On the November 24th episode of the Tucker Carlson show, Mollie Hemingway of The Federalist made the following comment: So do you think the media is capable of critical self analysis? Or are we witnessing the death of our media as we've known it?
Granny says dey gots dey's noses... ... all outta joint `cause Trump won the 'lection... ... an' dey's polls missed the call.
The only way that they will evaluate themselves is if they begin to lose money and ratings. Only then...they are corrupt, but money talks.
They've not shown the ability to do so yet. Of course, they are sitting around a table talking to the same people who got it wrong the past two years, so how are they going to learn anything outside of their bubble?
The media is constantly doing self analysis because they like to talk about themselves. They like to talk about what they think is important news, how best to cover it, and how to present it to the public. They come from the point of view, "Will it make us look good". Afterwards they will set around to self analyze how well they did, compliment each other, give awards, and brag if they happened to scoop any other media. If they did scoop other media or win an award then that becomes part of their news presentation. They will never criticize anyone in the media and if you say you disagree with their reporting and give them facts as to why, they will just say, "You have your opinion and we have our opinion". I worked with these people all my life and they are all cut from the same cloth. Sad that there are no mavericks in the MSM.
Print media shows this not to be true. The left will run a newspaper into the ground long before they would even consider unbiased coverage.
There's enough Lemming out there to let the MSM survive, but just barely. What will really slap them into reality is when their Bank accounts and Revenue streams start to dwindle to a trickle... That's when they will know they got it wrong, until then they're just fat cats around the table talkin smack.
Maybe they needed a good dose of FOX news. Actually they were more willing to tell us Trump will win than others were.
No they are not capable of change. Their absolute hate for Republicans, white people and the American way prevent them .
Freedom of the press is guaranteed by the first amendment. I can think of two ways to hit them in the wallet, but neither is very effective- legally pursuing charges of libel, or boycotting advertisers. Did you have some other way in mind?
Yes - the media IS capable of critical self-analysis. They deem it critical that they look at themselves every minute of every day...and they always come to the conclusion that they are just awesome! I suspect our media as we have always known it will continue Ad Infinitum. They can't help themselves. They're just wired that way.
No, the media is incapable of introspection. They are convinced liberals have the high moral ground and conservatives worship Lucifer. They have no desire to look inward.
No, those are the two ways. Trump has given rumblings about adjusting the libel rules. Me, I was thinking in terms of loss of viewership / readership; that would definitely send a signal, no?
I'm not sure people would cooperate with a boycott enough to make a change. Sticking with mainstream, ABC, CBS, and NBC mainly rely on other programming to lure advertisers. I don't see advertisers not buying time from those networks, even if they want to avoid the newscasts. When the price gets cheap enough during newscasts, someone will take advantage of the viewership numbers and buy advertising because it's a bargain. A boycott may nudge CNN, FOX News, and MSNBC and some print media to change, but the world is internet connected now. Viewers, hits, clicks, and readers come from many, many places. Those news outlets exist because they fill a confirmational bias niche, so there's no reason for their supporters to boycott. They are getting just what they want. I just don't see a boycott working. Trump's idea to "open up" libel laws is a bad idea. As long as "a purposefully negative and horrible … article" is labelled "opinion," it's Constitutionally protected free speech. The legislative branch has the ability to make, abolish, or alter laws, not the President. He has to swear to protect what is guaranteed in the Constitution. Because the President thinks an article is purposefully negative, the author's free speech shouldn't be restricted. That's some real slippery slope stuff there.
True enough. Actually, with the multitude of "news" sources now available to people, the writing is already on the wall. Anyone who lets the wool get pulled over their eyes by the major networks in this day and age, folks who fail to take advantage of other news sources for rounding out the information they rely on, these people are selling themselves short and allowing the media outlets to operate without consequence. So I guess we're in agreement that boycotting isn't the solution, diversification is. I'm inclined to agree. I only wish that a clear distinction was somehow required to be made between "opinion" pieces and "news". The line is far too blurry at the moment, with "news" organizations able to spew whatever spin they want under the "freedom of speech" banner. As you say, if someone is offering an opinion, that is covered by press freedoms, but there really should be rules which place restrictions on representing opinions as facts. Were Congress to craft legislation to do this, I'd be in favor of it.
What seems to have been missed is that the MSM consists of huge corporate conglomerates today and they act in their own corporate interests. Hence, all the various media sing the same corporate tune. If they are partisan, it is only because they see a particular partisanship to be in their corporate interest at the moment. And to oppose what they are or what they do is to oppose their corporate nature. We only fool ourselves is we believe they are motivated by anything other than corporate profits. But I know it's great fun to declare them to be supporters and defenders of this or that party or politician because it provides an opportunity to express any seething bias or hate stewing in our agenda.
I believe there's something more going on here. There were corporate self interests back in the '60s and '70s as well, but we didn't have nearly the slant on the news that we do today. And the media bias is out in the open; objective news coverage is no longer a requirement. As someone who remembers uncle Walter on the nightly news, I don't find it particularly fun to declare networks to be "supporters and defenders of this or that party or politician", but I do find it to be true (and rather sad). All one has to do is look at how much time a "news" organization devotes to a particular story to recognize the bias...
