675
The public doesn’t understand the risks of a Trump victory. That’s the media’s fault
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 10 Nov 2023
675 points (96.0% liked)
politics
18870 readers
3730 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Through the time, the media has changed. No so long ago, it was to inform the population of what was happening outside. The news freedom is important at this point. It allows everyone to build an opinion, and it's a counter power to the state. The last decade saw a radical change in how we use the media. It's for a good part of them about making money. Where money was critical to inform the population, this same money became critical to make profit. Internet accelerates the movement with the clicks and the views. The run to maximize the profit coming from the media ruined the quality of the articles behind the motto "more and shorter".
This change has been coming since the 90s, ever since Reagan shut down the Fairness Doctrine in the FCC and the media cross-ownership rule.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_cross-ownership_in_the_United_States
After the 1996 Telecommunications Act, most of those rules were repealed and we began to see quick consolidation of media outlets. That's why most newspapers and broadcast stations are owned by a single corporate parent. It has not led to greater competition and better journalism. Quite the opposite.
Almost nobody gets any news from anything that would be covered by the fairness doctrine, which was only a possible federal power due to the FCC being in control of allocating radio frequency.
Stop preaching like it would have made any difference at all, because it functional died with the rise of cable TV anyway, Reagan or no Reagan.
This entire thread is pure amateur hour. The ignorance on display here is very disheartening and speaks to how a lack of media literacy contributes to the larger dysfunction. People know something is wrong, they just have no idea why or how it's gone wrong.
That's an important factor, but another is the shift from print to the internet. With print you bought a paper then looked to see what was inside. You could know which papers had more reliable reporting. With the internet there's no audience loyalty and most people are not paying, so they're always desperate to get you to click on their article instead of someone else's for the sake of the advertising views. So shock, outrage and clickbait win every time, not responsible reporting.