What do you think could be done to improve the media?

chic said:
Rebel News deals with international affairs not local ones and it is good to see someone asking tough questions of Pfizer's ceo at the WEF conference in Davos. We wouldn't know without these journalists.
Click to expand...
If you did not know, what would happen?

Now that you do know, what steps do you plan to take?

I'll go out on a limb first, so that you'll know I'm not trying to challenge you or set you up.

I don't even know what the issue is, and intuitively I'd guess that any control I have over an international situation is nil, at most. So I'd just hear/read about it and first judge if the situation affects me/mine, and if so, to what degree?

If it doesn't affect us, or only in a minimal way, I'd then ignore it in favor of issues that I have judged to affect us more directly. An example is about 6 months ago when there was talk of eliminating the step up in basis for assets on the death of the owner of the assets. This would have a large effect, and spent a lot of time trying to figure out how best to minimize, or avoid, any impact.

In that instance I had both knowledge of an issue and some level of control over the outcome, so I really, really put a lot of work/thought into it. But with whatever issue it is with Pfizer, I suspect that even if I think it affects us, I won't have much control.

But I do admit that you're right in this regard: I don't even know enough about the issue you raised to make a judgement of any kind.

What is the issue, anyway?
 

fuzzybuddy said:
I wish there was a way to hold people accountable for what they say. I don't think a calculated, campaign of intentional disinformation for some political end is "free speech". I'm thinking of Sandy Hook's "crisis actors". There's a difference between one's opinion, and the intent to wrongfully deceive. Granted that's a close call.
Click to expand...
Alex Jones has been ordered to pay nearly one billion dollars for intentionally spreading lies about the Sandy Hook shooting, so there is occasionally some accountability.

Fox "news" is currently being sued by Dominion Voting Systems for defamation for $1.6 billion.

So if it's egregious enough, there is some accountability.
 
SeniorBen said:
Alex Jones has been ordered to pay nearly one billion dollars for intentionally spreading lies about the Sandy Hook shooting, so there is occasionally some accountability.

Fox "news" is currently being sued by Dominion Voting Systems for defamation for $1.6 billion.

So if it's egregious enough, there is some accountability.
Click to expand...
Yes.

This is really the way the legal system is supposed to work. Free speech tested by tort lawsuits.

That's fine, so far as I'm concerned. It is at least predictable, mostly.
 

There is a TV show and a newsgroup I check out, which I find to be truly neutral and actually news, not propaganda. Everything else is largely propaganda for a political bias. The two places I go to are not mainstream media. It would be good to have a mainstream media show that is truly neutral. They would say stuff like 'The right wingers propaganda today is XYZ, and here is the true part of it, and the false is...' And then also do the same for the left wing propaganda.

Mainstream is all propaganda, and they leave out obvious but inconvenient facts all the time, if they don't support 'the narrative'. Both sides. So annoying.
 
Bretrick said:

What do you think could be done to improve the media?​

Click to expand...
I am no fan our our media, but in a free speech society it will be hard to make changes. And I absolutely support free speech, don't want big brother making those decisions for me! We are what drive the media, they put out whatever they believe we are most likely to watch.
Gary O' said:
Don't tune in
Click to expand...
The only effective tool we have. And if enough people do it things will change.
 
SeniorBen said:
Alex Jones has been ordered to pay nearly one billion dollars for intentionally spreading lies about the Sandy Hook shooting, so there is occasionally some accountability.

Fox "news" is currently being sued by Dominion Voting Systems for defamation for $1.6 billion.

So if it's egregious enough, there is some accountability.
Click to expand...
I know little of Jones, but what little I absorbed is that he seems to be a "secular televangelist".

Same grift, but political instead of religious.

Like Tug Magraw famously said:

"You gotta believe."
 
Alligatorob said:
I am no fan our our media, but in a free speech society it will be hard to make changes. And I absolutely support free speech, don't want big brother making those decisions for me! We are what drive the media, they put out whatever they believe we are most likely to watch.

The only effective tool we have. And if enough people do it things will change.
Click to expand...
Right on the money on all counts.
 
Now here's a question inspired by reading this thread...

*Why* do people seem to want to think that some news source, or TV personality, or other "life guru" can tell the the true story?

About 15 years ago when I was still working, I had two younger coworkers, both sharp guys and hard workers. I got to observe how they (MIllennials) approached life. It was eye-opening, in a way.

WE were maybe having lunch and the talk evolved to news sources. One guy asked the other what news sources he trusted, where did he get his news? The guy, a UC Berkeley under-grad with a masters from Stanford (no dummy) said "Jon Stewart".

