Are blogs becoming more reliable than news media

[andrewl]

Lately it seems i get truth from blogs, and unbelievable amounts of bullshit from the papers and traditional media outlets.

Here is one fresh example of many that i have noticed recently:

Lawrence Solomon writes this for the National Post:

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/11/26/lawrence-solomon-new-zealand-s-climategate.aspx?CommentPosted=true#commentmessage

I check out the science blog Deltoid

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/new_zealand_climate_science_co.php

and it leads me to this:

http://hot-topic.co.nz/nz-sceptics-lie-about-temp-records-try-to-smear-top-scientist/

I mean come on? WTF... have the newspapers always been feeding us such bullshit or is such outright lying something new? Is it only the recent advent of blogs that has tuned us into this?

I used to subscribe to the daily and nationals and more and more i find myself relying on blogs to get accurate information... its depressing that newspapers have turned into such trash. I don't think they were always that way.

Andrew

[Michael]

I mean come on? WTF... have the newspapers always been feeding us such bullshit or is such outright lying something new?
Short answer: Nothing is new here. Shovelling lies and propaganda is what newspapers have always done.

Is it only the recent advent of blogs that has tuned us into this?
What the blogs do is make the long standing bullshit from the traditional news media bloody obvious to anyone who cares to look at it.

Besides, you are citing the National Post and it has all the famed 'fair and balance' of Fox News. That's Tubby Black's personal rag and its never made a nickel in its entire history. It is a vanity press just like the Washington Times - they exist to spout the editorial opinions of their owners, nothing more, nothing less.

I used to subscribe to the daily and nationals and more and more i find myself relying on blogs to get accurate information... its depressing that newspapers have turned into such trash. I don't think they were always that way.

Andrew
I remember one of the first political campaigns I followed - I think it was the 1979/80 period when things flipped from Trudeau to Clark and back to Trudeau.

One of the biggest eye-openers I had was seeing a line of newspaper boxes (Globe & Mail, The Star and The Sun) reporting on their front page the results of the latest Gallup poll on the upcoming election. Lets just say that it was impossible to figure out that the three newspapers were talking about the same Gallup poll. Each of the three newspapers had headlines that framed the results in a way that was most beneficial to the known political bias of each newspaper (The Star is a stridently Liberal newspaper, the Sun a hardcore Conservative one).

That taught me that newspapers serve a goal other than truth. I've never forgot that lesson. Every word I read since then only reinforces my discovery that day.

[andrewl]

Short answer: Nothing is new here. Shovelling lies and propaganda is what newspapers have always done.

I thought newspapers used to serve the people before they became so corporate and relied so much on advertising and classifieds?? Didn't newspapers used to hold politicians and corporations accountable before they themselves became accountable to corporations?

What the blogs do is make the long standing bullshit from the traditional news media bloody obvious to anyone who cares to look at it.I suppose that should be a good thing, but it does not seem to be translating into a more informed public.... that i can tell anyway.


Besides, you are citing the National Post and it has all the famed 'fair and balance' of Fox News. That's Tubby Black's personal rag and its never made a nickel in its entire history. It is a vanity press just like the Washington Times - they exist to spout the editorial opinions of their owners, nothing more, nothing less.True, but i see this nonsense in the local papers as well. Of course, i do live in Alberta. The Calgary herald is as bad as the NP any day of the week. The edmonton journal is only slightly better... and the the sun papers.. ughh...


I remember one of the first political campaigns I followed - I think it was the 1979/80 period when things flipped from Trudeau to Clark and back to Trudeau.

One of the biggest eye-openers I had was seeing a line of newspaper boxes (Globe & Mail, The Star and The Sun) reporting on their front page the results of the latest Gallup poll on the upcoming election. Lets just say that it was impossible to figure out that the three newspapers were talking about the same Gallup poll. Each of the three newspapers had headlines that framed the results in a way that was most beneficial to the known political bias of each newspaper (The Star is a stridently Liberal newspaper, the Sun a hardcore Conservative one).

That taught me that newspapers serve a goal other than truth. I've never forgot that lesson. Every word I read since then only reinforces my discovery that day.The example i posted seems so much worse than just editorial spin though, it just outright lies, lies that will never get retracted. This story will become "truth" to so many people... its depressing.

Andrew

[Michael]

I thought newspapers used to serve the people before they became so corporate and relied so much on advertising and classifieds?? Didn't newspapers used to hold politicians and corporations accountable before they themselves became accountable to corporations?

Do you remember who William Randolph Hearst was?

I think that speaks volumes about the nature of newspapers during their golden age.

I suppose that should be a good thing, but it does not seem to be translating into a more informed public.... that i can tell anyway.
The public doesn't seem to care much about being informed. Can't force them. Nothing new here either.

The example i posted seems so much worse than just editorial spin though, it just outright lies, lies that will never get retracted. This story will become "truth" to so many people... its depressing.

Andrew
Agreed. I was just pointing out that as a young teenager looking at my first political campaign, I had no trouble at all figuring out that the media routinely lied and that was part of their business model.

That so few others figure that out is indeed depressing - especially now that so many tools and resources are readily available to double-check and prove the lies. :shrug:

Heck George Will has been blatantly lying about climate change repeatedly on the pages of the Washington Post - repeatedly - even after the newspaper's own Ombudsman calls him out for it.

[andrewl]

Do you remember who William Randolph Hearst was?

I think that speaks volumes about the nature of newspapers during their golden age.

Yep. He sounds like the inspiration for all of todays MSM.


