A retrospective apology from me to millions of people out there

[razztazz]

Wm Randolph Hearst contacted his artist (Remington, a early form of cameraman so to speak) in Cuba during the Spanish American War and asked where the pictures of the war were. Remington said there was nothing going on to report. Hearst said, 'You furnish the pictures, I'll furnish the war.'

I learned that phrase as child. It was almost as well-known as "Four score and seven years ago..."

Somewhere along the way things changedand for a number of decades we actually did have something approaching a truly professionalized, largely unbiased, "report the facts/educate the electorate media. yes, outlets had their editorial points of view but is also part of educating the electorate.



Then things changed back to the old way. I will not say when that was because it will start a political sturm und drang here. But it got businessized or rebusinessized

 

[LARS]

Before FIRE I was a journalist and reported on, variously, the 1987 crash, Tiananmen in China, ASIAN financial crisis, 9/11, dot com crash , 2008 crash etc etc. This is the first one where I’ve been an observer instead of a pundit and boy, it is a revelation to see how much utter and complete cr@p is peddled as pure knowledge. It is really disheartening. And you know what? I know I did it too. Too many times I cloaked myself as an expert when I was in the dark; I pretended to have certainty when I had none. Sorry all. Just say “we don’t know”. Just say “it depends on a lot of factors, some of which we don’t understand “. That isn’t sexy, it might not sell or fill the space and time ... but it would be a lot more honest!

Heartfelt apologies! Don’t believe everything you read or watch!

When I started my career on Wall Street many, many moons ago I worked on the big oil mergers of the 1980's (think Gulf Oil, etc).

So I would have first hand knowledge of what was going on; knowledge gained from sitting in meetings that the WSJ and the NYT were reporting about.

I cannot tell you how many front page stories I read and would scratch my head, saying, "I was in that meeting and it was nothing like that."

From that day forward I have taken with a hefty grain of salt anything I read in papers.

I also concluded that it wasn't generally an issue of people trying to mislead, but more an issue of vantage point/perspective.

 

[savory]

There can be various takes on this. My general rule for major events is that it takes about 5 days to get past the speculation once the event is basically over or actually over. Our current situation is fluid so the reporting contains speculation mixed with good and bad information.

I do not blame the news since we the consumer are willing to award them for their speculation. We prefer the guesses to lack of any information. Given this, as consumers we need to alter our demands for any information vs waiting for the right information.

 

[RxMan]

It bothers me that misinformation,sensationalism, and bad reporting has fueled panic and fear in our current coronavirus crisis. I hope it’s worth it for those participating because they’ve done a lot of harm. What’s worse is this crisis is happening in an election year in the US which motivates more extreme political bias in reporting.

Most of the media has evolved from covert bias to blatant bias to now having an active agenda in what they report. It bothers me that I have to work so hard to find facts and truth when there is an entire industry that should exist to provide that information to me. And it’s scary to think about not just the bias in what’s reported but what isn’t reported.

It really bothers me when the news quotes Twitter. Social media is not news or reliable source material. That’s just lazy journalism in my opinion.

Here’s an idea- present the facts and let me form my own conclusions based on my own belief system. And if you can’t do that at the least have the credibility to call yourself something other than a news network or outlet when you’re clearly political commentary.

The good news is that the media doesn’t have a monopoly on information. They’ve lost their ability to control the narrative because more and more people are tuning out or at the least accepting what is being reported for what it really is and not what it should be.

 

[Midpack]

Ten years ago or so I used to watch both Fox and CNN regularly, to understand both sides of issues. Nowadays even that’s not enough, neither cares at all about balanced news or truth. So I watch many sources, and never get news from social media or sources I haven’t heard of. Unfortunately a lot of people will latch on to “news” they pick up from almost anywhere, like a lot of people did in 2016 which turned out to be Russian bots. Again, we’ve done this to ourselves in large part.

 

[Amethyst]

As a journalism major in undergraduate school, I can perhaps speak to this. Journalists, like other knowledge disciplines, do indeed develop "domains" of expertise. Some specialize in financial topics, some in sports, some in medicine or government.

Yet, most are "generalists," who can hop from one in-demand topic to another. Such adaptability is part of their job expectation. Some are simply better at it than others (finding experts to quote, selecting the best quotes, checking their facts, learning to explain arcane topics in language the lay reader has a hope of understanding).

And some, alas, cannot do any of this well, and end up spreading disinformation (where they do not simply confuse).

Apology accepted!

Another issue for journalists is that you are trained in journalism, not your subject matter. I see mistakes journalists make in reporting in the medical field. It cannot be helped. But if a journalist specializes in an area for a career, perhaps they could obtain additional education in their area of specialty.

