The Trump Card...
- Thread starter muttly
- Start date
The best definition I know of, at least in the ballpark sense, comes from Noam Chomsky back in the 1990s. Before the 1990s the mainstream media was pretty much defaulted as the Big Three broadcast networks, the international news services and the major newspapers. Today that's still mostly the case, but with some differences.
Chomsky's definition is, "Mainstream Media refers collectively to the various large mass news media that influence a large number of people, and both reflect and shape prevailing currents of thought."
The term is used to contrast with Alternative Media which may contain content with more dissenting thought, as they do not reflect the prevailing opinion of the masses.
There's a lot wrapped up in his defintion, and a lot that's left out, such as the corporate factor of who owns what and the narrative they want to tell for their own particular reasons (political and profit). You've got concentrated media ownership by large media conglomerations that often include print, radio and television that results in a spoon-fed homogenized viewpoint presented to consumers of news that ends up doing far more shaping of prevailing thought than reflecting that thought.
Other than reaching and influencing large numbers of people, one of the keys to being a mainsteam news media outlet is having the resurces and ability to do original reporting, which then sets the tone for other smaller news organizations which lack resources, by creating conversations that cascade down to smaller news organizations using wire services like the Associate Press and UPI, parent affiliate networks (ABC, NBC, CBS), as well as major newspapers like the NYT and WaPo and other means of news aggregation.
To sum it all up, these elite mainstream nes outlets set the agenda, and then smaller news organizations parrot it.
When people talk about the Mainstream Media, they're talking about the broadcast networks of ABC, CBS, NBC (including MSNBC), CNN, AP, Reuters, Bloomberg, NPR, WSJ, NYT, Tribune. AFP, and that's about it.
News organizations like Politico, USA Today, Washginton Times, Yaho News, McClatchy, NY Post, while they reach a lot of people, they don't do a lot of original reporting that sets the conversational tone for smaller organizations.
Some will argue that Fox News is also included in the category of Mainstream Media. I would not be one to make that argument. While it is true they reach a lot of people and do some serious influencing, they're still the red headed stepchild of the MSM. For one, they were invented literally to be the mounthpiece of the conservative party as straight-up agendized news, propaganda on a grand scale. Old habits are hard to break, but they are rapidly moving away from that towards a more non-partisan, unbiased presentation of the news (not necessarily on their talk shows, but rather in the news stories and how they are presented).
There was some interesting timing of several things that resulted in such a rapid shift. They took their marching order from Roger Ailes, and at the same time of his sudden departure and the subsequent departure of a few key on air personalities and behind the scenes producers, CNN, NYT and others in the elite MSM went blatantly and brazenly, unabashedly all-in for Clinton and all-against Trump, throwing any pretense of impartiality out the window. They looked then, as they do now, like journalistic jackasses. Fox News dropped the laughable uber-fake "Fair and Balanced" slogan and in a Twighlight Zone-esque kind of way actually moved to become more fair and balanced. There was a memo that got sent out (news division, radio and TV) that basically told everyone that a bias is one thing, as long as it's acknowledged and then checked in the reporting, but the blatant cheerleading stops here and now. For the most part they've stuck with that. Again, not to much in the talk shows and with the talking head panels, but as a whole they're getting there.
The Five still gangs up on Juan Williams, but Dana Perino brings a pragmatic, level-headedness to the discussion (full disclosure, I'm a huge fan of hers, ever since she was a White House Press Secretary, mainly because she sticks to the journaistic code of ethics no matter what). On the talks shows it used to be they would have a token liberal on to use as a punching bag, or as a bowling pin to be set up in order to be knocked down. More recently, like on this new show, The Experts, they have liberals on there and engage them in actual debate and conversation. Very Twighlight Zone. But it's working.
KSTP is certainly a news outlet, but by defintion it is local and regional radio, not mainstream radio. They (mostly) parrot the news and talking points of the MSM, though, so in a real sense they are a part of the MSM.
I'm still going with Fox News not being MSM. They do some, but not enough original reporting, very rarely break news on their own. They don't focus 93% of their time on a single news story and instead present a wide range of news stories, so they're getting closer to MSM. As soon as they start getting quoted by other news organizations on a regular basis and begin influencing smaller news organizzation, that's when they'll be MSM.