Jon Stewart!!! The show was clearly a comedy show based on current news. It was a lot like SNLs news parody. It was completely loaded with spin and opinion, much of which only intended to be wryly funny, mixed in with progressive sensibilities to cater to his identified audience.

I mean people listen to "gurus" they like, personally, who say things that they like to hear. THis applies to not only Stewart, but guys like Pederson, the professor guy from Canada, from the other side of the spectrum.

Think about it, friends and fellow-sufferers: a person you like tells you things you like to hear.

They are seducing you, n'est pas?

Why in the hell do we have this need?
 
Many news reports start with some click-bait, regurgitate what they’ve taken from other sources and manipulate it fit their narrative. Often the last couple of paragraphs will lead back the original sources so you can go there to read more.

Know the bent of the news media. Be open to be discerning on anything you read or see.
 
Sawfish said:
Yes, and it's important to realize that you, as the reader/viewer, are a consumer of a product, and it's really buyer beware.

And woe unto you if you haven't realized this yet.
Click to expand...
“The most essential gift for a good writer is a built-in, shockproof, shit detector.”

Ernest Hemingway

And it doesn't just apply to writers........(I try and ease my favorite (although, of course, I'd never admit to having a favorite) granddaughter in the direction of universal skepticism.)
 
Nemo2 said:
“The most essential gift for a good writer is a built-in, shockproof, shit detector.”

Ernest Hemingway

And it doesn't just apply to writers........(I try and ease my favorite (although, of course, I'd never admit to having a favorite) granddaughter in the direction of universal skepticism.)
Click to expand...
See, what's weird--and actually explains a lot--is that while we desperately need to have that shit detector, now more than ever, we are also being advised, as a humble social adage, to not be judgmental, as in "Well, who are we to judge?"

Hate to point this out, but if you suspend judgement, your shit detector will be out-of-order.

So in essence, we're advised to not be skeptical.

Think abut *that* one for a while, huh?
 
Sawfish said:
See, what's weird--and actually explains a lot--is that while we desperately need to have that shit detector, now more than ever, we are also being advised, as a humble social adage, to not be judgmental, as in "Well, who are we to judge?"

Hate to point this out, but if you suspend judgement, your shit detector will be out-of-order.

So in essence, we're advised to not be skeptical.

Think abut *that* one for a while, huh?
Click to expand...
My skepticism borders on cynicism much of the time......perhaps there's even an overlap. :ROFLMAO:
 
Nemo2 said:
My skepticism borders on cynicism much of the time......perhaps there's even an overlap. :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...
I see where you are coming from, but let me ask in all seriousness, is an observation cynical if it is clearly an accurate portrayal of what appears to be out there? I'm currently leaning toward describing this as being simply realistic.

I mean, it's pretty bad put there...
 
Sawfish said:
I see where you are coming from, but let me ask in all seriousness, is an observation cynical if it is clearly an accurate portrayal of what appears to be out there? I'm currently leaning toward describing this as being simply realistic.

I mean, it's pretty bad put there...
Click to expand...
I don't claim to have irrefutable insights into anything, but I attempt to discern the, (sometimes hidden, sometimes not, sometimes even non-existent), agendas of those attempting to impart said 'information' from a caveat emptor perspective........but I'm certainly NOT infallible.
 
Nemo2 said:
I don't claim to have irrefutable insights into anything, but I attempt to discern the, (sometimes hidden, sometimes not, sometimes even non-existent), agendas of those attempting to impart said 'information' from a caveat emptor perspective........but I'm certainly NOT infallible.
Click to expand...
Yeah. Me too.

But I'd prefer to screw up by my own hand, whatever satisfaction that gives...:(
 
Lucky me, I don't live in the USA so I don't have to put up with the constant brain-washing of "you are sick" commercials" and of course, "ask your doctor about blah, blah, blah!"

