519
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 13 Feb 2024
519 points (87.9% liked)
politics
18069 readers
3353 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!
- 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
Everyone that clicked on this article please be aware that we are the problem behind why news agencies don't cover real news anymore.
Jokes on you, I only read the comments!
Same, but even our interest in other peoples views on the topic at hand contributes to the superficial topic getting more views
My dude, if you think this level of superficial bullshit is new in any way, you might want to brush up on your history. This kind of nonsense goes back centuries.
Obviously it isn't new, but it's important to point out so people can acknowledge it and work to avoid engaging in it in the future. Periodically engaging in this content is fine, that's why we had tabloids, but old companies that specifically worked in journalism that have been bought and re-aligned with tabloid-esque behaviour is because we are willing to click on it.
A few less clicks and more reflection on the things we click can go a long way, in my opinion.
You raise absolutely valid points, but the obvious counterargument to your point is that serious journalism still exists. Tabloid click bait nonsense has been around since the printing press, and serious journalism has still existed throughout all of it. To say that "news agencies don't cover real news anymore" is hardly different than the pearl-clutching nonsense from the very same tabloids you're railing against.
I'm not trying to defend this schlock, just reassuring that quality journalism is under no threat of actually dying. As long as there are people who want to be heard, they'll find a way to be heard.
I don't disagree that quality journalism exists, however I would posit that current day journalists have more incentive to cover nonsense like the current topic as opposed to serious issues like tax avoidance from billionaires or inappropriate gifts, travel and monetary donations to various individuals in power (and their backing bodies) from multinational corporations and their associated c-suites. A key issue of note is the increasing rate over the last few years in which individuals with journalistic integrity are being shunted aside or outright murdered, or imprisoned, for their investigations into such things (kashoggi being one of the largest international examples of this, but I would posit the majority of individuals that work for the ICIJ would fall under that umbrella as well, seeing as a number of them have been murdered in recent years, which in my opinion deters serious journalism that holds those elected to account)
I would also note that the international nature of corrupt banking and the intertwining of banking interests with military industrial interests creates a system of active suppression and aversion.
Especially given the inherent need for local journalists to travel abroad to unfavourable countries to get answers from multinational companies alleged to be engaged in nefarious actions whether directly or within their supply chains.
This quote from the official inquiry regarding the murder of Daphne Galizia is particularly chilling in my opinion:
Apologies in advance for link spam. Sources in case you may have missed any of the above/in case others would like to dive further:
Two international investigations shut down with direct violence:
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/2/26/timeline-of-the-murder-of-journalist-jamal-khashoggi
https://www.icij.org/investigations/panama-papers/malta-responsible-for-assassination-of-journalist-daphne-caruana-galizia-inquiry-finds/
Links supporting notes about missing/murdered journalists:
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/dec/10/42-journalists-killed-over-their-work-in-2020
Specifically murder in relation to their investigations. You'll notice a trend between terror and banking crisis years and increase of journalist murders. 2023 was lower but appears to be an outlier, here's hoping the 2023 trend continues:
https://cpj.org/data/killed/?status=Killed&motiveConfirmed%5B%5D=Confirmed&type%5B%5D=Journalist&typeOfDeath%5B%5D=Murder&start_year=2000&end_year=2023&group_by=year
https://cpj.org/reports/2020/12/record-number-journalists-jailed-imprisoned/
https://cpj.org/data/killed/all/?status=Killed&motiveConfirmed%5B%5D=Confirmed&motiveUnconfirmed%5B%5D=Unconfirmed&type%5B%5D=Journalist&type%5B%5D=Media%20Worker&start_year=1992&end_year=2024&group_by=year
https://cpj.org/data/?status=Imprisoned&start_year=1992&end_year=2023&group_by=year
https://cpj.org/data/missing/?status=Missing&start_year=2024&end_year=2024&group_by=location
(cpj.org is a pretty decent resource for keeping up to date on the amount of missing/imprisoned/killed journalists worldwide)
ICIJ link because I think they do good work:
https://www.icij.org/
Ground news link to assist with sifting through biased articles (I'm guessing more people are aware of this, but I have found it particularly useful these days with certain organizations choosing to omit facts or present an incomplete scenario to push a narrative)
https://ground.news/
Never read the article and go straight to the comment section gang wins again 😎
I don't even go to the comments. I just form an opinion based on my 3 favorite words in the post title.
Good thing I never click the articles.
Subs like this should have a rule against clickbait bullshit like that anyway. Mention Trump, Taytay and Mark Hamill in the headline, and yet leave out any information from the Tweet itself. As if a Tweet from years ago is fucking news in any case.
The internet is a cesspool of sensationalist nothing.
If you don't think Trump's potential re-election isn't THE news story of the year, I don't know what you think real news is.
But what Mark Hamill thinks about Taylor Swifts tweet about him isn't.
His potential re-election is both obvious and concerning.
A celebrity with no formal education or experience in politics, geopolitics or law has no place speaking on it to the public. Opinions are fine, but people on the whole seem to be unable to make clear in their own minds that the opinions of a celebrity are opinions wholly based on their personal purview and not professional experience.