The problem is the media are under the impression that Americans are smart and reasonable.

The problem is the media are under the impression that Americans are smart and reasonable. The only media outlets that are aware of the deficiency of both are those owned by Rupert Murdoch and they pander to them. The New York Times​, Washington Post​ and others keep their standards higher but they're also counting on an intelligent user base that understands the higher brow content.

But the best way to respond to this is to make a stronger case to the American people as to why Trump’s attacks are unacceptable, rather than expecting it to be self-evident, or hoping that pity and sympathy will elicit public support. Rather than explaining why the president attacking the media is bad for the media, the media need to appeal to the public’s self-interest and explain why it’s bad for them.

Originally shared by The Atlantic

Why the Media's Defense Against Trump Has Proven So Ineffective http://trib.al/7Ygvfih
http://trib.al/7Ygvfih

Comments

Hugh Smith said…
I love the fact you don't call out ALL mainstream media just the ones you disagree with :-)
Currently in the UK, US and Australia there are two sides to mainstream media bias one left one right. They no longer hide the fact that they are biased. This is one issue we the people should agree on ALL main stream media manipulate, twist and distort facts to fit their narrative and it is time we held them accountable.
Jason ON said…
Hugh Smith you're confusing 'objective' with bias. Just because the media doesn't agree with you doesn't mean it has a bias.

More:
twitter.com - Jared Yates Sexton on Twitter
Hugh Smith said…
Jason ON I am not the one confused. I am a centrist and used to look to news outlet to give me FACTS and then I would make my own mind up. Now however news outlets cite "unnamed sources" "someone close to the XX" This occurs on both sides of the ideological divide. As my previous comment mentioned.
CNN, Washington post, Fox News are all biased and pushing their OWN narrative. I don't trust any of them. They have all been exposed twisting the facts or distorting the truth. Cherry picking stories that support their agenda. Is a shame that most people just sit there and only question the opinions they DON'T agree with
Jason ON said…
Can you show an example of CNN or the Washington Post "cherry picking" or "pushing their own narrative"?

More:
thehill.com - Media reaps dividends from Trump attacks
Walter Hawn said…
Hugh, You might note that those you mention, which have been 'exposed' publishing in error, have, with only the exception of Faux, corrected themselves and have often fired, or allowed voluntarily resignations of, staff. Faux has not ever done that, nor as far as I can determine has any Murdoch operated medium. And, as a newsguy, myself, I can say that the use of an unnamed source is NOT a violation of journalistic integrity. Those sources are known to the reporter and to the reporter's editor. And, what they have had to say is often -usually - corroborated by other evidence, as you will note when you read the report with some attention. If it is not corroborated, the editor will nearly always insist that the reporter talk to someone who disputes the account and include that answer in the report. Again, Faux seldom, if ever, takes that amount of care. The others do.
Hugh Smith said…
Walter Hawn Corrections after they have been caught does not change the point I am making that I believe ALL mainstream media has become inherently biased. CNN on the liberal side and Fox on the conservative as examples.
The Russia Trump Pee tape nonsense is the same as the Fox Birther nonsense. These cable "news" channels are now ideological entertainment channels.

Unnamed sources is not Proof of anything I like FACTS and evidence to be an integral part of the story. It is all well and good having unnamed source support additional facts but to rely on them solely for anecdotal "Trump said" in a closed meeting and there no evidence additional to that it dangerous as there is NO way to corroborate or backup. Just my thoughts as to the decline on the MSM
Jason ON said…
Hugh Smith,

_Corrections after they have been caught does not change the point I am making _

Yes it does, actually. It's called journalistic integrity.

Popular posts from this blog

I'm shutting down Google+ for the night and quite possibly for the weekend.