LuckyPhow
LuckyPhow
Joined: May 19, 2016
  • Threads: 52
  • Posts: 668
May 16th, 2017 at 12:03:05 PM permalink
Quote: beachbumbabs

There was a movie called Broadcast News in the 80's that discussed extensively the change from straight news to entertainment, the ethics, and the repercussions. It's amazing how prescient they were, and it's more pertinent now than when it was made.



My favorite movie about reporters and news organizations with "backbone" is Good Night, and Good Luck (nominated for 6 Oscars in 2005), about Edward R. Murrow. To avoid lawsuits by the family of Senator Joseph McCarthy, they had to film the whole movie in black and white so they could avoid an actor "playing" the senator. Instead they used newsreel footage of the senator speaking his commie-this and commie-that babble, and it really made the movie. Another of the "more pertinent now" movies IMHO.
RS
RS
Joined: Feb 11, 2014
  • Threads: 62
  • Posts: 8623
May 16th, 2017 at 1:09:22 PM permalink
Quote: gamerfreak

I think part of the problem is people confusing, or networks obfuscating, the difference between news and political commentary.

Fox/CNN for example... the main anchors pretty much always stick to verifiably factual statements. But after they report a fact, they invariably turn to a panel of "political correspondents" who comment on the story. And commentary is inherently bias, in fact, bias is the entire purpose of commentary. Yet people on either side will take what these correspondsnts say as gospel, when its literally all opinion.

Same thing with internet "reporting" like Breitbart, that site is 100% commentary, yet people call it news and share it on Facebook and treat is as if it's news.

At some point news stopped becoming news, and became current event driven entertainment. Journalists stopped becoming journalists and started becoming entertainers.

Can you imagine if Walter Cronkite had ever reported Political news, and then proceeded to tell you how he personally felt about it?


The whole "fake news" thing, I think, has been spreading more and more since social media has really moved forward and there are many different places now. With social media becoming more popular, it's also easier for websites to get very popular very quickly. You see more and more of these websites that have no credibility or sources....and when/if they do have a source, the source is another similar website. GWAE just posted a link to some article saying "Rounders 2" is coming out, which is clearly a fake news website. Another site is The Onion. I can't remember some of the others, but they post stuff that is purposely wrong. Then you got websites like buzzfeed, which I'm pretty sure is run by a group of 16-19 year old girls.

I'm all for free-speech, but I honestly don't think a website or group/corporation/etc. should be able to make stuff up on purpose. I'm not talking about stating an opinion, I'm talking about making made up and unsubstantiated claims.
Romes
Romes
Joined: Jul 22, 2014
  • Threads: 27
  • Posts: 5490
Thanks for this post from:
beachbumbabsonenickelmiracle
May 16th, 2017 at 1:16:17 PM permalink
The Onion is satire and is hilarious comedic entertainment. To my knowledge they have NEVER claimed to be "real news," especially if someone is gullible enough to actually believe some of the articles they put out. In anything, they're a fantastic resource for teaching people to CHECK THE SOURCES on the information they find on the internet. I remember when The Onion came out and people on my friends list were like "OMG Obama beats baby seals!!!" then they promptly got made fun of by 100 other people for not realizing it was satire (i.e. not checking the source). It's made people like that do a double check to see if it's a satire site, at least.

Past that though, as long as people "claim" it's a news site (which 99% of them are as you described, jokes that aren't real news and just political commentary/discussion) it's depressing to see people post the dumbest stuff that's completely unsupported by anything tangible. Then again, not a lot of people know about nor practice the scientific method.
Playing it correctly means you've already won.
onenickelmiracle
onenickelmiracle
Joined: Jan 26, 2012
  • Threads: 209
  • Posts: 8020
May 17th, 2017 at 2:02:45 AM permalink
Quote:

A class action lawsuit alleging the Democratic National Committee worked in conjunction with Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign to keep Bernie Sanders out of the White House has been raging on in the courtrooms for months on endľand yet, most people have no idea of its existence, in large part thanks to the mainstream media's total lack of coverage.



http://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sanders-rigged-hillary-clinton-dnc-lawsuit-donald-trump-president-609582
In the land of the blind, the man with one eye is the care taker. Hold my beer.
Dalex64
Dalex64
Joined: Feb 10, 2013
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 1067
May 17th, 2017 at 5:26:50 AM permalink
I think everything else going on now has simply overshadowed it.

The Trump University lawsuit is still going on (appeal filed), and that hardly has any mainstream coverage, either.
Dalex64
Dalex64
Joined: Feb 10, 2013
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 1067
May 17th, 2017 at 5:28:13 AM permalink
As for fake news, there is satire, and there is trying to pass off lies and half-truths as factual and accurate.
Mooseton
Mooseton
Joined: Sep 6, 2010
  • Threads: 14
  • Posts: 597
May 17th, 2017 at 5:43:09 AM permalink
Quote: Romes

The Onion is satire and is hilarious comedic entertainment. To my knowledge they have NEVER claimed to be "real news," especially if someone is gullible enough to actually believe some of the articles they put out. In anything, they're a fantastic resource for teaching people to CHECK THE SOURCES on the information they find on the internet. I remember when The Onion came out and people on my friends list were like "OMG Obama beats baby seals!!!" then they promptly got made fun of by 100 other people for not realizing it was satire (i.e. not checking the source). It's made people like that do a double check to see if it's a satire site, at least.

Past that though, as long as people "claim" it's a news site (which 99% of them are as you described, jokes that aren't real news and just political commentary/discussion) it's depressing to see people post the dumbest stuff that's completely unsupported by anything tangible. Then again, not a lot of people know about nor practice the scientific method.



