Dec 14, 2018

Examples Of How The "Fact Based" News Media Distorts Public Perception Of Truth Because Of Unusually Bad And/Or Incompetent Journalism

Context: Why Do News Outlets Bring On Non-Scientists To Argue Against Science?

This post displays some analysis by the experts pointing out problems in media delivery of the news that sounds like it should be taught in the first class on journalism leading me to believe that media people are just actors reading scripts and are on TV due to looks rather than any skill or understanding of journalism. In other words, I agree with Hannity that "Journalism is dead" because otherwise Hannity (and the entire Fox News prime time lineup, and morning shows) would not be on TV as "news" channels but as conspiracy & hate channels, like a KKK/Nazi channel - with the appropriate labeling designating its type - or something like that.

I thought I would open with tweets from media experts and follow it with excerpts of research...

List of tweets;







Going Deeper;
A common tendency in "left" media;

Media Matters: ABC allows Gavin McInnes to claim white supremacy doesn't exist in the US The network could have featured the victims of white supremacy instead
PAULA FARIS (ABC NEWS CORRESPONDENT): Do you think white supremacy exists in the U.S.? 
GAVIN MCINNES: Not to any measurable degree. 
FARIS: What about Richard Spencer? What about David Duke? What --
MCINNES: Everyone always says those two. 
FARIS: The KKK. And the KKK. 
MCINNES: Everyone says those two guys and the KKK, let's get them all together. You're lucky if they fill up a living room.
Previously:


This is something media has been doing for years and years and years;

Media Matters: America is plagued by right-wing violence. Pundits need to stop calling it a "both sides" issue.
Following a mass shooting at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh, PA, where a gunman inspired by an anti-Semitic right-wing conspiracy theory opened fire on parishioners with an assault weapon, expect to hear claims that “both sides” of the political aisle bear responsibility for the tragedy.
The same thing happened last week. During an attempted bombing spree that targeted prominent liberals, including former President Barack Obama, mainstream conservative press pushed the line that both the right and the left are at fault for the current detestable political environment and should equally share the blame and engage in self-reflection.
These arguments have no basis in reality; instead, they are conservatives' self-serving attempts to hide the rot in their own movement, which foments violence even at its highest levels.
The fact is violence is a feature, not a bug, of the conservative movement in the United States today. In terms of frequency and deadliness, terrorism inspired by right-wing political beliefs far outpaces left-wing violence. So, when conservatives argue that both sides should be blamed for a bombing spree targeting liberals, responsible journalists shouldn’t act as stenographers for those false or deceptive claims. (And the same goes for the widespread conservative messaging effort to baselessly claim that mobs of Democrats stand ready to kill conservatives before the midterm elections.) Instead, when reporting on political violence, journalists should present the full context: Right-wing violence is a documentable pattern incomparable to violence from the left.
Here are some examples of how conservative media figures engaged in the “both sides-ing” of the pipe bomb spree before the suspect was arrested:
  • Conservative pundit Erick Erickson wrote, “Both sides have unstable elements among their ranks and some of those unstable elements are becoming increasingly radicalized and violent. Perhaps both sides should turn down the heat on their rhetoric a bit.”
  • Fox News host Charles Payne drew an equivalence between the attempted bombings and Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) being yelled at by protesters while he was eating dinner at a restaurant.
  • Fox News host Greg Gutfeld claimed on The Five, “If you want to blame rhetoric, if you want to blame violence on rhetoric, everybody is guilty, OK?”

Could this be the real reason corporate media doesn't cover the truth where right wing media is concerned?