These days I watch less and less news as I get older. Here is what I find especially annoying:
1. Sports news used to be at the end, before the weather. Now, it is in the middle and I have to listen to some team hiring some hot jock for another $5 million/year payroll.
2. News is trying very hard to shock people and they are succeeding. I call it "Shocker" news and I don't like Shocker news.
3. Yes, all the stations have the same news. They just copy each other. No variety! You watch CBC in Canada, BBC in the UK or US news or even Australian News and it's almost all the same. They all love Donald Trump and broadcast every breath he breathes. It really is a case of "monkey see, monkey do."
4. Way too much news about Donald Trump and that "bloody" Prince Harry. There is a lot more to the world than Trump and Harry!
5. In Canada we used to have news with no commercials. Now, it's a few minutes of news and then a long string of really stupid and boring commercials that burn your brains out. The CBC is now out there making money by forcing us all to view their string of bad commercials.
6. In Canada we are drowning in First Nations News. In the last census we had 1.8 million First Nations people. The total population of Canada is almost 37 million . Yet often we have more First Nations News then any other news. Seems like a bad imbalance to me. As a non First Nations person, I feel left out in the country I was born and raised in.
7. Having 2 news broadcasters. I don't mind 1 being male and the other female. I don't mind 1 being white and the other being from a visable minority. What I do mind is that 1 broadcasters interrupts the other and doesn't give them a chance to finish what they are saying. Just like a bunch of bad kids! Very unprofessional.
8. The constant use of computers to interview people. The picture is often poor and the voice cannot be understood too well.
9. The media telling me, "What you need to know about Prince Harry." I don't need to know anything about the darling Prince and I wish the media would stop telling me what I need to know. I know what I need to know and I'm sure they don't know and I wish they would stop telling me that they know what I need to know. GEE!
10. The media telling me, "Some people want answers to............... whatever!) Who are these "some people?" How many are there in this group of "some people." Are there 1 or 2 or are there thousands? Statements like this don't make any sense.
 
Packerjohn said:
Lucky me, I don't live in the USA so I don't have to put up with the constant brain-washing of "you are sick" commercials" and of course, "ask your doctor about blah, blah, blah!"

These days I watch less and less news as I get older. Here is what I find especially annoying:
1. Sports news used to be at the end, before the weather. Now, it is in the middle and I have to listen to some team hiring some hot jock for another $5 million/year payroll.
2. News is trying very hard to shock people and they are succeeding. I call it "Shocker" news and I don't like Shocker news.
3. Yes, all the stations have the same news. They just copy each other. No variety! You watch CBC in Canada, BBC in the UK or US news or even Australian News and it's almost all the same. They all love Donald Trump and broadcast every breath he breathes. It really is a case of "monkey see, monkey do."
4. Way too much news about Donald Trump and that "bloody" Prince Harry. There is a lot more to the world than Trump and Harry!
5. In Canada we used to have news with no commercials. Now, it's a few minutes of news and then a long string of really stupid and boring commercials that burn your brains out. The CBC is now out there making money by forcing us all to view their string of bad commercials.
6. In Canada we are drowning in First Nations News. In the last census we had 1.8 million First Nations people. The total population of Canada is almost 37 million . Yet often we have more First Nations News then any other news. Seems like a bad imbalance to me. As a non First Nations person, I feel left out in the country I was born and raised in.
7. Having 2 news broadcasters. I don't mind 1 being male and the other female. I don't mind 1 being white and the other being from a visable minority. What I do mind is that 1 broadcasters interrupts the other and doesn't give them a chance to finish what they are saying. Just like a bunch of bad kids! Very unprofessional.
8. The constant use of computers to interview people. The picture is often poor and the voice cannot be understood too well.
9. The media telling me, "What you need to know about Prince Harry." I don't need to know anything about the darling Prince and I wish the media would stop telling me what I need to know. I know what I need to know and I'm sure they don't know and I wish they would stop telling me that they know what I need to know. GEE!
10. The media telling me, "Some people want answers to............... whatever!) Who are these "some people?" How many are there in this group of "some people." Are there 1 or 2 or are there thousands? Statements like this don't make any sense.
Click to expand...
With the Trump/Harry stuff, I view it as the comic relief between the serious acts.

You know, the clown show.
 
fuzzybuddy said:
I wish there was a way to hold people accountable for what they say. I don't think a calculated, campaign of intentional disinformation for some political end is "free speech". I'm thinking of Sandy Hook's "crisis actors". There's a difference between one's opinion, and the intent to wrongfully deceive. Granted that's a close call.
Click to expand...
Somewhat like this ^

- It probably can't happen, but get rid of "fake news," propaganda, material based on personal bias, and flat-out lies
- insist reporters use normal vocabulary instead of slang
- and to keep a job, they should be required to get the facts straight

In other words, basic integrity. Ha ha and ha.

Oh, and I'll add: make sure all the facts are in before reporting.
 
I think the problem is, too many people don't know the difference between a legitimate news source and an opinion outlet. I have yet to see anyone post a link to show that the news media is lying to us.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top