What is happening to our society?

[garyb1st]

Things really aren't a whole lot different from when I grew up.  That was in the 40's and 50's.  We had Joe McCarthy scaring the heck out of us thinking those Commies would be coming through the door any minute.  Are you now or have you ever been a member of an RV forum.  Then we had those scary drills and had to take shelter under our desk.  It's a nuclear bomb teach.  Do you think the desk will keep us safe.  Thankfully we don't have to worry about that anymore.  Today, Putin the horribly misunderstood leader of the not so free world, who strongly denies having anything to do with attempting to disrupt our Democracy has been elevated to almost BFF status.  And Un, what a guy.  How could we have possibly misunderstood this great leader.     

But now we have the Fake News to contend with.  I love listening to the Fake News.  First I listen to CNN, then I turn on Fox News hoping to find an opposing view.  Usually i get the latest scores, football, baseball or whatever.  I know they have opposing view, I just haven't figured out the timing.  When I want a laugh I listen to Hannity.  Hard to believe he has such a following.  Then there's Alex Jones.  Wow, we're in trouble now.  It's like a three ring circus.  But I don't remember there being any Fake News before 2017.  How could we have all been so mislead.  And when did it begin.  Oh yes, now I remember.  It was shortly after Alternative Facts. 

But it is possible to watch the news and actually hear what's being said.  Love those youtube videos.  So we don't have to read the Fake News a day later.  At least I thought that was safe.  But that was before our leader let us know that guys like Lester Holt could actually fudge those videos.  Oh shucks, now what.  So even if I'm watching someone say something, he's probably not really saying it. 

Oh if we could only turn back the clock to BAF.  That's Before Alternative Facts. 

 

[SargeW]

Lets not drift into the political arena, or I (or someone else) will lock it.

 

[Bill N]

Lets not drift into the political arena, or I (or someone else) will lock it.

Actually Sarge, the thread is on the slippery slope already and I can see that it has moved into the political arena for sure.  As the OP I would not object to putting the ax to it.  Your choice.

Bill

 

[Oldgator73]

I had to tie both hands behind my back to keep from replying to some posts here. I am typing with my toes now. Has taken me six hours to get this far.

 

[SeilerBird]

Bill I couldn't agree more, the media is, in my opinion, not put there to spread the news. News is factual information. They certainly can't say with a straight face that they report the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

The truth is the truth but every single news organization in existence leans either to the left or to the right and their bias comes with what they choose to report and how they slant the news. All news sources have a bias.

 

[Oldgator73]

Bill I couldn't agree more, the media is, in my opinion, not put there to spread the news. News is factual information. They certainly can't say with a straight face that they report the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

What is the difference in spreading the news and reporting the news? The news is the news. When someone, be it elected official, CEO, someone in entertainment or common citizen, says or does something and that is reported with video or direct quote, it is not fake news. It is fact that that person said or did that thing. I will concede that cable news agencies do participate in opinion. A newsworthy topic is brought up and the ?round table? discusses it. Everybody on the panel is asked to give their opinion. Local news usually does not employ this format. What it comes down to is it is up to us, the public, to glean out the crap that ends up on our FB pages or Twitter feeds or whatever it is we look at several hundred times a day. Just because it?s on the Internet does not make it so. I always try to have at least three sources before I post something. Many times I call out friends and others for posting things that are not factual. Too many folks are shamefully gullible and will believe whatever they read as long as it supports their opinion or agenda. It seems my hands have become untied. I could never had written this much with my feet.

 

[Gary RV_Wizard]

I see a lot of "factual reporting" that is biased simply by the way the information is presented, e.g. the choice of words and emphasis. Often in a manner I believe to be calculated to stir controversy or to paint a person or situation in the most unfavorable light. The actual fact being reported is often difficult to even find in the report, be it video or text, but the headline screams and the barely-related rhetoric abounds.  If I state the simple fact  "The sun rose in the east this morning", it might get reported as "Man Sees Red Threat on the Horizon" and include wild conjectures as to why I said that,  the correlation that Russia and China are also in the East, and sound/text bites from some alleged expert as to whether the human race is doomed to extinction from sun radiation damage.  A tiny "fact"  gets exploited far beyond its significance, either because it gains viewers or advances an agenda. Often both.  The "talking heads" are far too often a representative of some reputed "think tank" with a lofty-sounding name, e.g. 'Americans for Truth & Purity', but in actuality a political action group with an agenda.

 

[HappyWanderer]

A good example of non-political bias: Last week CBS News did a fluff piece on a proposed new Academy Award being withdrawn due to some controversy.

After the field reporter completed the story, talking head Gayle King looked right into the camera and said, "I think that's a good idea."

I care not one little bit about her feelings on any story, no matter how trivial. Report the facts, I'll form my own opinion.

