NationStates

Donald Trump doesn't like the media much. For work I made a little program that would grab all his tweets and then try to sort them into categories. I was interested in finding out how often he talked about building infrastructure, tax cuts and so on. The one category that dominated all others was him complaining about being treated unfairly by "the media". It wasn't even a contest.

He's called the media his opposition. In another thread, Herskerstad suggested that the idea of an independent media under attack was simplistic:

Herskerstad wrote:Sure, but preferably less shitty ones than CNN, MSNBC, ect.

I got no problem with these two dogs going against each-other. It would be simplistic to take this as an attack on the idea of an independent media, however much CNN will attempt to make that portrait.

Others, including myself, think of the media as a central part of modern democracy that has to be independent of and critical of the government to serve its function of informing voters. If voters are uninformed, they cannot perform their role in a democracy and the system cannot work. In my view, social media cannot reasonably do the same thing: if journalism is not your career, you are more likely to take short-cuts, jump to conclusions and spread misleading information - and we all know that we are more receptive to information that agrees with our established views and end up living in bubbles.

Again others think that it is misleading to think of "the media" as a thing at all.

So where do you stand? What is the job of "the media"? Is that job being done in your country and/or in the US? Does media have to be independent to do its job or would a country in which most news was distributed through state-run media be just as good? What does media independence even really mean? And in Trump's case, how far could he go in his spat with various news organisations before you think he's gone too far? Legal action? Refusing to speak to particular news organisations? Refusing to let his officials speak to particular news organisations? Or even trying to nationalise, buy out or shut down news outlets he disagrees with?

The media's job is to present information in such a way so that the citizenry are alternately convinced and compelled to support the establishment, promote political correctness, and be good law-abiding flag-waving Americans. It is not the job of the media to promote critical thinking, rather it is their job to shape it for the greater good. If someone such as Trump rises to challenge the establishment by threatening the elites, it is the job of the media to demonise such a person.

Infected Mushroom wrote:The media's job is to present information in such a way so that the citizenry are alternately convinced and compelled to support the establishment, promote political correctness, and be good law-abiding flag-waving Americans. It is not the job of the media to promote critical thinking, rather it is their job to shape it for the greater good. If someone such as Trump rises to challenge the establishment by threatening the elites, it is the job of the media to demonise such a person.

Sarcasm is great and all... but it would be even greater if it came in support of some argument, spelled out in such a way that we could actually have a conversation about it.

Infected Mushroom wrote:The media's job is to present information in such a way so that the citizenry are alternately convinced and compelled to support the establishment, promote political correctness, and be good law-abiding flag-waving Americans. It is not the job of the media to promote critical thinking, rather it is their job to shape it for the greater good. If someone such as Trump rises to challenge the establishment by threatening the elites, it is the job of the media to demonise such a person.

...That's propaganda, not media. You essentially want to bugger everyone's Article 18 and 19 rights.

The media with regards to politics is supposed to be the ones that hold politicians and the government accountable, not be subservient to different party interests. Once the media loses its interest in accountability then it loses the interest of the public and its role in democracy.

But "the media" should only be used to refer to professional journalists and news companies. Anything else that doesn't fit into that category isn't media, it is just a bunch of agenda-driven people with egos and a lot of spare time.

the media does have to be independent and in the states, it is.

that said i don't blame trump for being pissed. The NY times is not reporting on him, it is actively trying to get him impeached. I dont disclaim their right to do so, but to claim they are unbiased in their reporting on the administration is absurd.

Ethel mermania wrote:the media does have to be independent and in the states, it is.

that said i don't blame trump for being pissed. The NY times is not reporting on him, it is actively trying to get him impeached. I dont disclaim their right to do so, but to claim they are unbiased in their reporting on the administration is absurd.

Right. Most of the mainstream media is biased to a fault, they lack journalistic integrity. But the "alt media" is no better. There are few, if any, media outlets without an agenda to push, and that worries me deeply. I try to read from a variety of sources and form my own opinions.

Neu Leonstein wrote:Donald Trump doesn't like the media much. For work I made a little program that would grab all his tweets and then try to sort them into categories. I was interested in finding out how often he talked about building infrastructure, tax cuts and so on. The one category that dominated all others was him complaining about being treated unfairly by "the media". It wasn't even a contest.

He's called the media his opposition. In another thread, Herskerstad suggested that the idea of an independent media under attack was simplistic:

Herskerstad wrote:Sure, but preferably less shitty ones than CNN, MSNBC, ect.

