they have unique accomodations that the US doesn't have (and if you accept the argument that India and China deserve it, that the US doesn't deserve). Trump didn't even use "lol climate change is fake" as his explanation. He called it a bad deal. It's subjective judgement entirely divorced from expert opinion that it's a bad deal.

thedogknows wrote:I somewhat agree with you on this, in that people should definitely be able to reasonably disagree with experts. However, I would like to point out that if you disagree with something that has incredibly strong consensus and lots of evidence backing it, you better come up with some even better evidence in favor of your idea if you don't want to be refuted. So far anti-vaxxers and Flat-Earthers have not cleared this standard, hence their dismissal.


Hence their dismissal by /whom/. As I've said all along, they're growing, not shrinking. And the inability to reasonably disagree with experts isn't exactly something the consensus decided for the greater good. It's just run-of-the-mill journalistic abuse of power.
Government gets to make Polio shots mandatory, reporters don't, no matter how many epidemologists they can drag out that say it.

To me, it really seems like you're throwing around a lot of very subjective opinions while acting like a paragon of objectivity and logic. And you know what? It's not a problem that you aren't 100% objective, because we're humans and none of us are! The thing I see people taking issue with is the fact that you refuse to even acknowledge you have biases in the first place, which is the exact type of mindset that leads to the type of media behavior you hate so much.


Why do people insist on this conflation of journalistic objectivity with objectivity?

That random commenters have biases has absolutely nothing to do with the simple principles of "Write things that are true, point out what bits might not be, explain the relevance of the article, recuse yourself if you think you cannot be objective, offer sources a chance to deny their citation if they disagree with how it is used".
THOSE ARE OBJECTIVE. I don't mean that as super-duper-correct. I mean there's no way to misinterpret those rules. And the reasons for the rules are obvious.
If you do not write things that are true, your newspaper's opinion can be discarded when it IS.
If you do not explain where you might be wrong, your newspaper /will/ be viewed as partisan, and it /will/ be discarded by the opposite side.
If you do not explain the relevance of the article, the relevant articles /will/ be discarded just by pure volume and no one reads all the articles.
If you do not recuse yourself, see point 2.
If you do not offer sources the ability to deny their citations, you end up turning a shitty irresponsible and unethical conservativebashing article into someone literally being responsible for five murders.

These aren't partisan fucking rules. They're the foundation of journalistic ethics.
  • 1



WE ARE ALL FLOATING IN THE WINDS OF TIME. BUT YOUR CANDLE WILL FLICKER FOR SOME TIME BEFORE IT GOES OUT -- A LITTLE REWARD FOR A LIFE WELL LIVED. FOR I CAN SEE THE BALANCE AND YOU HAVE LEFT THE WORLD MUCH BETTER THAN YOU FOUND IT, AND IF YOU ASK ME, said Death, NOBODY COULD DO ANY BETTER THAN THAT...
User avatar
A Combustible Lemon
TCS Guerilla
 
Posts: 438
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2014 7:25 pm
Location: The Internet, India
Show rep
Title: Grenadier

Re: Newspaper Shooting in Maryland

Postby thedogknows » Tue Jul 03, 2018 2:20 pm

In case you didn't notice I have a big problem where I write way too much stuff when it comes to politics, so hopefully I can keep this short and sweet.

A Combustible Lemon wrote:This doesn't explain anything about why the Paris Climate Stuff frustrates people. If the media story was that it was indicative, you'd have a point.


Honestly, I should have used the word "me" instead of "people" in this section because this is why it frustrates me-- I can't speak for anyone else. To me the act of drawing out of the agreement has much more frustrating overtones because of the president's prior stance on the issue of climate change, regardless of what he may give as an official reason. But again, that's just my own opinion and it's not my place to act like I speak for everyone on this matter. I come from a state where the forests have been constantly on fire and are at risk of gradually disappearing from bark beetle infestations caused by milder winters, so it's a frustrating subject for me.

A Combustible Lemon wrote:Write things that are true, point out what bits might not be, explain the relevance of the article, recuse yourself if you think you cannot be objective, offer sources a chance to deny their citation if they disagree with how it is used".


I completely agree with your idea that there are significant reforms to be made by the media, and I think this list is a good general guideline. However, I also think that a lot of these bullet points aren't as cut and dry as you claim, since different people have different ideas of why an article might be relevant, and often view other peoples reasoning as incredibly partisan. But that's not really the problem I have with your arguments-- it's no surprise that the devil is in the details here, as that's true of any major platform for reform.

Rather, I take issue with how you seem to take a very adversarial stance towards media as a whole, and more or less call every reporter scum. I think there are many good journalists out there who uphold the very standards you posted, and you probably never notice them. But more than that, I think that designating any institution that you hope to reform as a faceless enemy is just about the worst way to bring about meaningful change. It usually results in said institution turning around and viewing their critics as faceless enemies, which leads to an endless cycle where two groups who were originally supposed to better each other are at bitter war with one another and immediately discard any suggestions the other one has.

For better and for worse, we're humans, not a bunch of robots. And humans have a tendency to get even more set in their own ways if you don't treat them as such. You don't have to (and shouldn't!) let atrocities slide by just because humans make mistakes, but I think your approach is actively harmful to the goal you want to achieve.
  • 6

thedogknows
Commenter
Commenter
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2017 3:47 pm
Show rep

Re: Newspaper Shooting in Maryland

Postby iMURDAu » Tue Jul 03, 2018 9:20 pm

thedogknows wrote:For better and for worse, we're humans, not a bunch of robots.


That's right! Everyone agrees on that.

*stifles bleep*
  • 6

“This is going to become a bad meme,” Todd observed.
User avatar
iMURDAu
TCS Chomper
TCS Chomper
 
Posts: 6318
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 10:08 am
Location: Route 11 by Scoopalicious
Show rep
Title: King of Fuh

Re: Newspaper Shooting in Maryland

Postby gisambards » Tue Jul 03, 2018 10:16 pm

Something else I'd like to add to thedogknows' points is that, while undoubtedly many big media companies at the moment are failing to maintain acceptable standards, big media companies are considerably more likely to actually be able to reform media practices and try to maintain standards of journalistic integrity than small internet-based news sources, for the simple fact that a major media company would have the capacity to maintain standards among journalists in its employ if it so chose, while a small internet-based news source will only ever be beholden to nothing. Of course,

Overall, I'm still of the opinion that all news sources will always be noticeably biased and so a consumer of news media just has to, as I say, read widely and be aware of each sources' individual biases. But it makes absolutely no sense to trust some website any more than a major TV network, and if change ever actually could come (which I really don't think it will), it's definitely not going to come from the blogosphere.
  • 3

User avatar
gisambards
Time Waster
Time Waster
 
Posts: 1968
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2015 11:45 pm
Show rep

Previous

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests