Why is it bad the "Mainstream Media" went after Trump?

The keyword is accountability.

TV stations and newspapers are organizations that are beholden to many people. Social media is a way to subvert that accountability. Anyone can claim anything on social media and they are not beholden to the truth, to shareholders, or even the general welfare of the public. At best, they are only beholden to the platform's Terms of Service agreement. That is a pretty low bar of trust in any news information received through such a platform.

 

I’m going to say it’s more like 70%, including what Sesame Street taught me.

 

Social media is accountable though, to its fan base. To say nothing if they are sponsored by someone else.

 

That makes no sense unless of course, all you're wanting to do is garner likes, which does not mean tacit approval nor does do zilch for credibility.

 

Right. I understand your point. But it doesn’t touch on the sponsored work. Nor does it mean anything.

 

Social media is nothing but marketing. Sponsors only care about the number of eyeballs to a given site. If the veracity of a site was measured by the amount of traffic it receives, then cat videos would be more important than the infrastructure deal.

 

Right but that still would count as media. Advertisements tell us information on products or services that is compacted for a general audience.

 

But marketing and advertising is not news.

News is a specific function that requires standards to ensure credibility. If you read something from The Atlantic, and it's not labeled as opinion or analysis, you can always ask their editor to explain where they got their information, or how they vetted a story.

You cannot do that with social media because way too many times there is no byline or who to contact. The only thing that can be garnered news worthy from social media is seeing what is a trending topic.

 

I think that’s where I’m making a mistake. I’m using media and news interchangeably when I might be better off distinguishing between the two.

 

You're not alone.

I would also venture to say the public, in general, has become very complacent in what they perceive as journalism, no thanks to the trailblazing genius of Roger Ailes and his dragging down the standard of ethical journalism.

 

I think for this conversation you’re right but I’m okay with not making that distinction. I think the argument I’m laying forth included the idea of newspaper that’s for profit and may not be interested in reporting the truth so much as said for profit interests. Even with a for profit motivation, why not go after the president and try to hold him to some ideal standard even if your paper is gutter trash?

 

How about giving me an example of what you are referring to?

 

I’m thinking cable news or something like the Daily Post. Maybe Daily Wire if we wanted to view this from a right wing perspective.

 

Is it possible you mean The Daily Mail??? That is an actual publication from London which does have a syndicated TV show too.

As for the Daily Wire, just read their entry on Wiki.

A lot of news orgs have a social media presence, but not all orgs with a social media presence have the same level of journalistic accountability. It is why there are sites designed to help you figure out which is which, such as Media Bias Fact Check and Snopes. The last ten or so years have seen an explosion of websites pretending to be news, but in reality, they're just propaganda outlets.

 

Yeah that’s the point I’m getting at. Maybe there is something valuable about these less than reputable groups posting bad stories about the president and if we understand their ideas we might gain something in the process. Like not every story on Trump was a good one, but portraying him as a danger to democracy by fibbing sometimes might have helped pay off when it comes to how we should demonize him now.

 

The problem with folks who read propaganda and think it's news is that it encourages them to not read or think critically. That's why we're in this mess with hyper-partisanship.

 

It's not bad, they have a right to say whatever they want. It is transparent though.

Not much holding government accountable going on at the moment. By and large they just report the government's talking points.

 

Does it? What if misinformation is symptomatic of a problem, like if a person believes in propaganda because it makes sense to believe in said propaganda?

Prove that second section.

 

This is sad, even for you “according to polling by the Heartland Institute, a conservative think tank.”

Futher proving the point of the OP. Y’all only like “news” when it pushes your narrative and was refuted by an independent poll in the same article “But FDU said Fox viewers ranked the worst, and those who follow talk radio, watched Sunday political talk shows or Comedy Central’s “The Daily Show” or listened to NPR did the best.”

 

I read and watch a variety of media and it has been my observation, if you can't be bothered doing the same I am happy to concede the point, no skin off my back.

 

Have you seen the documentary on Netflix called the Social Dilemma? That explains this phenomenon better than anything else I can figure.

 

Hmm, doesn't look that way from reading your posts, but I'm sure yer right

 

No I have not. What’s it about?

 

I read a lot of media too and not one of my nephews books contains anything on the government. Clearly the media is failing us.

 

Not so of course- every media source has it's own level of character. Some still operate on the principle value of integrity, other shun that like evil. At least, the best question and double-check their data- CNN just fabricates around rumors and calls the drivel of talking heads "news".

If it's even so much as a rumor or gossip and fits their narrative, lefties wrap themselves in it and it spreads like wildfire. New buzzword to slam the right comes out, and every MSM channel is parroting it the same day. No thought needed, just mimicry.