The onion has been around since the 80's.
$1700, 18, 19, 1920, 40, 60,... :/ Thx 'Do it again'. I'll try
onenickelmiracle
onenickelmiracle
Joined: Jan 26, 2012
  • Threads: 209
  • Posts: 8020
May 13th, 2020 at 2:58:32 AM permalink
I am more concerned about this now more than ever. Fake news is real and our minds are the target. Being interested in stocks now put me on notice about it. What the public sees is how they react.

Not only this, but there is HFT(high frequency trading), that analyzes all the news and instantly makes stock decisions based on it. Today on CNBC, a man speaking was wondering what happned when the stocks started falling fast. I don't even remember exactly the impetus he mentioned, but he said it was out at 310PM and at 310PM the stocks started falling. So, in his mind, he knows the instant news breaks, the reaction is instaneous. Human beings aren't capable of reading an article and making a decision this fast in dollars that matter for the entire market. I think censorship by companies like Youtube and Facebook are partly because of this. They want to control what we hear and see, and all the reasons are bs. If there is something they don't want us knowing or thinking about, it's out of sight and out of your mind. You will not act on it, you won't even know what you're not supposed to even act on.

Second example: googling stock futures. All these days I want to see chaos, another day the articles say stocks rise bc of blah, blah, blah. Or stocks jump. or stocks react rallying. So depending on when you look the numbers change, and the titles and content changes a little or not at all. Just based on the title, the readers are reading all of the article, and it's human nature to see the content from the perspective of what the title was which made them want to read the article over another in the first place. Today, the latest headline was "stocks futures little changed following losses from the previous session". So earlier, this wasn't very true, and now it is.

Yeah everything is priced in, everything is looking forward, but there is Nancy Pelosi last night with her red lipstick on talking about stimulus after the markets fell 2% and 1% after-hours. What are they trying to do pump the stocks long enough for their pre-planned sell orders can be executed? So now, you have fake news, you know the market should not be so enthusiastic, people are even saying the fed is buying stocks, and they have to be long, and you can't act against it confidently. Lots of possible positive headlines on the RH homepage today, I'm not so sure the markets will drop 10% this week. I'm digressing. I'll just say, the internet is not free.
In the land of the blind, the man with one eye is the care taker. Hold my beer.
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 224
  • Posts: 12332
May 13th, 2020 at 4:41:36 AM permalink
Quote: onenickelmiracle



Not only this, but there is HFT(high frequency trading), that analyzes all the news and instantly makes stock decisions based on it. Today on CNBC, a man speaking was wondering what happned when the stocks started falling fast. I don't even remember exactly the impetus he mentioned, but he said it was out at 310PM and at 310PM the stocks started falling. So, in his mind, he knows the instant news breaks, the reaction is instaneous. Human beings aren't capable of reading an article and making a decision this fast in dollars that matter for the entire market. I think censorship by companies like Youtube and Facebook are partly because of this. They want to control what we hear and see, and all the reasons are bs. If there is something they don't want us knowing or thinking about, it's out of sight and out of your mind. You will not act on it, you won't even know what you're not supposed to even act on.



Maybe. Two examples I have seen.

I answered a want-ad for "trader." I kind of knew it was not a job but it both sounded interesting and I subscribe to the idea that when job searching check some of these kinds of thing out to both practice your interview skills as well as you might learn about something. Better than staying home watching TV even if Maria Bartiromo was on.

Anyhow it was a day trading firm. Wanted you to use your funds to day trade. Taught mostly "scalping" a few cents by jumping ahead of the Level II quotes. If I get cash one day I might try it for a few months why not. But while they had the expected CNBC on the TV (FOX Business had not gone on the air yet) they had a thing called "newsreader" playing. It was just a voice announcing news releases. I remember I was watching a few oil stocks on the demo, oil stocks were recommended as one to trade, and they announced some kind of oil output increase from some OPEC country. The oil stock started instantly moving.

Another time was in IIRC 2009 or 2010. I was wanting to learn to trade Forex. Watching USD vs Swiss Franc. Those charts are hard to watch, tic, tic, tic. So many traders it is hard to move it. Obama was giving a speech which means it was just after 9 ET. As soon as he got going the USD started tanking. I never saw anything like how the chart moved so fast. But after just a few minutes it leveled.

Was it people? Was it a computer? You be the judge, but there are live traders who have all sorts of things on while they trade.


NOTE: Mention of Obama is NOT a political statement, it is an example.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 224
  • Posts: 12332
May 13th, 2020 at 4:48:00 AM permalink
Quote: bodyforlife

Nope, sure can't. Cronkite only gave his opinion one time in all the years he was on the air and was begged not to. That was regarding Vietnam. You are dead right on all your points. I trust no media and make it a rule to always look up opposing viewpoints if I ever see something that interests me. I actually would prefer to hear directly from a source and then I'll make up my own mind (don't need the NY Times or Fox to tell me how to think). And I suspect more and more people are of that opinion. The news media is one of the least trusted of all professions.



The media is not trusted because they have been caught in lies too many times. GM Trucks on fire. Changing 9-1-1 tapes. Fake documents. Or it not lies caught in bias. CNN used vulgar filenames for pics of Bush after winning in 2004. The people who make the lies do not seem to get fired like you or I would, They get some nice, sweet severance deal.

Best idea I ever heard was go to the British model. Have outlets make no bones about which side they slant to. In the USA we all know but there is this "pretend thing" about it still being real journalism. There is some subtle code. For example, I was told in college that any outlet that had "Review" in it's name tended to lean right. Let it be in the open.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others

  • Jump to: