Oh, yes, there is, says Vox on the left. And -- they go on to add -- our side does it too.
An interesting pair of admissions against interest, both aimed at trying to restore some capacity for a reasoned debate between the factions.
UPDATE: In addition to genuinely fake news, there's also the more traditional problem of bias.
A major new study out of Harvard University has revealed the true extent of the mainstream media’s bias against Donald Trump... They found that the tone of some outlets was negative in as many as 98% of reports, significantly more hostile than the first 100 days of the three previous administrations.That was a European outlet, though. The major American outlets were much closer to nine out of ten than ten out of ten.
UPDATE: The actual Harvard study is here.
8 comments:
Used to be, journalistic standards required two or more on the record claims, made by named sources, to corroborate unidentified sources, which with that corroboration then could be taken seriously.
Too many NLMSM outlets have walked away from that simple standard. Without it, it's not possible to accept any NLMSM outlet's claims as other than fake news. If the claims were true, after all, they'd happily substantiate them.
Eric Hines
The two sides disagree on the definition of "fake".
The traditional (liberal) media consider any discussion of Dan Rather's forged memos, or "Why Michael Landon left *BONANZA*" both equally stale, and hence other-than-news. "Not news." Fake News. Pay no attention. Move on.
The (conservative) bloggers consider websites dedicated to presentations about not-quite-forgotten celebrities, formerly pretty girls, and once-wealthy elites as "Click Bait", and a distinct medium from narratives about Dan Rather, Brian Williams, side-saddle gas tanks in Chevy Trucks, bleached meat at Food Lion, John Edwards's mistress, Al Gore's media deals, and what Micky Kaus calls undernews -- such as Hillary Clinton's health or lack of same. Click bait is NOT a problem they worry about. The suppression of, or presentation of false and misleading dismissal of, the latter examples are should-be-news. They are only "not news" because the gatekeepers of "news" impose blackouts on the narratives. Some news gatekeepers approve is then FAKE news, even if true, because it supplants the suppressed news (even if, perhaps, false, like Hillary's health. We can discuss McCain's crippled hands but not Hillary's tottering balance? That's now fair and balance, that's FAKE!)
Two sides arguing about two words and focusing on two different things. I suspect the discussion will remain unfruitful.
A major new study out of Harvard University has revealed the true extent of the mainstream media’s bias against Donald Trump... They found that the tone of some outlets was negative in as many as 98% of reports, significantly more hostile than the first 100 days of the three previous administrations.
It is interesting that the 2% of articles for Trump parallels the newspaper endorsements for Trump in the election. Final newspaper endorsement count: Clinton 57, Trump 2.That would be 3% of newspapers favoring Trump in the election.
Wiki: Newspaper endorsements in the United States presidential election, 2016 lists circulation figures along with endorsements. I added them up and guess what? Newspapers that endorsed Trump accounted for 2.5% of circulation for newspapers that took a stand.
Law of large numbers?
It's also worth noting that the actual study considers a story about falling poll numbers to have a negative "tone," even though it's just a straight reporting of fact. The editorial decision to promulgate that fact, I suppose, is what makes it contribute to the negative tone (rendering it news rather than 'not news,' as J Melcher puts it).
Still, to refuse to report it would be at least as problematic a decision; and to report that his poll numbers were up would be 'fake news.' So at least sometimes, negative "tone" may be as justified as any other option.
It's also worth noting that the actual study considers a story about falling poll numbers to have a negative "tone," even though it's just a straight reporting of fact.
It's also worth noting that in many cases, it is the news organization itself which requests the poll. So in effect, they're not just reporting on facts, they're generating the basis for the story as well.
As to anonymous sources, I am not so old, but I remember the pressman's adage "if your mother says she loves you, get a confirming source". Once upon a time (not so long ago) an anonymous source without corroboration was considered un-newsworthy. And a reporter who would say "I have an anonymous source" could only get an article published on the basis of that source IF he literally put his job on the line. "I trust this source implicitly" meant that the reporter was asking the newspaper/station to push a story and risk their reputation on it being true. And if the source ended up not actually being reliable? Well, generally that was the end of that reporter's career. Now? An unnamed source can read an unsubstantiated document over the phone to a reporter at the NYT, and they will publish a story all but claiming it to be ironclad proof that the President obstructed justice. Fifty years ago, it would have never even been published, and any reporter asking the editor's permission to file the report would have been lucky to be working there the next day.
All week I've been seeing stories like "Pres. Trump embarked this week on his first foreign trip, and by the way, back here at home he continues to be dogged by terrible news about the terrible situation with his terrible ties to Russia."
I loved a bit in "The Week in Pictures" suggesting that the president should re-appoint Comey as head of the FBI just to see his enemies change their position one more time.
I always wondered what would happen to a Democrat if the media ever turned on em. Trum is pretty close to that.
"The editorial decision to promulgate that fact, I suppose, is what makes it contribute to the negative tone"
This is the important point. It's that they have editorial power- they are the gatekeepers- of what makes the news and what doesn't, what is reported over and over, and what gets buried on page A-27 so that they can say 'see- we have balanced reporting' all the while pushing the narrative to one side. Another example- the Headline and byline pushing a narrative that sometimes the article itself will at some point (deep in the article) refute. That's editorial power to make the facts work with the narrative, even when they disagree with the narrative in rational fact.
I have little regard for journalists, and especially editors. I once wrote a letter to the editors of Time. Got it published. They edited it 'for length', but also changed a word, and in so doing those things, entirely changed the meaning of the letter. It was brilliant on their part, but utterly dishonest and as fake as I can imagine, putting what they printed and keeping my name on it. This is just how they work. This is also why many public figures will only interview live- to withhold the power of editing from them.
Post a Comment