patrick.net

no.

BlueSardine says

no.

Recent polls suggest a continued downward trend of trust among people towards mass media, along all political party affiliations. Who decides relevance and what value is the information if people don't trust or accept it?

Given recent data regarding poll accuracy and how they are biased and manipulated by interested parties, how can one use them as a basis for discussion?
sagacious1 says

Recent polls suggest

BlueSardine says

Given recent data regarding poll accuracy and how they are biased and manipulated by interested parties, how can one use them as a basis for discussion?

sagacious1 says

Recent polls suggest

I appreciate you walking through that open door....doesn't that demonstrate the point? If people question the accuracy and bias of media driven polls, what relevance do they have? Who decides relevance?

Journalism gave up and proved they were the Advertorial section of Madison Ave around the time, they started suing Bloggers for calling RE a bubble.

Just in time, when we had the most monotonous, monotone, so-cosmopolitan-they're-provincial basic bitch class of Coastie Kids of Upper Middle Class descent from Georgetown and Brown writing most of the articles. Kids to whom a summer job in HS or College is unheard of, who eat Panera, Whole Foods, and Jamba Juice while interning for free, with Mom and Dad paying for the upkeep and apartment. They look down their noses at the Aldi Generic Mac and Cheese eaters with $9/hr jobs(killing themselves!), while they sip $8 Kiwi Smoothies (soooo gooood!) obtained by swiping dad's atm card and fulminate against working class rustbelt Americans.

You are seeing a formerly powerful class of insiders lose their gatekeeper/middleman status to free information.

And no, they don't have special knowledge. In fact, the numbers of American Journalists employed as special correspondents abroad is at all time lows. There are fewer American Journos on the ground in places like Iraq or Afghanistan than in previous eras, by a long shot. They've been rarely replaced by humans, and when they have, it's usually with locals with a distinct point-of-view (ie West Bank; now most Western correspondants and 'photojournalists' are Arab Pro-Palestinians which explains all the photoshops of the past decade or so. Also see this with "Syrians" and "White Helmets", with the same dead girl carried by 3 diffferent men in 3 different locations on 3 different days or when the Egyptian police arrested men faking Syrian War Crimes in Port Said, Egypt.).

Why not make the Invade-invite/Waste-n-Welcome neocon/libs drink their own Roundup?

www.youtube.com/embed/9HzSOrbvNUQ

The Canal+ guy here is being a real journalist.

Oh, Aventura, FL.

Thinking about 10,000 Afghans smoking butts outside of Nordstrom's where the valet parking is (good employment for unskilled workers!), Afghan Kids going across the intercoastal to Norman Edelcup K-8 where I think Facebook's Sheryl Sandberg went. Such good infrastructure...so many Hassidim to beat up within walking distance... so many hospitals nearby. Why should ghetto negroes and panhandle rednecks have all the benefits of cultural enrichment?

I couldn't imagine all the Neocon/libs in the area who love refugees and bombing the Middle East would be opposed to diversity and cosmopolitanism.

TwoScoopsMcGee says

You are seeing a formerly powerful class of insiders lose their gatekeeper/middleman status to free information.

Is that what's occurring? Is it that the digital age given a voice to the under class, or less powerful? It's certainly plausible...a venue to express a view freely, and a place for others to find and advocate it. At the same time, journalism has traditionally played a vital role in securing a free society. What role should it have presently and in the future if any? Today often news comes instantly to us in rapid fire...unfiltered and raw. Of course this can be a positive thing, with less likelihood of manipulation or "sanitizing" it before release. It can also have a negative affect, where information is preliminary and doesn't reveal the entire situation. Which poses most risk: News which is filtered and sanitized rending the risk of manipulation, or news which is raw and unfiltered running the risk of being preliminary and incomplete?

BlueSardine says

Given recent data regarding poll accuracy and how they are biased and manipulated by interested parties, how can one use them as a basis for discussion?

Recent data suggests polls are more accurate than ever so I'm not sure to what you refer.

