Media Tracker (2 Viewers)

We should stop trying to make the media perfect, and start teaching media literacy in school with as much emphasis as reading.

If kids learn concepts like confirmation bias at an early age we can develop herd immunity to them.

RobF said:

Yes. And as far as I can see the reporting was not "Trump said this", but "Trump said this according to a person familiar with the call." Those aren't the same thing. What can be independently confirmed without access to the direct audio is that there is indeed a source familiar with the call, and that the source does say what's been reported.

This should probably be in the media literacy thread really.

Click to expand...

I know that distinction should matter, but it doesn't. To the general public "Trump said" and "someone said Trump said" is the exact same thing, and the media sources know it.

I think sometimes people get bent into a pretzel trying to defend the media in an opposition mode to the people criticizing it. In the current competitive news environment the media has become insanely sloppy and quite sensationalist.

SaintForLife said:

The memo has went out to the media with their ratings tanking post Trump. Tucker is their new Trump.

Click to expand...

Are you saying Tucker isn't a liar and racist? Why shouldn't he be exposed to those that aren't able to use basic logic and reasoning skills?

Saint by the Bay said:

I know that distinction should matter, but it doesn't. To the general public "Trump said" and "someone said Trump said" is the exact same thing, and the media sources know it.

I think sometimes people get bent into a pretzel trying to defend the media in an opposition mode to the people criticizing it. In the current competitive news environment the media has become insanely sloppy and quite sensationalist.

Click to expand...

Due in no small part to Fox News' style of reporting. I mean, they dominated the ratings for years, and others are basically copying their model. Of course, at that point, it ceases to be real news.

SaintForLife said:

Do you think it was wise to report an explosive story like this one based what they thought they heard or what someone else told them? Shouldn't they have confirmed the story through different sources and/or waited until they saw a transcript or heard the audio to publish the report?

Click to expand...

They should have waited two months?

Yeah, it’s not practical to wait for definitive proof. Watergate would have never been reported in the scenario where nobody runs with a story without actually hearing the tape, for example.

That’s where the critical reading comprehension comes in. SBTB, I think people are capable of understanding the difference that Rob pointed out, but just haven’t been educated to recognize it. Media literacy needs to be taught to children all along the way. It would help out in spotting scams as well as interpreting political stories. We see too many people fall for this stuff. We need to get better.

DaveXA said:

Due in no small part to Fox News' style of reporting. I mean, they dominated the ratings for years, and others are basically copying their model. Of course, at that point, it ceases to be real news.

Click to expand...

MSNBC one of those cable networks, by chance Dave? LOL.. J/K BTW.

But seriously, the argument that's been used by some more centrist mainstream pundits and commentators over the past 15 years or so is that since Fox News made sensationalist, half-truth political news coverage and reporting financially viable, we can be excused for lowering our journalistic standards into the figurative mud as Fox did and when former long-time fans take exemption to MSNBC or CNN mortgaging their journalistic integrity and self-respect, they can effectively blame FOX News as the reliable boogeyman as the reason as a way to avoid responsibility. The argument itself is disingenuous at the very least and filled with enormous logical holes, it makes Saints 1980 defense appear to be a dogged, stingy unit by comparison. I'd also list our 2014-16 historically terrible defenses as honorary mentions, too.

You can't be a pimp and a prostitute, too at the same time. MSM networks can't rail and criticize FOX News sensationalist, right-wing partisan news agenda and then subtly and cleverly steal some of their on-air pyrotechnics, and news hosts flair for histrionics themselves, then continue to claim you're still more morally and ethically superior while pretending most American cable news viewers won't notice or care.

more on the georgia call retraction
==========================

...........Six days later, in the wake of the storming of the Capitol, Gardner broke a follow-up story revealing that Trump had a similar phone call with another Georgia official, Raffensperger’s lead investigator Frances Watson. This time around, there was no audio or transcript of that call available, so Gardner’s story was attributed to an an anonymous state official. The official claimed that, on the call, Trump said Watson should “find the fraud” and could become a “national hero” by doing so.

But according to a newly surfaced recording of the call with Watson, Trump did not in fact use those exact words. He did say she could find “dishonesty” in Fulton County, and that “when the right answer comes out, you’ll be praised.” But the language of the quotes the Post attributed to Trump were not accurate. As a result, the Post had to run a prominent correction. Trump and conservatives are now scorning the paper, and even some mainstream reporters are looking askance and wondering how it happened.

The correction was merited — it’s important for reporters (and their sources) to be careful in attributing exact language in quotes. And it is unfortunate that these incorrect quotes spread so widely. (Vox also wrote about the Post story in an article that has now been corrected.)

