04-09-2024, 10:54 PM
(04-09-2024, 05:51 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I forget which podcast I was listening to, but it was a very interesting self-reflection in journalism during and post-Trump. It may have been on an episode of the aforementioned 1A. They talked about one of the problems being not knowing how to cover Trump and being dismissive of him prior to his election. Then his attacks resulted in almost a vengeful position from the media in response and becoming very aggressive. This resulted in handling him with a little more kid gloves in some instances and swinging things too far in the other direction in some instances. Part of the issue is that any attempt to fact check him has been seen as an attack by him and his followers, leading to the confusion.
A lot of accurate points here. I've said before, if I gave Trump more credit I'd almost admire the win/win situation he set himself up with. The media can't attack him without looking biased and they can't ignore him because he puts them front and center with constant attacks. The only real opportunity the press had was in the beginning of his presidency. If they had covered him as any other POTUS they may have won out. But I suppose the temptation to fight back was too strong. I can empathize, the desire to strike back against those who take a giant shit on your profession is strong.
Quote:In addition to all of this you have the changing media landscape where the marketplace of ideas is flooded with information of all sorts and this makes more traditional media sources have far less of the market share than they once did. We don't have to rely on the airwaves or the newsstand for our information, it's all out there on the various sites. This changes the business model for these companies, including the non-profit ones. They are in a constant struggle for eyeballs and clicks that their old models weren't going to gain them. NPR's stereotypical programming isn't going to attract most Millennials and younger. The Associated Press doesn't present information in a way that stands out. Investigative reporting from anyone is just going to hold the attention of most people. As a result, these things we have relied on for so long are losing traction and when they try to modernize to compete they lose credibility with the masses.
Indeed, a second industrial revolution as it where. It is as liberating as it is terrifying. On one hand the near limitless streams of information ensure more voices are heard. On the other the more voices means the more likely deliberately false ones get into the mix. And you are correct, the legacy media's response has been less than ideal.
Quote:Plus, as much as people like to claim they want unbiased news sources, the majority don't understand biases in media coverage and they often continue to rely on sources with those slants that they align with. If they do look at media they disagree with to claim they do, they essentially hate read it.
Again, can't disagree. I literally force myself to read sites I know will annoy me, both left and right. They definitely take turns triggering my gag reflex.
Quote:I have no idea how to fix it.
I can literally hear the despair in your "voice" here. I get where you're coming from.