I got no problem with these two dogs going against each-other. It would be simplistic to take this as an attack on the idea of an independent media, however much CNN will attempt to make that portrait.

Others, including myself, think of the media as a central part of modern democracy that has to be independent of and critical of the government to serve its function of informing voters. If voters are uninformed, they cannot perform their role in a democracy and the system cannot work. In my view, social media cannot reasonably do the same thing: if journalism is not your career, you are more likely to take short-cuts, jump to conclusions and spread misleading information - and we all know that we are more receptive to information that agrees with our established views and end up living in bubbles.

Again others think that it is misleading to think of "the media" as a thing at all.

So where do you stand? What is the job of "the media"? Is that job being done in your country and/or in the US? Does media have to be independent to do its job or would a country in which most news was distributed through state-run media be just as good? What does media independence even really mean? And in Trump's case, how far could he go in his spat with various news organisations before you think he's gone too far? Legal action? Refusing to speak to particular news organisations? Refusing to let his officials speak to particular news organisations? Or even trying to nationalise, buy out or shut down news outlets he disagrees with?

The job of the media is to disseminate information. The job is being done reasonably well, though clickbait and sensationalism reigns all too often. The media must be independent in order to spread information which may be contrary to the government's interests. Trump's already gone too far for a major politician in a free nation. He's just a thin-skinned pussy, and he's not bright enough to go about his anti-media tantrums with any amount of subtlety.

Neu Leonstein wrote:Does media have to be independent to do its job or would a country in which most news was distributed through state-run media...

A bigger question is, in the age of internet, do we really still need big media?

Before, media had to be big to own enough printing presses and enough distribution to get the newspaper to everyone.
Later, big enough to own or rent enough broadcast towers to get its message out.

Now, none of that matters - any individual has the ability to broadcast to everyone on the net who tunes in. Yes, they still need to promote themselves to get people to tune in. But there is no longer a requirement for multiple well-known people to pool resources together just for each of them to be heard by their own audience.

No billion-dollar company can be really independent. It will always have top managers, completely unrelated to the reporting job, with their own goals and political affiliations they must maintain.

State-run media is a red herring, a strawman alternative. Contrasting megacorporation media with state-run media is like saying home VCR killing TV will bring us back into the newspaper age. That's not what happened. While I don't yet know anyone well-off without a TV, people increasingly skip the step of hooking an antenna up to it.

The alternative to big media isn't state-run media, it's social networks. Which have their own celebrities, shows, channels, etc. I don't know most of it - too old - just enough to notice myself being left in the dust.

Independent media is the heart of all democracies. An independent media teaches the people to have two points of view on a subject and to express their views. This is why in dictatorships like North Korea, the media is state-run. The media can be a powerful organ for those seeking truth and justice, but it can also be a powerful weapon to suppress the opposition and give the appearance of a people united by one ruler and that one ruler alone.

Ethel mermania wrote:the media does have to be independent and in the states, it is.

that said i don't blame trump for being pissed. The NY times is not reporting on him, it is actively trying to get him impeached. I dont disclaim their right to do so, but to claim they are unbiased in their reporting on the administration is absurd.

It is not the job of the media to be neutral and "unbiased."

Demanding the media be unbiased is tantamount to abandoning truth. It means false equivalence that gives equal credence to oppressors and their victims. As Elie Weisel put it, "We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented."

Well, speaking as a Frenchman, our media has a century old reputation for being a propaganda outlet for the government so it's not like anyone believed in it being "independent" or even "reliable" in the first place, anyway (the only exception to this rule being the "Canard Enchaîné" which is insofar the only good newspaper we have and which can actually almost be 100% trusted)

Now, I dunno if you have a similar situation in the U.S but I do have to say that from my point of view all the screeching from your media sounds more like pathetic attempts to defend their broken credibility than actual proof of their "integrity" as journalists.

Costa Fierro wrote:The media with regards to politics is supposed to be the ones that hold politicians and the government accountable, not be subservient to different party interests. Once the media loses its interest in accountability then it loses the interest of the public and its role in democracy.

But "the media" should only be used to refer to professional journalists and news companies. Anything else that doesn't fit into that category isn't media, it is just a bunch of agenda-driven people with egos and a lot of spare time.

By that standard we don't have media.

Trotskylvania wrote:

Ethel mermania wrote:the media does have to be independent and in the states, it is.

that said i don't blame trump for being pissed. The NY times is not reporting on him, it is actively trying to get him impeached. I dont disclaim their right to do so, but to claim they are unbiased in their reporting on the administration is absurd.

It is not the job of the media to be neutral and "unbiased."