Agreed. I was just pointing out that as a young teenager looking at my first political campaign, I had no trouble at all figuring out that the media routinely lied and that was part of their business model.

That so few others figure that out is indeed depressing - especially now that so many tools and resources are readily available to double-check and prove the lies. :shrug:

Heck George Will has been blatantly lying about climate change repeatedly on the pages of the Washington Post - repeatedly - even after the newspaper's own Ombudsman calls him out for it.

I must admit, it took me until the Iraq War of 2003 to really understand the magnitude of it. I always knew the media had a ton of spin and politically biased editorial viewpoints, i just never really appreciated how nakedly dishonest they were until then. And now im discovering it on a daily basis....

Andrew

[Michael]

Yep. He sounds like the inspiration for all of todays MSM.
He is.

I must admit, it took me until the Iraq War of 2003 to really understand the magnitude of it. I always knew the media had a ton of spin and politically biased editorial viewpoints, i just never really appreciated how nakedly dishonest they were until then. And now im discovering it on a daily basis....

Andrew
Actually, the biggest lies perpetuated by the news media is found in the stories they choose not to cover at all.

Any story they put on the front page on the tv news bumps other news from that slot. That's where the real political manipulation comes from. People can't be upset about that which they know nothing about.

The endless flogging of Sarah Palin as newsworthy falls into this category. Its not a problem with the media that they like to cover Palin, the problem is that their obsessive focus on her crowds out focus on other issues. That's the way the media apparently likes it. They like to control their own agenda.

[Americano]

Yep. He sounds like the inspiration for all of todays MSM.




I must admit, it took me until the Iraq War of 2003 to really understand the magnitude of it. I always knew the media had a ton of spin and politically biased editorial viewpoints, i just never really appreciated how nakedly dishonest they were until then. And now im discovering it on a daily basis....

Andrew

I fortunately discovered it in the US during the late '60s era Vietnam War. All one had to do was talk to with a college graduate draftee or two who had been in the jungle with a gun and then read a newspaper. My father said it had always been that way in his lifetime.

When I was in the corporate world we subscribed to pricey financial newsletters that always provided best, probable and worst case scenarios. They seldom agreed on trends with even the then mighty Wall Street Journal.

The general public will always be indifferent to reality until it affects their food bowls.

[Michael]

I think the effect we are witnessing is that the MSM is actually getting worse over time.

Blogs aren't particularly reliable, but they are one heck of a lot more reliable compared to the MSM, and becoming more so over time. Bloggers may make mistakes, but they don't usually serve as an echo chamber for corporate or political party press releases (which is exactly what the MSM does all the time).

I suspect it is because the bloggers are generally independent and are not paid to propagate lies (which appears to be the MSM business model).

[Zarquon]

I think the effect we are witnessing is that the MSM is actually getting worse over time.

Blogs aren't particularly reliable, but they are one heck of a lot more reliable compared to the MSM, and becoming more so over time. Bloggers may make mistakes, but they don't usually serve as an echo chamber for corporate or political party press releases (which is exactly what the MSM does all the time).

I suspect it is because the bloggers are generally independent and are not paid to propagate lies (which appears to be the MSM business model).
I think it isn't as much propaganda as it is condescension: give'm what they wanna hear/see/believe!

[Michael]

I think it isn't as much propaganda as it is condescension: give'm what they wanna hear/see/believe!

So you think the Washington Post (for example) encourages George Will to write editorial columns based on factual lies just because this helps sell newspapers?

I stongly doubt that since every newspaper has been suffering declining readership for decades. Obviously that strategy doesn't work.

Or do you think that ABC encourages global warming deniers because it is good for ratings or because they are owned by GE?

[Zarquon]

So you think the Washington Post (for example) encourages George Will to write editorial columns based on factual lies just because this helps sell newspapers?

Or do you think that ABC encourages global warming deniers because it is good for ratings or because they are owned by GE?
both are hypocritical attempts at appearing fair and balanced by presenting *both sides of the issue*.
As for whether news networks have an agenda, I simply do not know, but don't think its a grand conspiracy.

[Michael]

both are hypocritical attempts at appearing fair and balanced by presenting *both sides of the issue*.
As for whether news networks have an agenda, I simply do not know, but don't think its a grand conspiracy.
No, not a conspiracy.

Noam Chomsky has addressed that issue rather admirably - and in a way that is very compatible with my general approach to political analysis. That is to say, one should look to systemic and institutional elements first and foremost as these are the factors that are usually overlooked, but usually decisive.

In the case of Chomsky, he was addressing the issue of why he is never invited onto US television, despite the fact that he is one of America's foremost intellectuals. Chomsky pointed out that he lacks 'conscision' - meaning that he doesn't speak in nice neat little sound-bytes that will fit into the format of commercial television. The very nature of commercial television (where everything is chopped into 8 or 11 minute segments to facilitate commercial breaks) leaves no time for Chomsky to actually say anything (since he can't explain a complex point in short little 4 minute sound-bytes that are required by the format).

Now some may argue that this is a 'feature not a bug' of US commercial television, and I'd agree. But that's one of the main reasons that television news and television talk shows are so vapid. One can't be anything but vapid and facile when one has to squeeze all the information into short little sound-bytes. Thus, commerical television effectively contributes to the dumbing down of culture, just by existing. No conspiracy needed.

The same argument can be re-constructed to apply to all kinds of things. Always look to institutional or systemic factors first. They are usually the most dominant and informative.

For example, how informative would this forum be if we had a software limit of 25 words per post? I think that kind of systemic limit would eliminate 99% of all the interesting discussions.