Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
Question: do you think the news should report every stupid thing that comes out of Trump’s mouth for the sake of educating the general populace of his stupidity or does that play too much into his hand and give a “both sides” validity to it and politicize the stupidest and most obvious of things?
Last Edit: May 17, 2020 17:32:29 GMT -5 by KPO - Back to Top
Question: do you think the news should report every stupid thing that comes out of Trump’s mouth for the sake of educating the general populace of his stupidity or does that play too much into his hand and give a “both sides” validity to it and politicize the stupidest and most obvious of things?
The latter. The media wants viewers/clicks/revenue. Trump gives them content that generates those things, and then weaponizes it against them. He goads the media into being more partisan, the media takes the bait because partisanship taps into viewers' emotions and keeps them engaged with media, and then Trump blames the media for being partisan. It works fairly well.
5.5/four tet, daphni b2b floating points, avalon emerson 5.12/neil young 5.19/mannequin pussy 5.21/serpentwithfeet 5.25/hozier 6.12-16/bonnaroo 6.28/goose 6.29/goose 9.17/the national + the war on drugs 9.23/sigur ros 9.27-29/making time 10.17/air
Question: do you think the news should report every stupid thing that comes out of Trump’s mouth for the sake of educating the general populace of his stupidity or does that play too much into his hand and give a “both sides” validity to it and politicize the stupidest and most obvious of things?
The latter. The media wants viewers/clicks/revenue. Trump gives them content that generates those things, and then weaponizes it against them. He goads the media into being more partisan, the media takes the bait because partisanship taps into viewers' emotions and keeps them engaged with media, and then Trump blames the media for being partisan. It works fairly well.
Though I personally believe this, I would be very upset if I found out he was doing the stuff he did and we weren’t made aware of it. Feels like a no right answer to me
The latter. The media wants viewers/clicks/revenue. Trump gives them content that generates those things, and then weaponizes it against them. He goads the media into being more partisan, the media takes the bait because partisanship taps into viewers' emotions and keeps them engaged with media, and then Trump blames the media for being partisan. It works fairly well.
Though I personally believe this, I would be very upset if I found out he was doing the stuff he did and we weren’t made aware of it. Feels like a no right answer to me
Nah, there's one right answer. At one point or another, the media was considered The Fourth Estate, meaning that the three branches of government proved checks and balances one one another and the media reported the objective truth. Morally, you have no obligation to report what anyone said no matter what their title is. Really, NOTHING should be reported live because there's no way to fact check it. That went out the window somewhere between Baby Jessica and the OJ Chase so now here we are.
You concern is wonderfully optimistic but unnecessary. It's much easier (and safer for democracy) to report something late instead of trying to catch a one-in-a-million gem in a tirade of insane, racist, fear-mongering rambling.
while that may be the case it probably shouldn't be. I think a big problem is that great news is behind a paywall, shitty news is on cable, and even shittier news is local. Not all local news is awful but I'm sure a large majority in between the coasts is. Idk if there's a good way to replace the "fourth estate" the way bees was saying it should work unless there's a major shift in fed/state money going to public access and how TV/news is bought and sold.
while that may be the case it probably shouldn't be. I think a big problem is that great news is behind a paywall, shitty news is on cable, and even shittier news is local. Not all local news is awful but I'm sure a large majority in between the coasts is. Idk if there's a good way to replace the "fourth estate" the way bees was saying it should work unless there's a major shift in fed/state money going to public access and how TV/news is bought and sold.
I think it's totally possible to be a good journalist and have people voluntarily give you money. Like YouTubers with patreon. It's also not impossible to find smaller advertisers that wouldn't force you to compromise your content either. When I used to see a news story behind a pay wall I'd jokingly say "well must not have been that important"
while that may be the case it probably shouldn't be. I think a big problem is that great news is behind a paywall, shitty news is on cable, and even shittier news is local. Not all local news is awful but I'm sure a large majority in between the coasts is. Idk if there's a good way to replace the "fourth estate" the way bees was saying it should work unless there's a major shift in fed/state money going to public access and how TV/news is bought and sold.
I think it's totally possible to be a good journalist and have people voluntarily give you money. Like YouTubers with patreon. It's also not impossible to find smaller advertisers that wouldn't force you to compromise your content either. When I used to see a news story behind a pay wall I'd jokingly say "well must not have been that important"
Yes, because it's totally possible to eat jokes for breakfast.
I think it's totally possible to be a good journalist and have people voluntarily give you money. Like YouTubers with patreon. It's also not impossible to find smaller advertisers that wouldn't force you to compromise your content either. When I used to see a news story behind a pay wall I'd jokingly say "well must not have been that important"
Yes, because it's totally possible to eat jokes for breakfast.
Yes, because it's totally possible to eat jokes for breakfast.
What
Journalism is something people do for a living. They need to be paid. Giving shit away for free is not a particularly conducive way for news organizations to do that.
I mean, no one should use their wire services as their main news source. It's best as resource for other journalists and their properly formulated articles are certainly trustworthy.