Can you provide the data you reference?

TwoScoopsMcGee says

ust in time, when we had the most monotonous, monotone, so-cosmopolitan-they're-provincial basic bitch class of Coastie Kids of Upper Middle Class descent from Georgetown and Brown writing most of the articles. Kids to whom a summer job in HS or College is unheard of, who eat Panera, Whole Foods, and Jamba Juice while interning for free, with Mom and Dad paying for the upkeep and apartment. They look down their noses at the Aldi Generic Mac and Cheese eaters with $9/hr jobs(killing themselves!), while they sip $8 Kiwi Smoothies (soooo gooood!) obtained by swiping dad's atm card and fulminate against working class rustbelt Americans.

Funny, you write about some generic class of kids looking down on people in the middle of your rant where you look down on them. Hypocritical much?

joeyjojojunior says

BlueSardine says

Given recent data regarding poll accuracy and how they are biased and manipulated by interested parties, how can one use them as a basis for discussion?

Recent data suggests polls are more accurate than ever so I'm not sure to what you refer.

Can you provide the data you reference?

It's possible it's in reference to an example as the pre-election polls which showed HRC ahead in virtually every poll imaginable, yet she lost by a wide margin. Personally, I don't recall a more system-wide poll disaster in contemporary history than that. Not only were they entirely inaccurate, they were virtually all entirely inaccurate....

sagacious1 says

It's possible it's in reference to an example as the pre-election polls which showed HRC ahead in virtually every poll imaginable, yet she lost by a wide margin. Personally, I don't recall a more system-wide poll disaster in contemporary history than that. Not only were they entirely inaccurate, they were virtually all entirely inaccurate....

Except polling measures votes and not electoral votes. Clinton won by 2%, and the final polling average was ~3% so the polls actually performed quite well.

joeyjojojunior says

TwoScoopsMcGee says

ust in time, when we had the most monotonous, monotone, so-cosmopolitan-they're-provincial basic bitch class of Coastie Kids of Upper Middle Class descent from Georgetown and Brown writing most of the articles. Kids to whom a summer job in HS or College is unheard of, who eat Panera, Whole Foods, and Jamba Juice while interning for free, with Mom and Dad paying for the upkeep and apartment. They look down their noses at the Aldi Generic Mac and Cheese eaters with $9/hr jobs(killing themselves!), while they sip $8 Kiwi Smoothies (soooo gooood!) obtained by swiping dad's atm card and fulminate against working class rustbelt Americans.

Funny, you write about some generic class of kids looking down on people in the middle of your rant where you look down on them. Hypocritical much?

That's an interesting response...isn't that how abusers respond to their victims?

sagacious1 says

That's an interesting response...isn't that how abusers respond to their victims?

what the what? Are you implying that the kids working the summer jobs eating Panera are abusing the coal miners?

I've described no comparison.....I was merely commenting on your curious response to another's post. Incidentally, polls take into account actual votes as they relate to electoral counts...yet both topics are not relevant to the discussion which is about relevance actually. Media relevance specifically.

sagacious1 says

I've described no comparison.....I was merely commenting on your curious response to another's post. Incidentally, polls take into account actual votes as they relate to electoral counts...yet both topics are not relevant to the discussion which is about relevance actually. Media relevance specifically.

How it curious? I was merely pointing out the obvious hypocrisy. McGee and others often claim that Trump won because of the way "liberal elite" treat "real America" while ignoring the treatment rural America gives liberals.

And to your second point, national polls take into account votes. Period. And that topic is directly relevant to your incorrect statement that Hillary lost. Polls said she would win more votes than Trump, and she did win more votes that Trump. Polls were proven correct.

joeyjojojunior says

Funny, you write about some generic class of kids looking down on people in the middle of your rant where you look down on them. Hypocritical much?

Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds; I enjoy looking down on people who believe themselves morally superior and have no problem with that. Self-righteousness and Smugness are the most odious qualities somebody can have.