Are the Fake News? No. They used to be. I've defined Fake News elsewhere in this thread, but while fake news is certainly fiction presented as fact, fake news in the current context is mostly when facts are cherry picked and/or omitted in order to craft the narrative to tell the story to further the partisan political agenda.
The Fake News Media (snicker) likes to claim that any story they report that Trump doesn't like, he calls it Fake News. But that's not the case at all. He's said it many times, and his responses, or lack thereof, to various stories back it up, that he doesn't mind negative stories, as long as they are accurate and fairly reported. Every time a news outlet reports that "Trump called the news media the enemy of the people," he calls that Fake News, because it's (A) inaccurate and (B) unfairly reported when they say that to make Trump look bad. The fact is, he said "FAKE NEWS is the enemy of the people." Fake News is Trump calling on the "Second Amendment people" to assassinate Hillary Clinton. Fake News is "MAYBE Russia can find Hillary's deleted emails" as being reported as Trump calling on Russia to hack Hillary's email server.
At the G20 Couples Dinner he sat and had a second meeting with Putin. Imagine that, the leader of the United States and the leader of Russia having an informal meeting at dinner, in the presence of 18 other world leaders. Trump hammered the press as Fake News when they reported it. He didn't hammer them because they reported it, but he hammered them because they reported the meeting as "sinister." That's both fake and unfairly reported.
Well, MSM generally refers to news media, not mass media. I can't speak to Law and Order because I don't watch it (might catch it every now and then), but this past season both Quantico and Designated Survivor went full-on anti-Trump in their story lines, with several scripts being written with the input from former Obama administration and Clinton campaign officials. I'm sure there are other shows that do the same type of things. But that's mass media, not really mainstream news media.
Whether or not they are news shows.
Interesting. So you've read it and heard it repeated enough times that you actually believe he said that.
New York Times headline:
Trump Calls the News Media the ‘Enemy of the American People’
(That's a lie)
Here's the lede of the piece:
"President Trump, in an extraordinary rebuke of the nation’s press organizations, wrote on Twitter on Friday that the nation’s news media “is the enemy of the American people.”"
(Also a lie)
Here's the second paragraph:
"Even by the standards of a president who routinely castigates journalists — and who on Thursday devoted much of a 77-minute news conference to criticizing his press coverage — Mr. Trump’s tweet was a striking escalation in his attacks."
(If you believe the BS of the first paragraph, then yeah, sure, it's a striking escalation. But it's all premised on the same lie.)
Headline from the story from The Hill:
Trump tweets: The media is the 'enemy of the American people'
(Same lie)
The lede:
"President Trump blasted the media as "the enemy of the American people" in a tweet Friday, calling out several outlets specifically."
(It's a lie)
In both the Times and The Hill's stories (and in countless others) they have Trump's actual Tweet shown right there. Yet even with the Tweet right there, the reprting tells the reader that the Tweet says something completely different than what it actually says. They tell the reader what they want it to atually mean, instead of what is means. They show the actual Tweet, and then go right back to the outrage that Trump called the media an enemy of the people, hammering away at that narrative. They crafted a narrative that they want to put forth, one that is different from reality, and that's FAKE NEWS.
What Trump Tweeted:
It's right there in all caps. How can an honest journalist or an honest news organization simply delete those two words and then use what's left as the basis for their story? The answer is, of course, no honest journalist or news organization could do that. A dishonest one would, though, in a heartbeat. And, by doing so, instead of being an honest broker of the news, they are putting out fake news.
Here's another interesting one from The Hill, though I've seen similar eslewhere. It's about yesterday's White House Press briefing, and the exchange between Sarah Huckabee Sanders and Fox news reporter John Roberts. The headline reads:
Sanders, Fox reporter exchange jabs over off-camera briefings
(the headline is accurate, fair and unbiased, the first paragraph lede on the other hand)
"Fox News reporter John Roberts roasted President Trump spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders on Tuesday over the White House’s refusal to allow television coverage of its daily press briefings."