 

[Bill N]

I see a lot of "factual reporting" that is biased simply by the way the information is presented, e.g. the choice of words and emphasis. Often in a manner I believe to be calculated to stir controversy or to paint a person or situation in the most unfavorable light. The actual fact being reported is often difficult to even find in the report, be it video or text, but the headline screams and the barely-related rhetoric abounds.  If I state the simple fact  "The sun rose in the east this morning", it might get reported as "Man Sees Red Threat on the Horizon" and include wild conjectures as to why I said that,  the correlation that Russia and China are also in the East, and sound/text bites from some alleged expert as to whether the human race is doomed to extinction from sun radiation damage.  A tiny "fact"  gets exploited far beyond its significance, either because it gains viewers or advances an agenda. Often both.  The "talking heads" are far too often a representative of some reputed "think tank" with a lofty-sounding name, e.g. 'Americans for Truth & Purity', but in actuality a political action group with an agenda.

Excellent Post Gary and and I am happy the thread has survived by going semi-sorta neutral on the journalism topic.  But you hit the nail on the head when you mention that it is the approach to a news item that makes a difference.  Insertion of certain words by the writer are at times intended to slant the facts to one side or the other.  Failure to use words like 'allegedly' tend to make a statement positive rather than just possible.  I remember when John Cameron Swayze gave us the entire world news in 15 minutes and that included a promo for the Camel Caravan...lol  Today it takes 24/7 to get all the news on multiple media sources - isn't that progress?...lol

What is a major difference today is citation of sources.  Simple facts did not need sources but when someone is being verbally attacked or accused of something that could be considered criminal the source should be identified as something beyond 'anonymous' or 'senior official'.  I read an interesting article today that went into the 'senior official' designation and it appears that can be a whole bunch of people not just somebody who is physically in a office.  I know there is a need on occasion to not identify a source but in today's world with the internet running wild and social media the source of a lot of nonsense an identity is required for me to believe some serious charge against a person.  And don't get me started on Polls.  That is for a whole other thread...

Bill

 

[darsben]

Isn't that why it is incumbent upon us the citizens of the USA to read the foreign press both of our foes and of our allies and then FIGURE out for ourselves exactly where the truth is. I read a Canadian Newspaper (usually the Whig-Standard),  Granma from Cuba, A mideast newspaper, a Caribbean paper (usually Dominican) and the Moscow times. Then you get different slants on the same subject.   
At least once a week get an outsiders view of what is going on in the world.

 

[Cooperhawk]

I don't have access to all those papers nor read any foreign languages.  Also I probably don't have the time.

The old adage about "Dog bites man" doesn't sell papers, but 'Man bites dog" does holds true.
The press is often trying to stir up as much dissension as they can just to sell papers or get you to watch their news outlet.  If later the report is proven to be totally false, they may or may not do a retraction, but in an obscure place or venue.  Doesn't matter the harm done if they make money.
Often talking heads will do the same just to get name recognition.

What upsets me are the innocent people who are injured either physically or personally and have no recourse.  I wish the courts allowed for wronged innocents to sue or in some way prosecute the guilty, but it is very difficult to do.  With "Absence of Malice" it is very hard to prove that it was done intentionally.  I wish there were penalties for falsely reporting facts not in evidence.

When I was a young man I thought Walter Cronkite walked on water.  I trusted him and believed whatever he reported as fact.  Then I went to Viet Nam in 65 with the Military Assistance Command.  When I came back and turned on his news report I couldn't believe what I was hearing.  He was outright lying or very uninformed.  I never trusted him again or any other news source.  I take it all with a grain of salt.

 

[darsben]

I don't have access to all those papers nor read any foreign languages.  Also I probably don't have the time.

The old adage about "Dog bites man" doesn't sell papers, but 'Man bites dog" does holds true.
The press is often trying to stir up as much dissension as they can just to sell papers or get you to watch their news outlet.  If later the report is proven to be totally false, they may or may not do a retraction, but in an obscure place or venue.  Doesn't matter the harm done if they make money.
Often talking heads will do the same just to get name recognition.

What upsets me are the innocent people who are injured either physically or personally and have no recourse.  I wish the courts allowed for wronged innocents to sue or in some way prosecute the guilty, but it is very difficult to do.  With "Absence of Malice" it is very hard to prove that it was done intentionally.  I wish there were penalties for falsely reporting facts not in evidence.

When I was a young man I thought Walter Cronkite walked on water.  I trusted him and believed whatever he reported as fact.  Then I went to Viet Nam in 65 with the Military Assistance Command.  When I came back and turned on his news report I couldn't believe what I was hearing.  He was outright lying or very uninformed.  I never trusted him again or any other news source.  I take it all with a grain of salt.

You have access to all the newspapers if you have internet and they are in English.
Sorry you do not have the time to be an informed citizen.
And unless youare a public figure you do have redress through the courts

 

[PJ Stough]

I don't have access to all those papers nor read any foreign languages.  Also I probably don't have the time.

The old adage about "Dog bites man" doesn't sell papers, but 'Man bites dog" does holds true.
The press is often trying to stir up as much dissension as they can just to sell papers or get you to watch their news outlet.  If later the report is proven to be totally false, they may or may not do a retraction, but in an obscure place or venue.  Doesn't matter the harm done if they make money.
Often talking heads will do the same just to get name recognition.