Demanding the media be unbiased is tantamount to abandoning truth. It means false equivalence that gives equal credence to oppressors and their victims. As Elie Weisel put it, "We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented."

No. Bias is the enemy of truth. Bias is why people believe things without evidence, ignore that which they don't believe, stretch the truth when it suit them, and muddy the truth when it doesn't. It is this "narrative before truth" attitude that's lead us to this post-truth era.

Neu Leonstein wrote:

Infected Mushroom wrote:The media's job is to present information in such a way so that the citizenry are alternately convinced and compelled to support the establishment, promote political correctness, and be good law-abiding flag-waving Americans. It is not the job of the media to promote critical thinking, rather it is their job to shape it for the greater good. If someone such as Trump rises to challenge the establishment by threatening the elites, it is the job of the media to demonise such a person.

Sarcasm is great and all... but it would be even greater if it came in support of some argument, spelled out in such a way that we could actually have a conversation about it.

Mushroom's statement brooks no argument, only submission from me, from you, from the media, and from everyone else in its purview.

Ethel mermania wrote:the media does have to be independent and in the states, it is.

that said i don't blame trump for being pissed. The NY times is not reporting on him, it is actively trying to get him impeached. I dont disclaim their right to do so, but to claim they are unbiased in their reporting on the administration is absurd.

They're presenting the facts about the Trump administration. Those facts, given the Constitution and given precedent (especially that of that increasingly dirty word "Watergate"), would've at least set the wheels of congressional investigations rolling in, never mind set up calls for impeachment from knowledgeable parties across the nation.

It's not bloody bias -- Donald fucking Trump set himself up for a fall, and now he's using his office well beyond its constitutional and customary mandates to shut all press and other critical or otherwise independent voices up.

Dahon wrote:

Ethel mermania wrote:the media does have to be independent and in the states, it is.

that said i don't blame trump for being pissed. The NY times is not reporting on him, it is actively trying to get him impeached. I dont disclaim their right to do so, but to claim they are unbiased in their reporting on the administration is absurd.

They're presenting the facts about the Trump administration. Those facts, given the Constitution and given precedent (especially that of that increasingly dirty word "Watergate"), would've at least set the wheels of congressional investigations rolling in, never mind set up calls for impeachment from knowledgeable parties across the nation.

It's not bloody bias -- Donald fucking Trump set himself up for a fall, and now he's using his office well beyond its constitutional and customary mandates to shut all press and other critical or otherwise independent voices up.

Damn right, mate. He's using his office to protect himself from criticism of his regime. He wants to be America's first dictator.

Populi-Terrae wrote:

Dahon wrote:
They're presenting the facts about the Trump administration. Those facts, given the Constitution and given precedent (especially that of that increasingly dirty word "Watergate"), would've at least set the wheels of congressional investigations rolling in, never mind set up calls for impeachment from knowledgeable parties across the nation.

It's not bloody bias -- Donald fucking Trump set himself up for a fall, and now he's using his office well beyond its constitutional and customary mandates to shut all press and other critical or otherwise independent voices up.

Damn right, mate. He's using his office to protect himself from criticism of his regime. He wants to be America's first dictator.

Even if Trump tomorrow barred every single media outlet from any further interviews it would neither be unconstitutional nor dictatorial.

No, this smells entirely of Trump simply telling the corporate interests of the media conglomerates to reform big time, or he will likely not invite them to any press conference or event, and give said privileges to younger competitors on the scene. It is the ultimate threat in a corporate nature, and seeing as money tend to win over ideology, its quite likely to end in his favour.

Scandinavian Nations wrote:A bigger question is, in the age of internet, do we really still need big media?

Before, media had to be big to own enough printing presses and enough distribution to get the newspaper to everyone.
Later, big enough to own or rent enough broadcast towers to get its message out.

Now, none of that matters - any individual has the ability to broadcast to everyone on the net who tunes in. Yes, they still need to promote themselves to get people to tune in. But there is no longer a requirement for multiple well-known people to pool resources together just for each of them to be heard by their own audience.

That is true, but the ability to broadcast is obviously not the same as journalism. Virtually all the news that people get through their social media is still made by journalists, mostly working for media companies with editors, editorial policies and so on. Basically the only exception to this is proper fake news written by Macedonian students. That's why Zuckerberg's manifesto is so naive... facebook doesn't produce content, it relies on others to produce it, and those others are still primarily the "old media" that his business model is taking apart.