See what they did there? He roasted her. The reporter picked sides and chose a winner. The rest of the piece, albeit short, is straight news journalism free from bias of any kind. But the damage was already done in the lede, as that frames the context for the piece itself. Is that FAKE NEWS? Not really, but by interjecting opinion seamless into a news piece it paints an inaccurate picture of what really happened. It's subtle. but it's there. And it's subtle enough that anyone who agrees with it won't even think it's opinion. And in this new day and age of Twitter and clickbait and playing fast and loose with journalistic ethics, the reporter himself might not even think it's opinion. But if you know what to look for you will find it in the vast majority of the MSM news reporting today. To quote a great American, SAD!
And here's another little gem. You all remember the deal Trump struck with Carrier in Indy, where instead of closing the plant entirely and moving all of the jobs to Mexico, Carrier agreed to keep more than 1000 jobs in Indy and the rest, about 630 jobs, would go to Mexico. So the fact that that's happening, exactly as Trump and Carrier agreed, is barely news. But, oh, no, the MSM is you bet your bippy not going to just sit idly by and pass up the opportunity to use a non-news even to cast Trump in a negative light! That would be cray cray!
The headline reads:
Carrier to lay off 300 employees at Trump's 6-month mark
The lede reads:
"INDIANAPOLIS — Carrier Corp. plans to lay off 300 employees at its Indianapolis firnace factory Thursday — and the timing is likely to raise some eyebrows."
Well it certainly will raise some eyebrows NOW. You know, now that we've been told this is news, and it's something we need to take note of and to raise our eyebrows for. Trump's 6 month anniversary and Carrier is laying off 300 people! Sheesh! (never mind the fact that this exact date, the timing, was announced 8 months ago). The first half of that sentence is news, but the second half is subjective commentary, pure speculation.
The story continues... (emphasis mine)
Again, the story itself is (mostly) just straight news (the final paragraph is kind of a negative cheap shot, instead of ending on a more neutral tone, but it's not out of bounds). The problem is the story's context created by the lede. The story is laid out properly, has all the required elements, but in journalism school the piece would have gotten a C+ or a B- because the lede is leading the reader to reach a for/against conclusion of the text that follows.
You can get the news and the facts within if you know what to look for, what to dismiss as irrelevant commentary, and not have your mind and thought be shaped and hornwsaggled by a dishonest broker of the news. The bottom line on this story is, Carrier is doing exactly what they said they would do, exactly what they agreed to do, and the timing is utterly irrelevant. There's nothing to see here, move along. It's marginally a news story.
The headline reads:
Carrier to lay off 300 employees at Trump's 6-month mark
The lede reads:
"INDIANAPOLIS — Carrier Corp. plans to lay off 300 employees at its Indianapolis firnace factory Thursday — and the timing is likely to raise some eyebrows."
Well it certainly will raise some eyebrows NOW. You know, now that we've been told this is news, and it's something we need to take note of and to raise our eyebrows for. Trump's 6 month anniversary and Carrier is laying off 300 people! Sheesh! (never mind the fact that this exact date, the timing, was announced 8 months ago). The first half of that sentence is news, but the second half is subjective commentary, pure speculation.
The story continues... (emphasis mine)
Again, the story itself is (mostly) just straight news (the final paragraph is kind of a negative cheap shot, instead of ending on a more neutral tone, but it's not out of bounds). The problem is the story's context created by the lede. The story is laid out properly, has all the required elements, but in journalism school the piece would have gotten a C+ or a B- because the lede is leading the reader to reach a for/against conclusion of the text that follows.
You can get the news and the facts within if you know what to look for, what to dismiss as irrelevant commentary, and not have your mind and thought be shaped and hornwsaggled by a dishonest broker of the news. The bottom line on this story is, Carrier is doing exactly what they said they would do, exactly what they agreed to do, and the timing is utterly irrelevant. There's nothing to see here, move along. It's marginally a news story.
