Canadians’ trust in the legacy media reaches a new low: report

[Weinie]

I was, unfortunately, involved in the Somalia Inquiry (at the periphery, not as a target. Thank god) in the 1990s. With the notable exception of 1 or 2 reporters (interestingly for the local Pembroke newspaper and TV station), what actually happened that day and what was reported that evening often bore only a passing resemblence to each other. The local reporters actually took the time to get things right and in context and any mistakes (everybody makes mistakes) they made were usually honest ones. Unlike their national “superstar” colleagues….

I was tasked to provide a Daily sitrep of Somalia coverage. After the first couple of days, I was being scolded/ridiculed for how my assessment did not match media reporting. I begged to differ (I am a differ begger) and eventually the grownups realized that what was being testified, and what was reported, were two entirely separate narratives. That's when I began to suspect the motives of media.

 

[Kirkhill]

bias is fine and understandable, direct fiction presented as news is not.

How do we categorize the absence of news?

Lying by omission, ..., occurs when an important fact is left out...

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I was tasked to provide a Daily sitrep of Somalia coverage. After the first couple of days, I was being scolded/ridiculed for how my assessment did not match media reporting. I begged to differ (I am a differ begger) and eventually the grownups realized that what was being testified, and what was reported, were two entirely separate narratives. That's when I began to suspect the motives of media.

I know of which you speak. That was the point at which my respect for and trust in the news media took a dive.

I am deeply sceptical of almost all news reportage.

 

[CBH99]

Watch the news. Especially stateside. At 6 o'clock every evening there are thousands of newscasters all repeating the exact same phrases, in the exact same tone and delivery as their political party.

Remember that super creepy moment when newscasters all across the US used the exact same wording/teleprompter speech to address their viewers, about how important it is for them to be ‘independent and impartial’?

The crazy part was, I think even the newscasters reading it off the teleprompter believed in what they were saying.



That was just pure 1984, manifest

 

[Halifax Tar]

Well, until "sedition" has a different definition (dictionary, not Criminal Code*) than "incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority", nope. Some media may call for that explicitly, but not toooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo many and far from widespread.

Very good question right there. Some out there do a decent job, but they're few and far between.

I could have used fomenting insurrection but all I could think of was the office when I said it in my head lol

It seems to me like alot of the news agencies talk pleasure in division and pitting us against each other...

 

[Good2Golf]

Which could serve to reinforce the relationship
Between MSM and Government: “keep the peasants fearful, and we will always appear their savior…”

 

[The Bread Guy]

... In the CCG, the media got the details of incidents I was involved in about 40% wrong each time ...

Curious - is that based on you briefing the media & them getting it 40% wrong, or you sending stuff up the chain, with someone "greater & wiser" sharing & the media getting int wrong?

I've had a bit of experience in both situations, and sometimes, what I feed to the information machine seems to bear little resemblance to what the info machine feeds to media - and I've seen that with two colours of team jerseys in Ottawa.

Which doesn't excuse media from the mistakes they make, but that level of "telegraph" also contributes to things, and would need different solutions.

I could have used fomenting insurrection but all I could think of was the office when I said it in my head lol

It seems to me like alot of the news agencies talk pleasure in division and pitting us against each other...

Still, even if the media play "us vs. them" (something political parties and groups do too), "formenting insurrection" is still too far off the mark if they're not saying, "hey, who cares about elections, let's just go and pull government out of their seats right now!"

 

[The Bread Guy]

How do we categorize the absence of news?

Well, media outlets will say they make news fit the "inverted triangle" with the most critical part up top, so it's not necessarily omission, but "that wasn't important enough to fit in." That speaks to bias, for sure, but keep in mind even the media we agree with leaves stuff out, too. That's why taking in more than one outlet, including those we don't like, makes sense. #NothingHasEverythingButEverythingHasSomething

 

[The Bread Guy]

Remember that super creepy moment when newscasters all across the US used the exact same wording/teleprompter speech to address their viewers, about how important it is for them to be ‘independent and impartial’?

Maybe you mean this from 2018?

Remember, like newspaper chains that run the same editorial in more than one paper, this is corporate head office feeding the script to the affiliates.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Local stations close to the source or incident are almost obliged to be spot on. Too many locals know the circumstances and if you go off script, it'll be noticed. As you get further out, people have less involvement and less knowledge of the incident. Many times they have zero interest if something is not in their balliwick. Media can be as biased as they want without anyone being the wiser.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Example of why: How The Media Fumbled the Johnny Depp v. Amber Heard Verdict

This is a really good article. I remember seeing some of the articles this article mentions and thinking they didn't even watch the trial but seemed clear they had a narrative to push.

 

[Kirkhill]

Well, media outlets will say they make news fit the "inverted triangle" with the most critical part up top, so it's not necessarily omission, but "that wasn't important enough to fit in." That speaks to bias, for sure, but keep in mind even the media we agree with leaves stuff out, too. That's why taking in more than one outlet, including those we don't like, makes sense. #NothingHasEverythingButEverythingHasSomething

And it is why it is best to treat everything as opinion.

 

[Kat Stevens]

Maybe you mean this from 2018?

Remember, like newspaper chains that run the same editorial in more than one paper, this is corporate head office feeding the script to the affiliates.

I'd buy that if it were stations from just one network, but it's from ALL the major US networks, and one thing networks don't do is play well together.

 

[CBH99]

Maybe you mean this from 2018?

Remember, like newspaper chains that run the same editorial in more than one paper, this is corporate head office feeding the script to the affiliates.

That’s the one I was thinking of, you nailed it. Is that not disturbing as all hell?