Media Matters:Yes, The New York Times dropped the ball on covering the rise of right-wing extremism Mainstream media failed to cover the rise of the far right because they're afraid of right-wing media
The original headline for Thursday’s episode of New York Times podcast The Daily inadvertently pointed out something many journalists of color have know for a while: The Times (and other mainstream outlets) dropped the ball in covering the rise of right-wing extremism, and they did so seemingly out of fear of right-wing media and conservatives.
The Daily originally headlined Thursday’s episode “The Rise of Right-Wing Extremism and How We Missed It.” In a lack of self-awareness, the podcast didn’t mean the “we,” as referring to the Times, as the episode was not an exercise of self-exploration to grapple with the paper’s role in failing to alert audiences to the threat from right-wing extremists. It was, instead, a discussion of a piece that Janet Reitman published in The New York Times Magazine on November 3, which detailed the ways in which U.S. law enforcement missed the rising threat.
...
For its part, the Times either didn’t take the contents of the report seriously (evidence of a serious blindspot) or it cowered in fear of the hysterics fueled by right-wing media’s mischaracterization of the report.  The paper mentioned the report in only a handful of op-ed columns, by Charles Blow, Paul Krugman, and Frank Rich.
What the paper did cover was then-Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano’s apology to veteran groups over the document, which had noted that returning veterans struggling to reintegrate at home could ‘lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone-wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.’” A 2009 Times blog also focused on reactions to the report and Napolitano’s apology rather than its substance.
When it comes to covering radicalization and terrorism, mainstream media in general have either largely ignored right-wing extremism, or failed to contextualize its systematic threat when it manifests itself violently. But what do get plenty of coverage are attacks committed by Muslim individuals. President Donald Trump has helped fuel that bias, baselessly accusing media of not reporting terrorist attacks carried out by Muslims and putting out a list of attacks that omitted mentions of right-wing terrorism.
Ensuring newsrooms better represent surrounding demographics could help address blind spots in mainstream media on issues including poisoned water, climate change, and right-wing extremism that disproportionately affect non-white communities.
But cowering to right-wing media pressure? Only growing a backbone can fix that.

Read full article.


Media outlets around the world make fun of the crap we have here;

Media Matters: Foreign media outlets keep showing how to cover politics in the age of Trump. Will U.S. outlets learn their lesson?Access journalism and softball interviews fail the American people. U.S.-based media need a reality check.
“Trump returns to his dangerous lying about elections, makes up story about massive voter fraud he says has cost the Republicans victories...and falsely adds that you need a ‘voter ID’ to buy cereal,” Toronto StarWashington correspondent Daniel Dale tweeted about a recent interview between the president and The Daily Caller, an outlet Dale called “horrific.”
Dale, who is known for his meticulous fact checks on Trump’s statements to the press and at rallies, was right: The interview with The Daily Caller was riddled with unchallenged errors and nonsensical statements. For instance, he lied about his border wall and about his attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act. He claimed that undocumented immigrants were voting in California and that Massachusetts residents had been bused into New Hampshire during the 2016 election, flipping the state to Hillary Clinton’s favor. He accused people of voting twice by putting on disguises and changing clothes and, as is almost always the case, he also peppered his responses with half-truths and exaggerations.
Daily Caller editor Amber Athey responded to Dale’s criticism with a tweet of her own: “Why don't you let American outlets handle interviewing the president?”

Maybe U.S. outlets, including mainstream organizations, simply aren’t up to the task of holding the powerful accountable.

The Daily Caller has a conservative bent, so it shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone that this was a friendly interview. After all, one of the two people conducting the site’s interview with Trump was “lib-owning” enthusiast Benny Johnson, a serial plagiarist and publisher of conspiracy theories.

Read more.
Media is so clueless they parrot lies for hours, sometimes days, when they should fact check it form the very FIRST report. Their job isn't to report on what each side is saying. That's not journalism. Saying what is accurate and what is inaccurate goes WITH the reporting on whats both sides are saying. It's not an option for journalists, its the job description.

Media Matters: Media headlines peddle (another) lie from Trump: Birthright citizenship edition
In an interview with Axios, President Donald Trump claimed that his administration is examining removing the right to citizenship “for babies of non-citizens and unauthorized immigrants born on U.S. soil” that is guaranteed under the Constitution’s 14th Amendment “with an executive order.” Numerous mainstream and right-wing media outlets quickly and uncritically parroted the president’s comment, spreading the claim without noting, for example, that the president cannot change the Constitution with an executive order, or that the Supreme Court has held that the United States grants citizenship to the children of noncitizens. Trump’s proposal would face steep legal challenges, according to constitutional law experts.


False equivalency example promoted unchallenged. Call bullshit what it is.

 Media Matters: MSNBC's Hugh Hewitt says Trump encouraging violence at his rallies is "equivalent" to Mitch McConnell being heckled
STEPHANIE CUTTER (GUEST):  This president has incited violence. He has, you know, people at his rallies, he talks about punching people in the face. He throws people out. You know, this is how he won the presidency. The politics of fear. There is no equivalent in the democratic party. 
HUGH HEWITT (GUEST): There is an equivalent. There is a man screaming at Mitch McConnell in the restaurant, there is Maxine Waters--
CUTTER: Screaming at a restaurant does not-- 
HEWITT: Which violates 18 U.S.C. 351
[CROSSTALK]
CUTTER: We can talk about that. We are talking about the president of the United States
HEWITT: I'm talking about incendiary behavior--
Previously: 



