This week's topic is print media, a topic that became available some time after 1440 when Johannes Gutenberg invented the printing press, which sparked the printing revolution - the relatively unrestricted circulation of information and (revolutionary) ideas transcended borders, captured the masses in the Reformation and threatened the power of political and religious authorities. The sharp increase in literacy broke the monopoly of the literate elite on education and learning and bolstered the emerging middle class. That ages old conundrum was forever answered - When does power speak to truth? A - When it has to as knowledge is truth.
Of course that then laid the groundwork for the truth of the pathological liar - tell a lie often enough and it becomes the truth - at least enough people believe it to be so. Does that sound familiar? Ask an American male about Wyatt Earp, Bat Masterson, Davy Crocket or Annie Oakley and virtually any hero or heroine of the wild west and you will likely hear tales spread by television series based on tales from books written in the time of their lives - “When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.”. That is what was known as yellow journalism - aka fake news and became largely responsible for our misconceptions about our early heroes.
It's time to sit back and take a deep breath - perhaps a heavy sigh or two. The difference between what I described above and what print media is largely about these days is as similar as a front yard fight between a couple of 7-year olds and George Foreman fighting Joe Frazier - Down goes Frazier. The difference? Print media today is weaponized. The divide between tribal camps is so significant virtually everything is weaponized and intended to inflict maximum damage to the other side. Examples? John Edwards vs the Enquirer; Jeff Bezos (Amazon CEO and owner of the Washington Post vs the Enquirer); Catch and Kill of stories against Donald Trump paid for and then killed by the Enquirer. Those are just a few examples.
There was a time in the past when one of the most highly respected newspapers in this country was the Washington Post. Back then a couple of Post reporters named Woodward and Bernstein took down a corrupt administration. Now that newspaper is maligned constantly by 45, accused as a purveyor of fake news because the paper publishes stories calling out 45's litany of lies plus - and even more importantly - the Post is owned by a very successful multi-billionaire named Jeff Bezos. Speaking of Bezos - 12 years ago or so I engaged in a rather heated exchange with an Executive VP in my company who was then in charge of our Internet operations. He was questioning my intelligence because as he said it, Amazon had one foot in bankruptcy and one on a banana peel whereas we (RadioShack) were a highly profitable organization thanks to executives like him, and if I wanted our Internet presence to be more like Amazon then perhaps I would be happier elsewhere. Today, RadioShack closed 5,000 stores, eliminated over 10,000 jobs, VP Dave is trying to raise almonds, Bezos runs one of the most successful and innovative companies in the world - as masterful at the long game as the Chinese- and is worth 50 Billion dollars after a divorce that cost him half of his wealth.
Consider this - Don't be fooled by media bias and fake news. Unbiased news does not exist. We provide balanced news and civil discourse (IMHO the best offer anyone can make), So says ALLSIDES.com. Don't hide your bias - tell your story. Allsides will offer a neutral counterpoint and the opposite side's point. You can then make an informed decision - or so they say.
ALLSIDES rates print media and labels it so when you read it you are reading it with a better understanding of their bias regardless what the print media itself says about being fair and balanced.My point is simple - regardless of your personal political bias only a fool does not read what the other side has to say. Chances are there is value in reading both sides of an issue - you might even learn something that allows you to refine your position.
I do not see the tribal nature of our culture changing any time soon so we will have to deal with media bias. It is as simple as reading and understanding both sides of an issue. The better informed you are the better qualified you are to make a decision and making informed decisions is better for everyone. Balanced input leads to better decisions.
This bears repeating - do not single source your input when researching an issue regardless of your source. Whether your source is the NY Times, Washington Post, Breitbart News - whomever, read an opposing piece along with it. Your decision will be better for it.
That's my take on Print Media, be sure to check my compatriots and see what they have to say about it. Ramana, Padmum, Sanjana & Conrad
See ya next week.
PS - a couple of fun factoids - Bat Masterson was a journalist and timekeeper at heavyweight prize fights at the end of his life
Much has been made of John Wayne's distinctive walk and vocal delivery - he copied them from Wyatt Earp when Earp consulted on a movie he did
I like it that you included WP in your post as did I but for completely different reasons. I think that by and large both of us are agreed on the state that the print media is in today except that we have articulated our thoughts in different ways,
ReplyDeleteMy advice to people, if one of your news sources doesn't make you uncomfortable, even mad, you need more deversity in your sources.
ReplyDeleteYou get it!!
DeleteI'm afraid I disagree. I'm happy to read news sources that have different opinions than I do on a subject, what bothers me is when they distort the facts. One of my favorite sites is https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/ You can search on a source and they tell you not only the organization's bias (use of loaded words and editorial positions), but also how closely they stick to the facts.
DeleteThanks for telling me about allsides.com. I'm always on the lookout for good news sources.
ReplyDeleteSo, yes, media is quite often biased, but some is bought and paid for by folks attempting to influence folks. The major publications such as you mentioned, the Washington Post and NY Times makes every attempt to write a fair and balanced news section. (Their columnists, of course, offer their opinions on the Editorial page.) The news is researched, fact-checked and edited so they don't have to print an "Opps" we got that wrong correction. They print corrections almost every day, such things as a name misspelled or a title not quite right (he was the Assistant to the Undersecretary, not the Undersecretary). These publications PRIDE themselves on getting the facts correct. There are many publications such as Breitbart or Fox News (Faux Noise) that are there to stir up shit. They don't fact check, they don't apologize if it's later shown they were wrong, they don't have editors trying to get things right. Their job is to make the other side look bad. They are often funded by right-wing billionaires to confuse the public. They like to run stories about Obama's birth certificate or eight years of investigating Benghazi and Hillary's e-mails. Now they're making a run at Hunter Biden who did about 10% of what Jared Kushner does on a daily basis -- trade off of the prestige of the White House. You can't really compare the two. Now if you say the Christian Science Monitor or the Wall St. Journal or Forbes are conservative publications -- they are at least respectable members of the press community. Those are the ones you should read for a conservative view point. Many of the others are just pure propaganda -- and now online, often sponsored by Putin who loves to rile up Americans against each other.
ReplyDeleteI think newspapers in my lifetime with which I'm familiar have generally been reflective of the owner/publisher's perspective -- some whose editor's are able to be more objective in what they write than others. A recent year's good example is the WSJ and how it has evolved to be less objective beginning a few years after purchase by Rupert Murdoch. A decline in objectivity was a concern when Murdoch purchased the paper, but he assured all his views would not have to be reflected by the editor which seemed to apply for several years. Then, that editor chose to leave due to some issues, and those subtle gradual changes occurred with the new editor whose "objective" orientation reflects its owner better. I see the differences when I read some of the articles.
ReplyDeleteI think in all of media some make more effort to being objective as possible. Others make little effort to do this as information distributed becomes very subjective and in some cases, deliberately so.
I agree, it's important to read all views on matters, then to use critical thinking about the topic.