It is a wake up call to see your former profession from the outside, isn't it?

I see massive fraud, waste, complacency, and bullying behavior by fellow physicians, in the medical field, but I saw a lot of it while still working. This is far more important than actual mistakes. To make mistakes is to be human. To deliberately be inaccurate for a higher paycheck is not.

Journalists may be encouraged to sensationalize stories to get more eyes on the story. Doctors may ask irrelevant medical history questions or fudge irrelevant physical exam findings (and not do that unnecessary part of the exam) in order to charge a higher level of service. Or simply bill a higher level of service and hope no one notices. The hospitals do the same. It is so systemic it seems normal. You probably felt that way too.

Thank you for coming clean. We are all very capable of fooling ourselves. Your apology is accepted. And welcome aboard!

 

[Koolau]

Mistakes happen. So should prominent corrections - with apologies.

Lies happen. They are inexcusable AND unforgivable. (I'm not talking about "I'm better than so-and-so, so vote for me" kind of lie. I'm talking about quantifiable falsification for some gain.

I saw a doozie today. I won't mention it as it might (heck, would) be considered political. An interviewee made a statement and the interviewer let it pass as gospel. My BS meter went on full alert even though the subject was NOT in my wheel house. Sure enough. Half an hour later, the interviewer sheepishly indicated that MANY folks' BS meters went off. The story was checked and shown to be totally false. Not wrong. False - a lie told by someone who had to know it was a lie. The person making the statement was a high ranking political figure and had simply lied, assuming no one would question it because, usually, they don't.



Quote

"Heartfelt apologies! Don’t believe everything you read or watch!"

Endquote

I believe half of what I see and none of what I hear. YMMV

 

[Amethyst]

I cannot stand Fox News, with their bimbo-between-two-suits format, but I recently started going to their web site now and then, just to see how they are spinning what CNN is spinning in the opposite direction. Somewhere in the middle lies the truth.

Ten years ago or so I used to watch both Fox and CNN regularly, to understand both sides of issues. Nowadays even that’s not enough, neither cares at all about balanced news or truth. So I watch many sources, and never get news from social media or sources I haven’t heard of. Unfortunately a lot of people will latch on to “news” they pick up from almost anywhere, like a lot of people did in 2016 which turned out to be Russian bots. Again, we’ve done this to ourselves in large part.

 

[Mr._Graybeard]

I was thinking about the days Midpack was referring to, when CBS was known as the Tiffany network. Several times a year they would pre-empt their lucrative entertainment programming for two-hour documentaries. Often it would bring them more complaints than praise -- people angry about missing out on their "stories."


Remember when the networks blocked out hours during the day for gavel-to-gavel coverage of the Watergate hearings? Soap opera fans were enraged. That gives you an idea of what people want.


Nowadays about the only place where you can see this kind of journalism is on PBS with, for instance, their excellent Frontline series. NPR is pretty good too -- I think their 2008 This American Life/Planet Money program "The Giant Pool of Money" was a milestone in explanatory journalism.


BTW, I think this economic crisis is likely to put a bunch of struggling newspapers out of print. Sad to see them go, but reading takes effort, and in-depth reporting and editing takes a lot of money. The marketplace of ideas has spoken.

 

[ER Eddie]

If you want solid, reliable information, TV news is probably not the place to look. TV is a superficial, emotionally driven medium. TV urinalism is biased, almost all in one direction, each just echoing the other. Social media is even worse, because it's driven by the algorithms that reinforce anger, fear, and polarization, although at least you can find minority views there.

I think if you really want to understand something, it's better to read books or long articles in reputable magazines, or else search out independent journalists or blogs you respect and trust. That isn't as easy as just flipping on the TV, so most people won't do it. And in a "crisis" (?) like this, people want news of the day; they don't want to wait for the in-depth magazine article or book to come out.

I watch TV/cable news clips on Youtube, but I usually do it for entertainment, not with the expectation that I'm going to learn much.

 

[Bir48die]

If you want solid, reliable information, TV news is probably not the place to look. TV is a superficial, emotionally driven medium. TV urinalism is biased, almost all in one direction, each just echoing the other. Social media is even worse, because it's driven by the algorithms that reinforce anger, fear, and polarization, although at least you can find minority views there.

I think if you really want to understand something, it's better to read books or long articles in reputable magazines, or else search out independent journalists or blogs you respect and trust. That isn't as easy as just flipping on the TV, so most people won't do it. And in a "crisis" (?) like this, people want news of the day; they don't want to wait for the in-depth magazine article or book to come out.

I watch TV/cable news clips on Youtube, but I usually do it for entertainment, not with the expectation that I'm going to learn much.