The snootiness of the Press is from their class mentality, which upholds anything "Non-White", with "international flavor", etc. as virtues, while sneering at the poor. They'll demand the total distruction of some Xtian who doesn't want to bake a gay wedding cake while apologize for some "Exotic" Religions' far worse behavior, like Honor Killing. Mocking Mac n' Cheese eaters - who can't afford to buy organic non-GMO Kale Smoothies at Whole Foods - is part of the Coastie Mentality. They see themselves as the Righteous, but are blind to their own class warfare, preferring to obsess over Half-Albanian Half-Inuit Left Handed Two Spirit Lesbian Bathroom access, versus things like reasonable healthy food access for millions.

TwoScoopsMcGee says

Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds; I enjoy looking down on people who believe themselves morally superior and have no problem with that. Self-righteousness and Smugness are the most odious qualities somebody can have.

I agree. You don't consider your behavior as acting morally superior to the Panera eating kids?

sagacious1 says

I'm not denying the thrust of your point, yet I'm suggesting those who support Trump may see the media as biased against them for that example alone

Trump supporters should be happy. If the media was harder on Clinton, he may have faced Sanders and lost.

sagacious1 says

Ultimately, mainstream media has sustained almost fatal blows to their credibility. Whether that is justified or not, they certainly have failed to transition the digital age successfully. They're simply not trusted, viewed with skepticism and something else will fill that void.

Yes, another example showing that propaganda works.

I am amazed by the investigative reporting coming out of traditional print, now online, journalism outfits. I am also amazed at the resilience of our WH press pool. Most of them, when asked to unify and bring back the briefings, are simply saying, "Meh. Why?" LOL ... they don't care! You know what they are doing? They are calling out international reporters who are able to get closer to the administration than they are. It's hilarious, because the international press shred Trump on the daily too.

The picture from Bastille day went like this:

"Here is a snapshot taken from our vantage point of the parade." (picture shown from rooftop, 3 stories up, presidents are pin pricks in center frame.)
"President gave remarks to members of international press. We were kept in a holding pen in the basement."
"Please see (name/link) for remarks."
"Questions post parade all directed to international news orgs. We got one American called on for a question."
"On ride home we had an off the record, now on the record, conversation with the President in AF1. Here are his comments."

That is typically being done, by the non-opinion news reporters, as dryly as those comments are. No comment on "good bad" just reporting what is happening. Hilarious!

And maybe the most telling thing in all of this, is the restrictions against the US press are mostly being pushed by Trump's handlers. They are trying to save him from himself. Eventually though, especially for Trump because he is such a huge fan of the media, he becomes a big talker in press presence. He felt so starved but also good after he got to watch his military parade. He blabbed at them for about 40 minutes. It's some shockingly dumb commentary too.

The 4th estate is kicking major ass. It has been since inauguration. Intelligence and enforcement agencies have been right there with them as well.

(picture of American flag goes here)

Go deep state!

Trump supporters should be happy. If the media was harder on Clinton, he may have faced Sanders and lost.

sagacious1 says

Ultimately, mainstream media has sustained almost fatal blows to their credibility. Whether that is justified or not, they certainly have failed to transition the digital age successfully. They're simply not trusted, viewed with skepticism and something else will fill that void.

Yes, another example showing that propaganda works.

Quite possibly, yet again....who determines, who is the ultimate arbiter of relevance if not the electorate or those who consume the information?

"Quite possibly, yet again....who determines, who is the ultimate arbiter of relevance if not the electorate or those who consume the information?"

I'm not concerned with relevance. Trump's campaign to delegitimize the media is a concerted effort to remove a check and balance on him. It will allow him to lie more freely without people there to call him on it.

It should be clear from what is currently happening---Kellyanne saying she has "alternative" facts. Other Trump advisors denying obvious facts. When you combine that with Trump supporters complete confirmation bias, you have a recipe for disaster.