 CNN does its own share of damage;

Media Matters: CNN's "both sides" problem infects coverage of Trump's anti-Muslim retweets
President Donald Trump’s latest anti-Muslim retweet spree was racist, misleading, and, above all, indefensible.
Somehow CNN didn’t get the memo.
...
CNN’s “both sides” panel structure assumes that every issue has two valid sides, and that often those sides are best defined along partisan lines. In the case of Trump’s tweets, that is patently false. These tweets are bigoted and misleading, and anyone who says otherwise is not being intellectually or morally honest.
By introducing two sides to this debate, CNN is muddying the truth about these videos. Given that we now live in an age where the president often takes his cues from what he sees on cable news, CNN’s “both sides” strategy is irresponsible and potentially dangerous.

 Read more.


The problem of promoting shills (lies as truths by allowing it on a news channel without immediate debunking of any false statements made) is outlined in this research by mediamatters;

 Media outlets around the world make fun of the crap we have here;

Media Matters: Foreign media outlets keep showing how to cover politics in the age of Trump. Will U.S. outlets learn their lesson?Access journalism and softball interviews fail the American people. U.S.-based media need a reality check.
“Trump returns to his dangerous lying about elections, makes up story about massive voter fraud he says has cost the Republicans victories...and falsely adds that you need a ‘voter ID’ to buy cereal,” Toronto StarWashington correspondent Daniel Dale tweeted about a recent interview between the president and The Daily Caller, an outlet Dale called “horrific.”
Dale, who is known for his meticulous fact checks on Trump’s statements to the press and at rallies, was right: The interview with The Daily Caller was riddled with unchallenged errors and nonsensical statements. For instance, he lied about his border wall and about his attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act. He claimed that undocumented immigrants were voting in California and that Massachusetts residents had been bused into New Hampshire during the 2016 election, flipping the state to Hillary Clinton’s favor. He accused people of voting twice by putting on disguises and changing clothes and, as is almost always the case, he also peppered his responses with half-truths and exaggerations.
Daily Caller editor Amber Athey responded to Dale’s criticism with a tweet of her own: “Why don't you let American outlets handle interviewing the president?”

Maybe U.S. outlets, including mainstream organizations, simply aren’t up to the task of holding the powerful accountable.

The Daily Caller has a conservative bent, so it shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone that this was a friendly interview. After all, one of the two people conducting the site’s interview with Trump was “lib-owning” enthusiast Benny Johnson, a serial plagiarist and publisher of conspiracy theories.

 Media Matters: CNN’s voting rights coverage demonstrates its Trump sycophant problem
Over the past year, CNN diluted its coverage of voting issues by stocking its discussion panels with pro-Trump sycophants who consistently lied to prop up the president’s false claims about voter fraud in the 2016 election. CNN’s panelists stood in contrast to the channel’s reporters, who were somewhat more proactive in calling out Trump’s debunked claims of widespread voter fraud and illegal voting.
During (and since) the election, CNN was widely criticized for adding as commentators a roster of Trumployalists, including former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA), conservative commentators Scottie Nell Hughes and Kayleigh McEnany, former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski, and Jeffrey Lord, former White House staffer under then-President Ronald Reagan (Hughes and Lewandowski have since left CNN). Over the past year, these sycophants have used their platform on the network to spew lies about voting and have repeatedly defended Trump’s debunked claims of widespread voter fraud in the 2016 election.
  • Lewandowski made 14 false statements about voting during his four appearances on CNN between July 1, 2016, and June 30, 2017, to discuss the topic.
  • Lord made 21 false statements about voting during his 13 appearances on CNN between July 1, 2016, and June 30, 2017, to discuss the topic.
  • McEnany made 41 false statements about voting during her 11 appearances on CNN between July 1, 2016, and June 30, 2017, to discuss the topic
  • Santorum made eight false statements about voting during his one appearance on CNN between July 1, 2016, and June 30, 2017, to discuss the topic.
  • Hughes made three false statements about voting during her one appearance on CNN between July 1, 2016, and June 30, 2017, to discuss the topic.
This barrage of lies from CNN’s pro-Trump coalition stands in contrast to the network’s reporters, who made somewhat of an effort to call out Trump’s lies about voting. During the same period, CNN correspondents Jeff Zeleny, Jim Acosta, Dana Bash, and Drew Griffin made a total of 85 true statements about voting and refrained from repeating any of the falsehoods their conservative colleagues pushed.
Ideally, panelists are supposed to engage in a healthy discussion based on a shared set of facts. But CNN’s Trump surrogates prop up lies when they discuss voting, often to defend the president and his alternate reality.rate)

