Media accuracy? (1 Viewer)

Soundwave

Terribly Vexed
VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 4, 2008
Messages
5,817
Reaction score
4,110
Location
Danger Zone
Offline
We know there are many sites like Fact Check that check how factual the candidates' statements have been. But are there any non-biased sites that fact check the media?
 

Galbreath34

Very Banned
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
May 8, 2008
Messages
32,273
Reaction score
30,813
Offline
PBS, Fox and the NYT.

The Washington Post, the LA Times and the Chicago Tribune fact check them.

The BBC, ITV and Al Jazeera fact check them.

El País, Charlie Hebdo, and the Telegraph fact check them.

The Sun, The Daily Mail and Breitbart fact check them.

It's the reason only idiots rely on one news source. Sadly, according to Pew research the majority of people who identify is strong conservatives rely on less than 1.5 sources on average. Independents on a bit more and those who identify as strong liberals rely on more than 5 sources on average.

I'd hope that most of the conservatives who come to the PDB or similar for instead of facebook might be the exception to the national rule.
 

Saint_Ward

Don't be a Jerk.
Staff member
Administrator
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Messages
47,532
Reaction score
41,603
Location
Fort Lauderdale, FL
Offline
Most of the major new papers, and TV news take it upon themselves to be factual. Some are a bit more liberal with it than others. Also, depending on the type of story, they'd have dozens of quotes, and have to pair it down to 2-3. It depends on what kind of story they want to write. But often, the facts are true, the question is if it tells the whole story.

But I'd take the worst NY Times, Chicago Tribune, LA Times, or Advocate article over the best Brietbart, InfoWars, OccupyDemocrats article/link/story any day of the week.

But the big ones, the print media, is only as good as their reputation. They have too much to lose if their rep goes bad. A website could not care less.
 

JimEverett

More than 15K posts served!
Joined
Mar 18, 2001
Messages
24,979
Reaction score
7,834
Offline
I imagine many people, if not most, on thissite have been a key player or closely involved in a story that was reported on by news media.
How much of it did they get correct? I am amazed at the inaccuracies in reporting of events that I have a close connection with.
Granted, this is local reporting, although much of it is in the state's largest newspaper. So perhaps reporting at more prestigious institutions is better. But I doubt it.

The people that drive stories are largely whores to access and celebrity and do the bidding of political players by relying on leaked "info" to publish.
I haven;t had much trust at all in media sources since they accepted at face value the lies of the Bush Administration over the need to invade Iraq.
 

Brees2Graham4Six!

Pro-Bowler
Joined
Feb 6, 2011
Messages
550
Reaction score
555
Offline
PBS, Fox and the NYT.

The Washington Post, the LA Times and the Chicago Tribune fact check them.

The BBC, ITV and Al Jazeera fact check them.

El País, Charlie Hebdo, and the Telegraph fact check them.

The Sun, The Daily Mail and Breitbart fact check them.

It's the reason only idiots rely on one news source. Sadly, according to Pew research the majority of people who identify is strong conservatives rely on less than 1.5 sources on average. Independents on a bit more and those who identify as strong liberals rely on more than 5 sources on average.

I'd hope that most of the conservatives who come to the PDB or similar for instead of facebook might be the exception to the national rule.

Just to play devils advocate a lot of young college grads identify as strong liberals and their 5 sources usually include 5 sites that continue to pop up on Facebook news feeds wth a little bit of personal research. Strong conservatives are usually just Fox and maybe one other site. It sounds much better to have those 5 sources to 1 but it's not like it's 5 really different sources both groups still live in their own bubbles. People only want to listen to the news that self affirms their own beliefs, it's how we got into this mess in the first place and why there is such dichotomy in the reactions between the 2008 and 2016 elections. In 2008 conservative news declared Obamas administration was gonna be the end of the world and in 2016 it's more liberal news that's feeding the hysteria.

Basically no matter the number of sources people of different views use, people of both views are guilty of living in their respective bubbles.
 