Give me a "reputable" magazine. Not much different from TV or newspapers.

 

[Mr._Graybeard]

Give me a "reputable" magazine. Not much different from TV or newspapers.

I like The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/

 

[Gumby]

I like The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/

Good, long-form narrative journalism is a wonderful thing. I also like Harpers and the Economist

 

[ERD50]

... spinning / spinning in the opposite direction. Somewhere in the middle lies the truth.

Unfortunately, I don't think this gets you too far. One big problem, that has been mentioned by others, is what each side decides to cover and/or avoid covering.

Often, a story simply is ignored by one side, so there is no 'middle'. I listen to see what's being talked about, and as I said before, if I think it's important to me but if I can't find an original unedited source, I ignore it.

... Unfortunately a lot of people will latch on to “news” they pick up from almost anywhere, like a lot of people did in 2016 which turned out to be Russian bots. ...

A "lot of people" got news from Russian bots in 2016?

https://about.fb.com/news/2017/09/information-operations-update/

In reviewing the ads buys, we have found approximately $100,000 in ad spending from June of 2015 to May of 2017 — associated with roughly 3,000 ads

Note the time frame goes out to May 2017, 6 months after the election, 5 months past 2016, and 6 months before 2016. So something less than 3,000 ads in 2016 (likely far less, about half if equally distributed in time, but we don't know the distribution).

Compare 3,000 ads (or 1,500?) to the barrage of campaign ads and other news items, seems like less than a drop in the bucket.

-ERD50

 

[Chuckanut]

In regards to Russian influence in the media......

Every American should read the part of the Mueller Report that deals with how Russian agents infiltrated various social media networks. It was well thought out, well executed and done with great patience.

Read the actual report, not somebody's interpretation of it.

Page 14 - Russian "Active Measures" Social Media Campaign.

Scary stuff.

https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=5955997-Muellerreport

 

[Marita40]

As a student of history, to be honest, I think the media has always been full of lies, lies, and damn lies. Given this, the real blame in my mind is the supreme lack of critical thinking and discernment among the supposedly literate public.

 

[NW-Bound]

I stopped watching TV many years ago. For news stories, I watched videos on Youtube from BBC and DW News (a German newscaster). What do people here think of these organizations?

 

[Koolau]

In regards to Russian influence in the media......

Every American should read the part of the Mueller Report that deals with how Russian agents infiltrated various social media networks. It was well thought out, well executed and done with great patience.

Read the actual report, not somebody's interpretation of it.

Page 14 - Russian "Active Measures" Social Media Campaign.

Scary stuff.

https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=5955997-Muellerreport

Hmmm. Russia: $100K over 2 years vs. $500,000,000 over 2 months. Looks like at least the Russians got what they paid for since we're still fighting about it 3 bleeping years later. Bloomberg? Who's that? Didn't he used to have a cable network or something?

You know, if the oil thing doesn't work out for the Russians, maybe they could go into the ad biz.

 

[Mr._Graybeard]

I stopped watching TV many years ago. For news stories, I watched videos on Youtube from BBC and DW News (a German newscaster). What do people here think of these organizations?

Here's a PBS doc called Niall Ferguson's Networld. I watched it on TV last night. Damned good journalism. Please watch.

 

[Amethyst]

Indeed...plus the craving to turn everything into entertainment/gossip fodder, leading to sensationalizing, awfulizing, melodrama.

the real blame in my mind is the supreme lack of critical thinking and discernment among the supposedly literate public.

 

[NW-Bound]

I'm 7 years removed from the news business. I like how Neil deGrasse Tyson characterizes 'truth'.. to paraphrase:

There are 3 kinds of truth.
Truth that is objective is true whether or not you believe it. (Science)
Truth that is subjective is an opinion about what you believe is true. (Religion)
Truth that is repeated over and over until you believe it's true whether it is or is not. (politics, claims in pursuit of profit)

Media today consists of the 2nd and 3rd types of 'truth' and very little of the 1st. The public's right and need-to-know has been overridden by ratings and profit.

Even scientific truth will be refuted by people when it does not fit their vision.

 

[Gumby]

Even scientific truth will be refuted by people when it does not fit their vision.

Cognitive dissonance is not a problem for the true believer. When faith and fact collide, the answer is always "more faith".

 

[NW-Bound]

I was not even talking about matters involving religion for that matter. And not even debatable science subjects.

 

[Gumby]

In my experience, people can be true believers in many things, not just religion.

 

[Nemo2]

In my experience, people can be true believers in many things, not just religion.

OTOH, beliefs can become religions.

“If a doctrine is not unintelligible, it has to be vague; and if neither unintelligible nor vague, it has to be unverifiable.”

― Eric Hoffer, The True Believer