|
|
Topic Originator: calpar
Date: Sat 16 Feb 10:57
This description applies to what exactly in peoples opinion ?
Personally, cos I work in IT am on interweb daily for hours, i occasionally google stuff, and get allsorts of info from goodness knows where, but normally i start off with my daily news update from bbc, cos its as believable as anywhere imo
If i find an article of specific interest, as i said, i often google to find other slants on it, and that often finds some absolute hogwash imo
so, where exactly do you find ‘the truth’ ?
Personally, the term msm seems at least condescending to me, and again at least, a lot of peesh, cos all media is now mainstream 🤔
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: richie5401
Date: Sat 16 Feb 12:27
I would settle for the facts in news reporting instead of the endless biased opinion from all outlets.
Fact checking is secondary to getting to the "breaking news" first.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: OzPar
Date: Sat 16 Feb 13:20
I still tend to think of the mainstream media in the traditional sense; in other words, the main newspapers, news magazines, TV stations, radio stations - what we have had for decades, in some cases, with newspapers, centuries. All of these have commuted to the web, some more successfully than others.
In the past 20 years or so there has been the development of New Media; websites that operate pretty much along traditional lines employing professional journalists and commentators who are experts in their fields. In the main, their output on the web can be every bit as good as their traditional news counterparts (oft times better) and increasingly it is becoming difficult to argue that they are not a part of the mainstream media too.
But for every good, there is a bad and a growing proportion of New Media sites are run by folk with little or no experience in news gathering and little or no understanding of the laws of libel. Some, as we have learned of late, are even tools of foreign powers to be used for nefarious purposes.
The advent of YouTube and live streaming has further revolutionised the media, particularly in the last five years. Increasingly, people are choosing to abandon their TVs and the hard-copy printed publications to get their news and information from their laptops or phones.
Generally speaking, this is a wonderful thing, but the trouble is that as each day goes by, this area is becoming populated more and more by cranks and subversives largely driven by single issues. News has become a manipulatable commodity in ways we never dreamt of 20 years ago and it is becoming harder and harder to trust what we see and read.
When Windows 95 was launched almost a quarter of a century ago, those of us with the wherewithal took the opportunity to access the internet for the first time and were just in awe of its possibilities.
We had been brought up in a world where you read your paper in the morning, got hourly news updates on the radio and tuned into the news on TV at 6 and 10 o'clock at night. We knew that certain stations and papers had certain biases and furnished with this knowledge we filtered accordingly.
Today, it is almost impossible to perform this filter on the news we get, for it is so widespread yet conversely, so narrowly focussed. Cutbacks in the newsrooms and news agencies have resulted in fewer journalists (particularly experienced journalists) being employed and the coverage has narrowed accordingly. This inevitably results in poorer quality output. Worse still, the development of fake sound and visual techniques makes it increasingly difficult for the public to not be taken in by some of what we see.
For these reasons, but by no means for those alone, I prefer to stick to my definition of the mainstream media as described in the first two paragraphs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: calpar
Date: Sat 16 Feb 18:00
Fair comment above, but unfortunately i dont now trust the traditional forms as much as i read the ‘crackpot’ blogs and sites, and in the main take everything off tinternet with a pinch of salt
If any consolation can be taken from the explosion of information thats come about in last 20 years or so, its that its more difficult for the truth to be hidden, problem now is distinguishing that from the mire of keech that surrounds it
False news is not new, its just that for some reason, the masses now believe it, ecause its on tinternet ! The irony eh
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Berkey
Date: Sat 16 Feb 19:41
The problem with the bbc is that if someone says it raining they get someone else on who says it’s not to show balance rather than sticking thier head out the window and actually checking what the truth is.
Their brexit reporting has been awful but Neil and marr are tories and Cameron and May have stuffed the senior positions full of tories.
Back to being drenched in my own negativity….
|
|
|
|
|
|