What I meant is mainly like, no one should just run a live feed of a political rally or a presser and call it news. Even something like a car chase is questionable as news, especially on a national level.
while that may be the case it probably shouldn't be. I think a big problem is that great news is behind a paywall, shitty news is on cable, and even shittier news is local. Not all local news is awful but I'm sure a large majority in between the coasts is. Idk if there's a good way to replace the "fourth estate" the way bees was saying it should work unless there's a major shift in fed/state money going to public access and how TV/news is bought and sold.
So most revenue in the olden days came from ads, right?
Google and Facebook now take up the overwhelming majority of that revenue. Australia, for example, is taking steps to force Google and Facebook to give media organizations a cut.
I really doubt a model with the majority of the revenue/funding coming from the government is even remotely feasible in the US.
Journalism is something people do for a living. They need to be paid. Giving shit away for free is not a particularly conducive way for news organizations to do that.
Okay, plenty of journalists make a living the way I mentioned
I mean, no one should use their wire services as their main news source. It's best as resource for other journalists and their properly formulated articles are certainly trustworthy.
What I meant is mainly like, no one should just run a live feed of a political rally or a presser and call it news. Even something like a car chase is questionable as news, especially on a national level.
I never get my information from one source, I was just curious due to the current discussion.
Journalism is something people do for a living. They need to be paid. Giving shit away for free is not a particularly conducive way for news organizations to do that.
Okay, plenty of journalists make a living the way I mentioned
I mean, no one should use their wire services as their main news source. It's best as resource for other journalists and their properly formulated articles are certainly trustworthy.
What I meant is mainly like, no one should just run a live feed of a political rally or a presser and call it news. Even something like a car chase is questionable as news, especially on a national level.
I never get my information from one source, I was just curious due to the current discussion.
There are a myriad number of things that should be free.
Journalism is not one of them.
It's a job, not a God-given right.
Reality is most people don't want to go through a pay wall. It might sound harsh but it's like telling people to buy a CD in the age of the internet. We might disagree, but people will voluntarily pay for you to keep your content going if they can access some of it for free. I don't think a strict pay wall is a method that will ever work if you want your news to reach a very large audience.
There are a myriad number of things that should be free.
Journalism is not one of them.
It's a job, not a God-given right.
Reality is most people don't want to go through a pay wall. It might sound harsh but it's like telling people to buy a CD in the age of the internet. We might disagree, but people will voluntarily pay for you to keep your content going if they can access some of it for free. I don't think a strict pay wall is a method that will ever work if you want your news to reach a very large audience.
...?
A strict pay wall is what works
The problem is it only works if you've done it from the jump, which very few sites have.
But if that was your strategy, then it has proven to work. Giving a little away for free is what most papers do. It hasn't worked.
Everything is worth what the market will pay for it.
Once you give shit away for free, people expect it for free.
If you don't give things away for free, people are still going to pay for it.
while that may be the case it probably shouldn't be. I think a big problem is that great news is behind a paywall, shitty news is on cable, and even shittier news is local. Not all local news is awful but I'm sure a large majority in between the coasts is. Idk if there's a good way to replace the "fourth estate" the way bees was saying it should work unless there's a major shift in fed/state money going to public access and how TV/news is bought and sold.
I think it's totally possible to be a good journalist and have people voluntarily give you money. Like YouTubers with patreon. It's also not impossible to find smaller advertisers that wouldn't force you to compromise your content either. When I used to see a news story behind a pay wall I'd jokingly say "well must not have been that important"
no for sure, but the majority of people are getting news from a source not necessarily a particular writer/reporter, and if someone leaves their source they may not follow that person elsewhere.
I'm more talking about the ownership of local tv/newspapers not being evil and hiring young quality journalists instead of pretty tv people because I think it's important. But it seems like a massive undertaking and probably never going to happen.
(You could still do it with ads, it just needs to not be so profit based. Or like joint University dept money pooled for the state to have a platform for graduates)
jacobin and foreign affairs are great. print is the way to go for more nationwide stuff. Theres so many people doing wonderful donation based hyper local stuff around whether it be somebody on twitter, a community radio station or a infrequent newspaper, but i've found that regional is a bit more difficult to get outside the old school newspapers and tv. Getting access to infrastructure stuff like bizjournals and finance & commerce is price prohibitive with its target demo, thankfully i can pick up extra copies from the receptionist of a developer
Reality is most people don't want to go through a pay wall. It might sound harsh but it's like telling people to buy a CD in the age of the internet. We might disagree, but people will voluntarily pay for you to keep your content going if they can access some of it for free. I don't think a strict pay wall is a method that will ever work if you want your news to reach a very large audience.
...?
A strict pay wall is what works
The problem is it only works if you've done it from the jump, which very few sites have.
But if that was your strategy, then it has proven to work. Giving a little away for free is what most papers do. It hasn't worked.
Everything is worth what the market will pay for it.
Once you give shit away for free, people expect it for free.
If you don't give things away for free, people are still going to pay for it.