Galbreath34

Very Banned
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
May 8, 2008
Messages
32,273
Reaction score
30,813
Offline
No.

Search for the Pew study on it. It's very specific about the sources they asked about (I think 30 or so major ones), and it's not at all as you suggest. There's more focus toward sources at one end or the other, but almost all on the right stuck to one or two at most and very few reading/listening to liberal sources, whereas liberals listening to Fox or reading the Economist or WSJ were much higher percentages.
 

RetroMcBananaFace

AKA: retrobanana
Joined
Feb 1, 2015
Messages
10,061
Reaction score
20,849
Location
Henderson, Kentucky
Offline
I imagine many people, if not most, on thissite have been a key player or closely involved in a story that was reported on by news media.
How much of it did they get correct? I am amazed at the inaccuracies in reporting of events that I have a close connection with.
Granted, this is local reporting, although much of it is in the state's largest newspaper. So perhaps reporting at more prestigious institutions is better. But I doubt it.

There are two big issues with local reporting across the country, IMO, and they are both related to downsizing.

1) local TV and newspapers, but especially newspapers, are leaning on early 20 somethings to do jobs that in most cases they should probably not be doing. When I broke into the business there was still very much a mentor/apprenticeship dynamic between the older and younger employees. I didn't get to cover anything even remotely significant until I had been there probably 3 years. Now, those more experienced employees aren't around to show these kids the ropes, and the vast majority of the time they are lost and out of their depth.

2) workload. because you typically have one reporter doing the job of what 2 or maybe even 3 people should be doing, that person doesn't have the luxury of time to really pay careful enough attention to what they're writing sometimes. Reporters in many places are being expected to write 10-12 stories a week when it used to be 3 or 4, and people often don't have the luxury of really sinking their teeth into one particular beat and really getting to know the nuances of the kinds of people and events they're dealing with.

Now these are kind of worst-case scenarios, because they do get it right most of the time, and on occasions where mistakes are made, they are usually corrected by the next day.

But that's just local and regional stuff. National is another story. We do have the problem like you say of people trying to be rock stars instead of doing their jobs and holding people's feet to the fire when appropriate. And that sucks. But that dynamic is driving by ratings and dollars, and that's what the audience has demanded.

I just saw Google is making moves to cancel ads on a lot of the clickbait type sites in wake of all the election coverage. Clearly somebody is interested in trying to establish a better national media presence. It's a start at least.
 

Saint_Ward

Don't be a Jerk.
Staff member
Administrator
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Messages
47,532
Reaction score
41,603
Location
Fort Lauderdale, FL
Offline
Just to play devils advocate a lot of young college grads identify as strong liberals and their 5 sources usually include 5 sites that continue to pop up on Facebook news feeds wth a little bit of personal research. Strong conservatives are usually just Fox and maybe one other site. It sounds much better to have those 5 sources to 1 but it's not like it's 5 really different sources both groups still live in their own bubbles. People only want to listen to the news that self affirms their own beliefs, it's how we got into this mess in the first place and why there is such dichotomy in the reactions between the 2008 and 2016 elections. In 2008 conservative news declared Obamas administration was gonna be the end of the world and in 2016 it's more liberal news that's feeding the hysteria.

Basically no matter the number of sources people of different views use, people of both views are guilty of living in their respective bubbles.

I agree that multiple self-reinforcing fringe sources aren't helpful. i.e. I'll take one WSJ article or one LA times article over a Mother Jones, Slate, Huffington Post article.

However, being the type of person I am, I love to call out people for bogus articles... conservatives are not mostly just using Fox News. Depending on the topic, I'll find a lot of advocacy sites, that I'd question the stories they run at times... Bearing Arms - Saving Liberty and Lives , Breitbart News Network (Even the conservative the National Review had issues with Brietbart, and Bannon being on Trump's team), RedStateWatcher, I Love My Freedom - , the Daily Caller, The Political Cult - Center-Right News for a Center-Right Nation, basically anything with a stupid name is probably a poor site.
 

justdave

Hung out to dry
Joined
Dec 28, 2006
Messages
10,580
Reaction score
8,813
Location
Cordova, TN
Offline
No.