You know what? I'd rather the media spend their time deriding Trump for his legitimate failures of international policy, attempt to organize a repeal and replacement for Obamacare, or installing his slimy son in law into a power broker position for purposes of who knows except they've made Ivanka's fund go up 100 million! That's shit he needs to be called out on, but when he does an unprovoked attack on syria, the legacy media PRAISED him?!! This shows me that they aren't at all interested in peace or good policy, but about protecting the interests of their oligarch masters.
So we get Russia pounded at us for eight months until we are all so sick of the hyperbole we switch it off and ignore everything they say.

Fuck the mainstream press! Nearly useless!

http://www.dailywire.com/news/18655/our-corrupt-media-now-haunted-all-precedents-they-john-nolte

Pretty good rant here on the OP subject!

"Barack Obama trafficked guns to Mexican drug lords, secretly delivered pallets filled with billions in cash to Iran's America/Jew-hating mullahs, left four Americans to die in Benghazi and then lied about it, allowed his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to exchange government favors for hundreds of millions of dollars slushed into the Clinton Foundation, sic'd his IRS on everyday, law-abiding Americans, and used a trillion dollars in "stimulus" funds to pay off his cronies, like those behind a boondoggle called Solyndra.

And all along, over eight terrible years, our media did a whole lot more than just let Obama get away with it. They wholeheartedly colluded. They allowed Obama to persecute them through the Department of Justice and to lie to our face (remember: I just now read about it in the newspaper, the IRS did nothing wrong, you can keep your insurance). And when that wasn't enough, the media mercilessly attacked as racist anyone who criticized the Precious and ginned up nothingburgers like Todd Akin to distract from those four dead Americans. And when even that wasn't enough, they themselves lied and obfuscated, covered up and dissembled, and most of all they set all kinds of precedents that, in a delicious form of irony, are now driving this utterly failed institution to the edge of insanity.
The very same media that shrugged when Hillary Clinton set up a secret server, deleted 33,000 government emails, BleachBit'd whatever remained and then literally took a hammer to the devices — the media that set that precedent now wants us to get all worked up over Trump's tweets?

The very same media that buried Bill Clinton's perjury and his numerous victims of sexual abuse — the media that set those precedents now wants us to consider an Access Hollywood video a disqualifier for the presidency? Now wants us to freak out over an awkward handshake?

The very same media that gushed over Barack Obama's magical ability to "slow-walk the truth" — the media that set that precedent now wants us to impeach Trump over how the details of his son's meeting with a Russian lawyer have been released?

The very same media that joined Obama in pointing and laughing at Mitt Romney's concern over Russia, the very same media that told us Obama's serial-appeasement of Russia (refusing Poland missile defense, "more flexibility after the election") was in reality an extraordinary form of statesmanship — the media that set those precedents now wants us to toss Trump out on his ear because he's hoping to work with Putin?
The very same media that covered up the fact that Democrats and Team Hillary worked with the foreign government of Ukraine in the hopes of digging up dirt on Trump, the media that itself has used opposition research from the Russian government (the Golden Showers dossier) in the hopes of destroying Trump — the media that set those precedents now want us to turn on Trump because his son hoped for the same?

The very same media that again and again used "Republican overreach" as a tactic to damage the GOP whenever a Democrat scandal rose up — the media that set that precedent now wants us to side with them when the Trump administration chooses to communicate directly through social media?

The very same media that asked 23 follow-up questions of Trump and none of Hillary — the media that set that precedent now wants us to side with them when the White House limits the press briefings they can peacock in?"

MSM is dead.

Cable TV plan registration is at an all-time low. Without this revenue stream, places like CNN and ESPN will find it hard to survive (and both places have already engaged or are discussing major layoffs).

Cord cutting is going to take its course because the model is unfriendly to consumers.

I personally couldn't take the $130 bills and cut off all cable TV about 5 years ago. Now all of my entertainment cost under $30 a month via streaming sources.