However, Trump has used the correction to claim in a statement that “the original story was a Hoax, right from the very beginning,” which is untrue. The original story that got so much attention was Trump’s call with Raffensperger, for which we had the full and accurate transcript all along. It has not been corrected. Furthermore, it remains the case that Trump did in fact call Watson to insist he won the state and that she should turn up evidence revealing fraud. “The country is counting on it,” he said.

Overall, the Post’s correction changes what we know about the exact words Trump said to Watson, but it doesn’t fundamentally change our understanding of what Trump was saying and doing to Georgia state officials at the time..............

The Washington Post’s correction about Trump’s phone call to a Georgia official, explained (msn.com)

wardorican said:

They should have waited two months?

Click to expand...

They should have confirmed the story through different sources instead of every news agency just talking to the same dishonest source.

I know Vox's Aaron Rupar is someone that many here post his tweets. He might as well be working for Media Matters.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/m...-supremacy-after-atlanta-killings/ar-BB1eMoNe

Does everything, even things that have nothing do with white supremacy have to deal with white supremacy?

I am getting the sneaky suspicion that this threat that the media and politicians so desperately want us to believe is real, is in fact, not a real threat.

Farb said:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/m...-supremacy-after-atlanta-killings/ar-BB1eMoNe

Does everything, even things that have nothing do with white supremacy have to deal with white supremacy?

I am getting the sneaky suspicion that this threat that the media and politicians so desperately want us to believe is real, is in fact, not a real threat.

Click to expand...

Everything has to do with white supremacy or Russia apparently.

The Biden fall isn't a big deal, but its not surprising how the media is treating it differently Trump walking slowly down the ramp.

SaintForLife said:

They should have confirmed the story through different sources instead of every news agency just talking to the same dishonest source.

Click to expand...

They probably thought they had a good source. And there may have been a limited amount of folks who were on that call.

I'm all for things being as accurate as possible, but you're asking for some real hindsight here. There's no reasonable way they could have avoided this.

SaintForLife said:

The Biden fall isn't a big deal, but its not surprising how the media is treating it differently Trump walking slowly down the ramp.

Click to expand...

Context matters.

Trump went to Walter Reed unannounced and never really said why. Gave sort of a BS story about getting a jump on his physical.

He then had the weird issue with trying to raise up a glass of water to his mouth, on video.

The down ramp video was like the 3rd thing. That's why it continued this line of questioning. Because, the admin was so dishonest in general, and there were some medical oddities going on.

I think if the Ramp was in isolation, they wouldn't have made much of it.

I have argued time and time again in these fora my suspicion of the 'anonymous sources' that elements of the US media use. And it appears that - at least in this case - I am vindicated.

I remember when I was working in the BBC News Departments control room many a year ago. The story had just broke about the bombing of the FBI building in Oklahoma. Bear in mind that - back in 1995 - the news media was a simpler affair.

One station - it believe it was CNN - floated the possibility that it was committed by the then-unheard-of Osama bin Laden.
After an hour, this theory was fleshed out, but it was still one amongst many.

A few hours later, OTHER American TV news outlets floated this possibility. Then something strange happened. CNN suddenly started reporting "More than one source" had backed this theory. Shortly afterwards, other US TV stations started talking about "Multiple sources".

Yup - you got it. Their sources where each other. CNN floated a pure hypothesis. Other stations took CNN as being a "source". And then CNN echoed this back with "multiple sources", with the 'sources' being the other TV stations reacting to the original CNN theory.

Within 8 hours, many US TV stations - including the original CNN - where reporting this 'theory' as fact, backed by multiple sources. It was truly incredible.

SaintForLife said:

I know Vox's Aaron Rupar is someone that many here post his tweets. He might as well be working for Media Matters.

Click to expand...

I blocked Rupar a while ago. I agree that he posts misleading stuff sometimes. You have to be careful about taking what he says and running with it.

Media Matters, on the other hand, is not what you make them out to be. It’s true they only highlight bad stuff from the right, and ignore bad stuff from the left, but they have a good reputation for being factual. You may not like them, understandably, but they are not what you say they are.

You can do a fact check on them. Here’s one:

wardorican said:

Context matters.

Trump went to Walter Reed unannounced and never really said why. Gave sort of a BS story about getting a jump on his physical.

He then had the weird issue with trying to raise up a glass of water to his mouth, on video.

The down ramp video was like the 3rd thing. That's why it continued this line of questioning. Because, the admin was so dishonest in general, and there were some medical oddities going on.

I think if the Ramp was in isolation, they wouldn't have made much of it.

Click to expand...

Context matters? Is this the only time that Biden has done anything to make people question his health or his mental acuity?