Search for the Pew study on it. It's very specific about the sources they asked about (I think 30 or so major ones), and it's not at all as you suggest. There's more focus toward sources at one end or the other, but almost all on the right stuck to one or two at most and very few reading/listening to liberal sources, whereas liberals listening to Fox or reading the Economist or WSJ were much higher percentages.

Political Polarization & Media Habits | Pew Research Center
 

pmiceli

Pro-Bowler
Joined
Nov 30, 2013
Messages
919
Reaction score
1,101
Offline
PBS, Fox and the NYT.

The Washington Post, the LA Times and the Chicago Tribune fact check them.

The BBC, ITV and Al Jazeera fact check them.

El País, Charlie Hebdo, and the Telegraph fact check them.

The Sun, The Daily Mail and Breitbart fact check them.

It's the reason only idiots rely on one news source. Sadly, according to Pew research the majority of people who identify is strong conservatives rely on less than 1.5 sources on average. Independents on a bit more and those who identify as strong liberals rely on more than 5 sources on average.

I'd hope that most of the conservatives who come to the PDB or similar for instead of facebook might be the exception to the national rule.

You need to reread that study. You have misinterpreted it.
 
Joined
Jul 19, 2001
Messages
26,900
Reaction score
71,784
Location
Earth
Offline
These 6 Corporations Control 90% Of The Media In America - Business Insider

6 companies control 90% of what we see. 6 very large corporations extremely concerned about ratings and selling ad space. 6 companies who really don't want to lose the ad dollars from a company like Chevrolet. 6 companies who don't dig deeper into why that company was fined a couple hours profit after 13 years, 274 injuries, and 124 deaths while no one goes to jail. 6 companies that have ignored the corporate welfare that's been going on, because it helps their own boards rake in more and more profit.
 

Saint_Ward

Don't be a Jerk.
Staff member
Administrator
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Messages
47,532
Reaction score
41,603
Location
Fort Lauderdale, FL
Offline
10-20-2014-2-31-55-PM.png
 

Saint_Ward

Don't be a Jerk.
Staff member
Administrator
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Messages
47,532
Reaction score
41,603
Location
Fort Lauderdale, FL
Offline
PJ_14.10.21_mediaPolarization-01.png


The one that strikes me is USA Today.. the most white bread paper out there.
 

Saint_Ward

Don't be a Jerk.
Staff member
Administrator
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Messages
47,532
Reaction score
41,603
Location
Fort Lauderdale, FL
Offline
Looking at that data I'd offer two thoughts.

1. Liberals don't really use multiple sources, just as a group, they're not unified from one source, unlike the unified approach of Fox News. You can take that as Liberals being more broad minded, more diverse, having more options, or just have different preferences. It could be meaningless, especially if it's driven by more main stream options.

2. Out of the News Sources, it's somewhat concerning that Conservatives (who were surveyed.. yet it seems to hold true in here) only seem to trust 2 actual News sources (even if one gets a little too loose with Op-Ed).. Fox News and the Wall Street Journal (which, of course, had universal respect). The other sources, are really crap sites.. or complete opinion sites. Not News. Drudge, Breitbart, Hannity, Glen Beck. etc.

2b. To be fair, liberals and mixed also trust a few "crap sites" as well. Daily Kos and Think Progress being the worst to me, and it's funny how people trust the Daily Show and Colbert Report (when it existed), but I think that was more if they were making fun of something, it likely happened and they backed up their news / politics jokes with actual sound bytes. They were the ones that kind of started calling out politicians on talking out of both sides of their mouth. However, the encouraging thing is the breadth of real news, major TV news, papers, etc.

2c. We all agree that Buzz Feed is garbage. :)
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

 

New Orleans Saints Twitter Feed

 

Headlines

Top Bottom