Media Matters:Study: CNN's paid Trump shills made more than 500 appearances over the last three months The network is making a big show of its commitment to facts while paying Trump apologists to lie
“This is an apple,” begins the voice-over for an ad CNN is running as part of its new “Facts First” promotional campaign. “Some people might try to tell you that it’s a banana,” the narration continues. “They might scream banana, banana, banana over and over and over again. They might put banana in ALL CAPS. You might even start to believe that this is a banana. But it’s not. This is an apple.”
The network’s new branding stresses that “there is no alternative to a fact” and that “opinions matter” but “don’t change the facts.”
CNN’s campaign seems driven by the post-truth political environment. President Donald Trump and his administration lie constantly and try to undermine the credibility of other sources of information, including CNN and other media outlets. By confusing the public about what is happening, they hope to maintain power. With top White House aides openly declaring their adherence to “alternative facts,” it makes sense for credible journalists to try to rally around the need for reporting to reflect reality.
But if CNN is truly worried about the sort of people who tell you that an apple is really a banana, the network should deal with the stable of pundits it has hired to provide viewers with knee-jerk defenses of the president. Those Trump apologists -- some of whom were previously on Trump’s payroll -- actively harm CNN’s journalism, frequently bringing panel discussions to a screeching halt with claims so dishonest they approach parody, at times drawing on-air rebukes from the network’s anchors. The pundits force the network to constantly debate whether the apple is really a banana.

Media Matters:CNN Analyst Michael Weiss Hosted Anti-Muslim Rally with Far-Right Hate Queen Pamela GellerFrom Muslim-bashing neocon operative to CNN’s Syria and Russia expert, it’s been a long, strange trip for Weiss.

Media Matters:CNN keeps letting guests and paid commentators lie about climate scientists It's not true that scientists do climate research to get rich, and CNN knows it


Media Matters: Where is the media outrage over the violence and harassment abortion providers face on a daily basis?Media fixated on a protest at Tucker Carlson's house should look at how often they cover (or don't cover) anti-abortion violence and harassment
A memo to media and any would-be think piece writers: If you’re mad about protesters bothering Fox News host Tucker Carlson at home, then it’s worth asking whether you've expended the same energy over the harassment abortion providers face on a daily basis.
According to CBS News, approximately “20 protesters gathered in front of Carlson's home” on November 7:
Carlson's wife said she heard "loud banging and pounding on her front door," the police report says. When officers arrived, they found politically-charged signs left on cars in the driveway, a sign on the front door and the anarchy symbol spray painted on the driveway. [CBS News, 11/8/18]
Carlson told The Washington Post that the gathering “wasn’t a protest. It was a threat.” Although he was not home at the time, Carlson claimed, “They weren’t protesting anything specific that I had said. They weren’t asking me to change anything. … They were threatening me and my family and telling me to leave my own neighborhood in the city that I grew up in.”
There are many things that Carlson has said in his capacity as a mouthpiece for white nationalism, xenophobia, racism, and sexism that are more than worthy of objection. He also regularly uses his platform on Fox News to bully, mock, and enable harassment of his guests. And the details of the protest -- as described in ThinkProgress by someone who was actually there -- vastly contradict Carlson’s claims. Yet there is now a veritable catalogue of think pieces about the lack of “civility” shown by those who protested Carlson. If media want to have a real conversation about “civility” and harassment, then it should be impossible to omit this fact: Abortion providers, patients, and clinics face everything that Carlson claimed and more, but this kind of regular, persistent, and, in some cases, daily harassment doesn’t garner the same kind of media attention as incidents like the protest at Carlson’s home.
Eleven people have died as a result of anti-abortion violence since 1993. Numerous others have been injured, and still more have found themselves and even their families targeted for personalized harassment from abortion opponents. This trend of violence and harassment against abortion providers, patients, and clinics has increased in recent years, and it shows little sign of abating. According to a report by the National Abortion Federation, rates of anti-abortion clinic protests in 2017 were already at the highest levels seen since the organization began tracking such incidents in 1977. In 2018, there have been numerous incidents of violence or threats against clinics reported in Illinois, New Jersey, Utah, Texas, Pennsylvania, California, Washington, Massachusetts, and more.
In North Carolina, abortion provider Calla Hales has painstakingly documented the frequent anti-abortion protests and harassment directed at her clinics in the state -- including attacks on her personally. As but a few examples of the type of harassment Hales and her patients face, protesters have:
Read full article



Media


Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)