Back when I was politically involved, I saw no difference between Fox and the others. Like the others they sent their own news trucks. Like the others, they sent their own reporters. Like the others, they tried to elbow their colleagues out of the way so they could be the one to break the news. Like the others, they contacted us privately hoping to get the inside scoop. Like the others, they asked pretty-much the same questions. Editing may be different but on the ground, seeing things from my side of the camera, Fox seemed no different than any others.
I stand corrected.
Is Hannity a news show? Maddow? Can you name a few news shows as you mean "news shows?
Thank you for a thoughtful and thorough response. If crafting my own definition of mainstream media, I don't think I'd include the notion that it influences a large number of people or shape prevailing currents of thought.
Don't want to confuse Fox News Channel with the news departments of the local Fox Broadcasting Network television affiliates. They are both owned by parent company 21st Century Fox, but Fox News Channel is under the Fox News Group subsidiary and the Fox television affiliates are under the Fox Entertainment Group. If the Fox reporter was accompanied by a news truck that said "Fox News Channel" on the side, it was FNC. If it said "Fox 9 KMSP" then it was a local news reporter, just like all the others, elbowing with the best of them.
Hannity a news show? Maddow a news show? No, they aren't even remotely close to a news show. They are as much of a news show as is The View with Whoopi Goldberg and Late Night with Jimmy Fallon.
Hannity is a talk show host, same as Rush Limbaugh, on both radio and television. He's never claimed nor pretended to be a journalist (which is a good thing, because he'd be a really bad one). He's never taken a journalism class. He is a radio and television host, political commentator, and author (and conspiracy theorist extraodinaire).
Rachael Maddow will sometimes ignorantly claim on air that she's a journalist, but even she knows better. She's never taken a journalism class, either. She has degrees in Public Policy (BA from Stanford) and Philisophy (a doctorate from Oxford). She lists in her bio as being a television host, political commentator, and author.
If you mean on Fox News, there's Special Report with Bret Baier at 6PM. He'll have the occasional interview with someone where opinions are offered and discussed, but that's a straight news show in the same vein as NBC Nightly News. Opinion and news are rarely intermingled. If I want to tune to Fox News for actual news, that's the show I'll go for.
Happening Now, which airs from 11AM-Noon, and then from 1PM-2PM, is mostly straight news, but is a mixture of news and talk, where interviews take place to discuss the news headlines of the day. But they tend to keep news and commentary clearly dileneated so you know which is which.
From 2-3PM is America's News HQ, which is also mostly news, but is a mixture of news and commentary. It's news, but they do a lot of interviews with politicians, which is good, because the vast majority of the commentary is coming from the newsmakers themselves, rather than the news reporters.
Those are really the only three shows on Fox News that I would call news shows. At 3PM you have Sheperd Smith Reporting, and in the days of yore he was a straight news anchor (pun intended), but while he does give you the news of the day, he is simply unable to do so without filtering every single story through his own opinion commentary.
Everything else on Fox is commentary or analysis (people sitting around talking about the news).
CNN no longer has any shows that are straight news without commentary and opinion being a heavy part of the mix. The only exception would be like 3 in the morning when they air the CNN International broadcast, as that is mostly news, with occasional commentary in between stories.
I watch virtually no MSNBC, but I am not aware of any straight news programs on there.
Phil knew that also even though he never drove for C & M. I bet even Kim knew.
I think I still would, although that is somewhat muddled now, and less the case, with cable and especially the Internet. Chomsky's definition (and it would have been mine if I had thought of it first) was born out of the days when the gathering and reporting of the news was a goal unto itself, and profit wasn't even a consideration. Back then, before cable, network news was famous for being a money pit, a loss leader, but it was important work, important to the nation and the world. Newspapers were important. The only source of television news was from very limited sources. And the news was trusted. As a result, the prevailing currents of thought were more readily shaped and reflected.
If I were to give a defintion based solely on today, it would be very tempting to give it a very cynical "conglomerate news organizations" as the definition. But even at that, I still think they both shape and reflect the currents of thought, only because of the blatant confirmational bias that people seek out now in their news. The MSM no longer really shapes or reflects the currents of thought of the country at large, but rather that of the biases of the viewing and reader base. Fox News soothes the bias of the consertaves (or the alt-right, as the left now calls them) and CNN and the rest of the MSM soothes the bias of the liberals.