So imagine what the media would be if we just had amateur journalists sharing stuff on social media. There is no way you can tell me that if you were trying to write up a news story about some policy the government is introducing you would be able to do a good job at it. That's not because you're stupid or something, it's just because

a) you wouldn't have the resources to get the raw information anywhere near as quickly or as accurately... I mean, how are you going to get an interview with the relevant minister, or with some affected company CEO, or with some recognised expert at a university across the Atlantic? People can get that information now because some journalist representing a broadly-recognised media company is asking on behalf of some paper or some TV channel.

b) you wouldn't be an expert. When you're working for the WSJ, you can write articles about the media industry for a living, and nothing else. You make contacts, you learn every little detail about ad algorithms and firewalls and how the NYTimes makes money, you learn the relevant laws and regulations etc etc. When something happens, you can accurately identify what the issues are, ask the right people and write a story about it. But that's because you're getting paid from a common pot that the WSJ distributes to its employees from the money it makes from everyone's work. There is just no way that you could be that specialised in the media industry and write the same articles to share on social media and still make a living out of it. Not that many people are going to follow/redistribute/financially support your blog about the media industry. Maybe that just means that the market is making a choice and there shouldn't be journalists who write about the media industry, so one big media dies, that just disappears. But that seems a hard case to defend.

c) you need critical pushback to make it good. I know this because when I write a thing on NSG, or for a blog, and I write something on the same topic for work (I'm not a journalist, but I do write a lot of reports and briefings), the difference can be night and day. It's not always nice to be edited, and to get pushback to include stuff you might not think has much merit, or to take out stuff that you think is important. But it does make for a better product... less opinion piece and more informative to everyone. If you just have people writing stuff on social media, I think we can both agree that editing and editorial policies will fall by the wayside. What you get is opinion pieces dressed up with the odd researched factoid. That's not the same thing as an article in NYT or WSJ or something.

No billion-dollar company can be really independent. It will always have top managers, completely unrelated to the reporting job, with their own goals and political affiliations they must maintain.

Of course, though to be fair, at least overtly biased editorial decisions and policies tend not to stay secret. But no one is suggesting that the correct thing to do is to just read one paper or watch one channel and leave it at that. My point is that you need the papers and the channels.

State-run media is a red herring, a strawman alternative. Contrasting megacorporation media with state-run media is like saying home VCR killing TV will bring us back into the newspaper age. That's not what happened. While I don't yet know anyone well-off without a TV, people increasingly skip the step of hooking an antenna up to it.

The alternative to big media isn't state-run media, it's social networks. Which have their own celebrities, shows, channels, etc. I don't know most of it - too old - just enough to notice myself being left in the dust.

You call it a red herring, but places like Russia, Turkey, Hungary and other strongman authoritarian democracies of the sort Trump admires depend critically on state-run media.

All media will be biased. The best thing (I think) you can do about it is to have people with opposing viewpoints on your show to argue about the topic.

And, with the TV i watch, they do this occasionally.

Herskerstad wrote:

Populi-Terrae wrote:
Damn right, mate. He's using his office to protect himself from criticism of his regime. He wants to be America's first dictator.

Even if Trump tomorrow barred every single media outlet from any further interviews it would neither be unconstitutional nor dictatorial.

No, this smells entirely of Trump simply telling the corporate interests of the media conglomerates to reform big time, or he will likely not invite them to any press conference or event, and give said privileges to younger competitors on the scene. It is the ultimate threat in a corporate nature, and seeing as money tend to win over ideology, its quite likely to end in his favour.

Oh so much bullshit. "Reform" fucking what? Fucking facts? Just so they align with Trump's alternate facts?

Dahon wrote:

Herskerstad wrote:
Even if Trump tomorrow barred every single media outlet from any further interviews it would neither be unconstitutional nor dictatorial.

No, this smells entirely of Trump simply telling the corporate interests of the media conglomerates to reform big time, or he will likely not invite them to any press conference or event, and give said privileges to younger competitors on the scene. It is the ultimate threat in a corporate nature, and seeing as money tend to win over ideology, its quite likely to end in his favour.

Oh so much bullshit. "Reform" fucking what? Fucking facts? Just so they align with Trump's alternate facts?

Sorry, are you making an argument that there exist any major news outlet whom's board of directors would not collectively shit their pants on the issue of having presidential conference privileges revoked, and given to rival outlets?

Herskerstad wrote:

Dahon wrote:
Oh so much bullshit. "Reform" fucking what? Fucking facts? Just so they align with Trump's alternate facts?

Sorry, are you making an argument that there exist any major news outlet whom's board of directors would not collectively shit their pants on the issue of having presidential conference privileges revoked, and given to rival outlets?