I was going to edit it later with the Sinclair links, I wanted to see if anybody could guess what I was referring to tho first…

A blatant “You’ll believe what we tell you to believe, despite us literally saying the opposite of that with this teleprompt” misrepresentation.

______

Not to derail, but isn’t that similar to the same deal as Pepsi Co & Coca-Cola?

“Competitors” being the two biggest names in the market. On the surface they compete against each other for market share, won’t allow both of their products to be sold in the same venues (sports arenas, restaurants, etc) - corner stores are fine.

They own basically everything we consume as food/drink. Yet aren’t they both quietly owned by the same mega corporation?

…Hence why you don’t see Coca Cola commercials in the summer, those are always for Pepsi. And Pepsi doesn’t even try to advertise in the winter, because those Coca Cola bears are pretty adorable after all….

 

[Jarnhamar]

NBC editing out a very damning part of an interview with Amber Heard.

 

[Furniture]

NBC editing out a very damning part of an interview with Amber Heard.

I've never heard of the guy in the video before, but he hits at one of the key things that podcasts do well, and the media has always been bad at. In a podcast I get to hear a person say exactly what they mean over the course of a an hour or more, rather than a condensed/bastardized version slapped together by an editor looking to generate clicks/views, while staying inside an evening news time slot.

 

[lenaitch]

Can't blatant spin, bias and lies be considered some kind of sedition ?

Are we at the point we need to ask who reports on the reporters ?

If by "report on" you mean 'keep honest', I suppose theoretically it is their employers, press councils and the civil courts. The definition of 'journalist' had been stood on its head by the Internet. The line between somebody who works for a national media organization and somebody who posts a page from their mom's basement has become quite grey. At the least the person who works for the national organization uses a real and traceable name and address.

We went to the local paper to cover some events at our Cadet Corp. There was no interest until my XO talked about his Indigenous background, then they were interested. In the CCG, the media got the details of incidents I was involved in about 40% wrong each time. My sister was a Labour Law Judge and we discuss the case she just heard and what she told me about the case was completely different than what was reported.
The MSM has worked hard to get it's failing grade and isn't willing to look at itself much. Instead it blames everyone else, like a spoiled child.

I wonder how much of that is caused by reduced budgets and greater generalization. The days of foreign correspondents, court reporters, etc., reporters who understood the machinations and nuances of a particular area have become quite rare. More often, they are little more than content aggregators and, if they need to interpret or fill in blank, simply make it up, no matter how innocently intended. The one area that seems to have avoided this trend is financial reporting; probably because it is beyond most liberal arts journalists.

Couple that with needing to fill out 24-hour news cycles and having to compete with instant social media bursts. If some Internet 'news agency' or simply media post breaks a story, even if it is wrong or thin or unconfirmed, what good does it do 'mainstream media' to put out a story 12 hours later if they want to remain relevant? If Rebel Media or some dude on Facebook gets a story wrong, few care.

 

[The Bread Guy]

I'd buy that if it were stations from just one network, but it's from ALL the major US networks, and one thing networks don't do is play well together.

They may be different networks, but if they're all owned by the same WeSaySo Corp....

... In a podcast I get to hear a person say exactly what they mean over the course of a an hour or more, rather than a condensed/bastardized version slapped together by an editor looking to generate clicks/views ...

Good podcasts, like good TV, can do that, showing nuances a 30 second story never will. My fear, though, is wondering about how many consumers seek out that big a chunk of information at any one time - there's a reason a lot more people get their news from social media. And that's part of the problem of media illiteracy. At the risk of sounding like the old man shouting @ clouds, shorter attention/retention spans ain't helping.

 

[Furniture]

They may be different networks, but if they're all owned by the same WeSaySo Corp....

Good podcasts, like good TV, can do that, showing nuances a 30 second story never will. My fear, though, is wondering about how many consumers seek out that big a chunk of information at any one time - there's a reason a lot more people get their news from social media. And that's part of the problem of media illiteracy. At the risk of sounding like the old man shouting @ clouds, shorter attention/retention spans ain't helping.

It's always been a problem, it was just masked better when there were gatekeepers who determined what was or wasn't worthy of being news.

Being media savvy takes a bit of effort, but that is made worse by clickbait MSM media... The social media types got in on it because they realized they could make a buck doing what the MSM had been doing for ages.

If legacy media wants to save itself, it needs to be better. I'll pay for a news subscription if I know I'm getting reasonably balanced news, but I refuse to pay for what they put out these days. I can get the same quality of "reporting" for free from FB and Twitter...

 

[lenaitch]

It's always been a problem, it was just masked better when there were gatekeepers who determined what was or wasn't worthy of being news.

Being media savvy takes a bit of effort, but that is made worse by clickbait MSM media... The social media types got in on it because they realized they could make a buck doing what the MSM had been doing for ages.

If legacy media wants to save itself, it needs to be better. I'll pay for a news subscription if I know I'm getting reasonably balanced news, but I refuse to pay for what they put out these days. I can get the same quality of "reporting" for free from FB and Twitter...

The media waters have become quite muddied. A so-called MSM reporter will present their stories on their particular platform (print, TV, radio, etc.) but also post it as part of the platform's 'digital content', but someone who is an actual digital media reporter - or just calls themselves that only posts online. Like the particular platform or not, at least a 'MSM' outlet has a business address, most have a complaints and editorial department and its reporters and columnists use their actual names, compared to 'bobihategovernmentrant@twitter.com.

Traditional media has its issues but I still trust it a whole lot more that what I see on social media. It helps that, if it is a story I care about, I try to source different traditional media outlets. Maybe its a reflection of my generation.