What upsets me are the innocent people who are injured either physically or personally and have no recourse.  I wish the courts allowed for wronged innocents to sue or in some way prosecute the guilty, but it is very difficult to do.  With "Absence of Malice" it is very hard to prove that it was done intentionally.  I wish there were penalties for falsely reporting facts not in evidence.

When I was a young man I thought Walter Cronkite walked on water.  I trusted him and believed whatever he reported as fact.  Then I went to Viet Nam in 65 with the Military Assistance Command.  When I came back and turned on his news report I couldn't believe what I was hearing.  He was outright lying or very uninformed.  I never trusted him again or any other news source.  I take it all with a grain of salt.

One of the secrets to success in life is to recognize the truth when you hear it.

 

[SargeW]

The press is often trying to stir up as much dissension as they can just to sell papers or get you to watch their news outlet. 

This is a fact I learned 35 years ago while working as a very young officer in the City of Los Angeles. The LA Times would report on stories that I was present for and watched unfold, but reading the news article about it later made the incident unrecognizable.  Right away I realized that Journalism to them was just about selling papers and making money. 

 

[Bill N]

When I was a young man I thought Walter Cronkite walked on water.  I trusted him and believed whatever he reported as fact.  Then I went to Viet Nam in 65 with the Military Assistance Command.  When I came back and turned on his news report I couldn't believe what I was hearing.  He was outright lying or very uninformed.  I never trusted him again or any other news source.  I take it all with a grain of salt.

He based everything he said about Vietnam on one trip he made there.  You are 100 percent correct.

Bill

 

[darsben]

This is a fact I learned 35 years ago while working as a very young officer in the City of Los Angeles. The LA Times would report on stories that I was present for and watched unfold, but reading the news article about it later made the incident unrecognizable.  Right away I realized that Journalism to them was just about selling papers and making money.

Or it could have been a matter of perspective and heat of the moment. That is why eyewitnesses as you should know give different accounts of the same incident 

 

[Oldgator73]

This is a fact I learned 35 years ago while working as a very young officer in the City of Los Angeles. The LA Times would report on stories that I was present for and watched unfold, but reading the news article about it later made the incident unrecognizable.  Right away I realized that Journalism to them was just about selling papers and making money.

News whether it be print, TV or online cannot survive if it doesn?t make money. Revenue drops in direct correlation with ratings. The more sensational the story the more it is read or viewed. When I was a kid we had three TV channels on a good day. One newspaper. So very little competition. Now, depending on your cable package, we have virtually hundreds of news channels and thousands of web based news and entertainment outlets to choose from. Competition is fierce. It is up to each individual to decide what to believe or not.

 

[sightseers]

Everyone is all upset about alleged foreign influence of our elections.... (as if we don't do that.. )

but in 2016 I remember seeing all over the National News president Obama assuring us that our election system could not be corrupted by the Russians....and for Trump not to start making excuses about losing the election. 

Flash to today's National News ...  the story sure has sure changed. 

Collusion...Collusion...Collusion.

 

[John From Detroit]

A good example of non-political bias: Last week CBS News did a fluff piece on a proposed new Academy Award being withdrawn due to some controversy.

After the field reporter completed the story, talking head Gayle King looked right into the camera and said, "I think that's a good idea."

I care not one little bit about her feelings on any story, no matter how trivial. Report the facts, I'll form my own opinion.

My "Standard" for news reporters is a guy named Hugh Mortimer who worked at WKZO TV back in the 60s.. He went to the same school it appears as Walter Cronkite.  He presented the news as Fact. NO opinion, no editorials unless they were clearly identified as such.

When it comes to news just call me Joe Friday  "Just the facts Mam.. Just the Facts" I don't care what you think about it , IN fact I don't want you to THINK about it. I just want you to present it. FAIRLY..

And I'd like more than 30 seconds
Weather.. now that's "What you think"

Two Fuel Trucks having an argument over right of way in the middle of a bridge (And actual story from 1998 by the way) Well that's a 40 mile DETOUR and that all I need to know . (OH man was that a long day.. Left Detroit friday. over night in Jenny Jump park, on to NYC. concerrt. pick up Daughter and we have to be in Farmington Hills (Outside Detroit) at 10 am Sunday for a  Gig.. I was T*I*R*E*D*! and I had to sing and she had to play. !!!!!)

 

[garyb1st]

When it comes to news just call me Joe Friday  "Just the facts Mam.. Just the Facts" I don't care what you think about it , IN fact I don't want you to THINK about it. I just want you to present it. FAIRLY..

Define FAIRLY.  And do so without regard to your own belief system, your likes and dislikes, your preferences, your political and religious views.  We all have them.  Newscasters do not live in a vacuum.  They're human and live in the real world.  Is it even possible for a newscaster to present something, anything 'FAIRLY'?  He would have to be a rather unique individual.