And the price for continued access (or readmission) would be that they stop reporting on Trump's every lie, every slip-up. That they praise him, regardless of the truth.

I'm sorry, but if that's not muzzling the media, if that's not dictatorship by every other name, then I don't know what is.

Either way, it's fucking bad if it comes to that -- if the media comes to do nothing but report on Trump's fourth wife or whether he likes ponies or even abscond the business of reporting about the government altogether, then American democracy can go hang itself at the nearest fucking tree.

Dahon wrote:

Herskerstad wrote:
Sorry, are you making an argument that there exist any major news outlet whom's board of directors would not collectively shit their pants on the issue of having presidential conference privileges revoked, and given to rival outlets?

And the price for continued access (or readmission) would be that they stop reporting on Trump's every lie, every slip-up. That they praise him, regardless of the truth.

I'm sorry, but if that's not muzzling the media, if that's not dictatorship by every other name, then I don't know what is.

Either way, it's fucking bad if it comes to that -- if the media comes to do nothing but report on Trump's fourth wife or whether he likes ponies or even abscond the business of reporting about the government altogether, then American democracy can go hang itself at the nearest fucking tree.

The media is pretty much as it's lowest approval rating it's ever has been, and has turned into something of a lolcow on their decrying of fake news which now seems to be the very cross they are being hoisted on. If there ever was a time to have said battle, it seems logical to have it now.

My arguments has little to do with weather doing so is right or wrong, but rather that the way the cards presently is stacked it would be incredibly easy for the white house to ensure favourable reporting which is the only logical thing for them to pursue in picking this fight against a particularly wounded media. And no, ridding a set of unpopular media outlets of their interview and conference privileges, or indirectly twisting the arms of their board of executives would not be dictatorial in the slightest. What would be dictatorial is if he would seek to nationalise media outlets and have the white house be the arbitrer of media licenses like Venezuela, but that's not on the table.

I guess Trump will just keep on winning at the end of the day. The media is a place he has particular experience with so he knows exactly how these things run.

Trotskylvania wrote:

Ethel mermania wrote:the media does have to be independent and in the states, it is.

that said i don't blame trump for being pissed. The NY times is not reporting on him, it is actively trying to get him impeached. I dont disclaim their right to do so, but to claim they are unbiased in their reporting on the administration is absurd.

It is not the job of the media to be neutral and "unbiased."

Demanding the media be unbiased is tantamount to abandoning truth. It means false equivalence that gives equal credence to oppressors and their victims. As Elie Weisel put it, "We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented."

Accurate reporting isn't silence.
I don't object to propaganda rags, but to expect to be tsken seriously when all you pt out is propaganda is silly.

Herskerstad wrote:

Dahon wrote:
And the price for continued access (or readmission) would be that they stop reporting on Trump's every lie, every slip-up. That they praise him, regardless of the truth.

I'm sorry, but if that's not muzzling the media, if that's not dictatorship by every other name, then I don't know what is.

Either way, it's fucking bad if it comes to that -- if the media comes to do nothing but report on Trump's fourth wife or whether he likes ponies or even abscond the business of reporting about the government altogether, then American democracy can go hang itself at the nearest fucking tree.

The media is pretty much as it's lowest approval rating it's ever has been, and has turned into something of a lolcow on their decrying of fake news which now seems to be the very cross they are being hoisted on. If there ever was a time to have said battle, it seems logical to have it now.

My arguments has little to do with weather doing so is right or wrong, but rather that the way the cards presently is stacked it would be incredibly easy for the white house to ensure favourable reporting which is the only logical thing for them to pursue in picking this fight against a particularly wounded media. And no, ridding a set of unpopular media outlets of their interview and conference privileges, or indirectly twisting the arms of their board of executives would not be dictatorial in the slightest. What would be dictatorial is if he would seek to nationalise media outlets and have the white house be the arbitrer of media licenses like Venezuela, but that's not on the table.

I guess Trump will just keep on winning at the end of the day. The media is a place he has particular experience with so he knows exactly how these things run.

So lemme get this from you, since my head hurts from trying to process that post:

1. What is the role of media in a democracy? Should it function any differently under Trump?

2. Do you think the media has done a good job fact-checking Trump thus far? If not, give instances where false or misleading news has been said of Trump.

3. If push comes to shove, would you support Trump if he does withhold access from critical news outlets?

4. What should be the conditions for a news outlet to regain access in such a scenario? Give examples of such conditions in action, through sample headlines, news blurbs, what have you.