"Barack Obama trafficked guns to Mexican drug lords, secretly delivered pallets filled with billions in cash to Iran's America/Jew-hating mullahs, left four Americans to die in Benghazi and then lied about it, allowed his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to exchange government favors for hundreds of millions of dollars slushed into the Clinton Foundation, sic'd his IRS on everyday, law-abiding Americans, and used a trillion dollars in "stimulus" funds to pay off his cronies, like those behind a boondoggle called Solyndra."

Exhibit A for confirmation bias.

joeyjojojunior says

Exhibit A for confirmation bias.

Exhibit A for adding nothing to the discussion but disdain for opposing points of view. Par for a Leftist!

Goran_K says

MSM is dead.

If one only defines MSM as alphabet cable news, I agree. If you define it to include journals, magazines, print, and internet based journalism ... buzzt, wrong.

Rew says

If one only defines MSM as alphabet cable news, I agree. If you define it to include journals, magazines, print, and internet based journalism ... buzzt, wrong.

Most print is going to die or shrink in market share as well (NYT is already on its last legs).

Internet based journalism is the future, and right now the market share is much more diffuse than print or broadcast.

"Exhibit A for adding nothing to the discussion but disdain for opposing points of view. Par for a Leftist!"

Not for a point of view. I welcome opposing points of view.

I have disdain for people who don't accept truth and facts because it doesn't fit within their view of the world. The vast majority of what you posted is factually incorrect. I'd create a long post that refutes everything point by point but why bother? You'd just blow it off because you don't trust the sources.

joeyjojojunior says

"Quite possibly, yet again....who determines, who is the ultimate arbiter of relevance if not the electorate or those who consume the information?"

I'm not concerned with relevance. Trump's campaign to delegitimize the media is a concerted effort to remove a check and balance on him. It will allow him to lie more freely without people there to call him on it.

It should be clear from what is currently happening---Kellyanne saying she has "alternative" facts. Other Trump advisors denying obvious facts. When you combine that with Trump supporters complete confirmation bias, you have a recipe for disaster.

Alternatively, it's at least possible Trump is echoing the sentiment of the electorate regarding their view of the media....and that this sentiment existed long before Trump was even a serious candidate. That's entirely plausible. Regardless, that there is even a question of lack of objective journalism is the culprit, and that responsibility lays squarely upon the mainstream media itself. In this sense they have failed and if they become irrelevant for this failure, they will cease to exist. Although I agree, if that void is not filled properly, it can indeed be very dangerous.

Goran_K says

NYT is already on its last legs.

You mistake a transition to digital for "being on its last legs".
https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/07/14/why-shares-of-the-new-york-times-company-are-up-33.aspx

Long term growth in the face of the amazing amount of competition for people's attention/entertainment? Outlook not good.

Dying? Hardly.

I disagree-I think the media is simply giving the electorate what it wanted. The success of FOX pretty much proves that the electorate doesn't want objective journalism. MSM is profit driven--they give the electorate what it wants.

Rew says

You mistake a transition to digital for "being on its last legs".

https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/07/14/why-shares-of-the-new-york-times-company-are-up-33.aspx

Long term growth in the face of the amazing amount of competition for people's attention/entertainment? Outlook not good.

Dying? Hardly.

Shares are up, after losing 70% of its value since 2001. Hmm, what pray tell blossomed and became more prominent over the past 16 years?

If NYT is banking on converting its paper into digital success, it has a lot of obstacles in front of it that other digital content sellers do not have.

New York Times has high operating cost, pension deficits, and extremely high debt, not exactly a great formula for growth, and it has created significant risk to earnings from pension plan obligations.

But if you think they'll pull out of this nose dive and become a premier internet business, you're free to invest into NYT. Why not make your call right now since you think their transition will be successful?

joeyjojojunior says

I disagree-I think the media is simply giving the electorate what it wanted. The success of FOX pretty much proves that the electorate doesn't want objective journalism. MSM is profit driven--they give the electorate what it wants.

Fair enough....most certainly though, the journalistic landscape has changed. What still confounds me, is that this was all predictable... which leads me to believe there were existing conflicting forces at play to lead to such discord.