They don't do them often enough, whoever "they" are, I think the last one was 4 or 5 years ago, but the surveys of the most and least trusted news outlets are interesting. It's especially interesting when you look at the breakdown by political leaning. The most recent survey is out of date at this point, but still largely relevalant, I think, and when you see CNN as the most trusted by liberals, and the least trusted by conservative, and then you see Fox News as the most trusted by conservatives and the least trusted by liberals, well that's a problem if you are looking for unbiased, impartial news, and you've got to see both CNN and Fox as being a seriously problematic source for trusted news, particularly as a primary source. The trick is to look at which outlets the indenendents trust and mistrust. Then again, when the independents peg NPR as the most trusted, you've got to carefully pick and choose which news programs on there you listen to, as well. Stick to the straight news shows and filter out the commentary.
In the end, you have to get your news from as many sources as possible, don't take any news source on faith, be skeptical of everything regardless of how soothing it is to your own bias. Because of the selective reporting we have, one of the most important things to do in today's news climate is not so much to filter out conflicting reports from different sources, but to find out the information that is omitted from the news reports, as that omitted information usually provides clarity and context, and far too often yields a different narrative than the one presented. If you're given a news story, and then told what to think about it, you can bet real money it's because they've left out something that would cause you to think something else. A full and honest reporting of the facts will tell its own narrative.
I do think it's important to get news from sources that I know are biased against my own views. The facts that match up between the several news sources can generally be regarded as accurate.
I do think Reuters is one of the most neutral sources. NPR's news programs are centrist (On Point is not news, so don't expect it to be anything other than alt-left). The BBC leans left, because the UK and all of Europe mostly leans left, but their news pieces generally do not favor one side over another (they're funded by the goverernment are aren't actually allowed to be biased, so take that for what it's worth). And believe it don't, Al Jazeera is incredibly centrist with their news reporting. They're biased as all get out on which stories they choose to run, but they're very impartial in the reporting itself.
But I think easily one of the most importrant things about news is, people of today are highly privileged with the Internet; we can look up and find any raw documents, speeches, videos of anything the news outlets are reporting on. You're not subjected to anyone else's opinions, and your own opinions are left to form themselves.
I do think Reuters is one of the most neutral sources. NPR's news programs are centrist (On Point is not news, so don't expect it to be anything other than alt-left). The BBC leans left, because the UK and all of Europe mostly leans left, but their news pieces generally do not favor one side over another (they're funded by the goverernment are aren't actually allowed to be biased, so take that for what it's worth). And believe it don't, Al Jazeera is incredibly centrist with their news reporting. They're biased as all get out on which stories they choose to run, but they're very impartial in the reporting itself.
But I think easily one of the most importrant things about news is, people of today are highly privileged with the Internet; we can look up and find any raw documents, speeches, videos of anything the news outlets are reporting on. You're not subjected to anyone else's opinions, and your own opinions are left to form themselves.
It doesn't really matter what you saw from your side of the camera, be it Fox, ABC, CBS, NBC, etc. What matters is the crap they televise as news.
Wise approach. Sadly, most citizens are unwilling to put in that kind of effort. Easier to go with the flow of the news sources whose opinions match your own.
It depends on what you are talking about. If you are talking about what is broadcast, you are correct. If you are talking about how the news gathering process differs or does not differ among networks (which I was), what I saw contributes to that discussion.
The long interview Trump granted to the New York Times signals to me that hiring of Ty Cobb to represent Trump in the Russia thing will do nothing to keep Trump from talking on the subject and putting on public record statements that are not in his best interests to make.
Last edited:
Actually, and I could be wrong, anybody that read the interview and doesn't think Mr T has a screw loose.....ah, never mind, Trumpsters will defend him even after he does shoot someone in Times Square.
Sent from my XT1635-01 using EO Forums mobile app
Have to think that applies to any president actually.
Trump needs to fire Mueller and shut this whole witch hunt down.
Mueller Expands Probe to Trump Business Transactions
Mueller Expands Probe to Trump Business Transactions