[ocdtrekkie]

I feel like people have all of a sudden rushed to defend the media now that Trump is attacking it. But I feel like we've lost sight of who is probably chiefly responsible for Trump to begin with: A media framework which rewards views, leading to focus on the most outrageous and entertaining "news" over important information.

The media is VERY important, I agree. But I feel we've recently decided to forget how awful the media actually generally is. The article I noticed this last week that was particularly hilarious: "Trump made me order meatloaf, Christie says". That was CBS. That's what we've sunk to, and in many cases, that feels like the high point of where a lot of our media outlets have been.

There are definitely journalists out there doing a great job. The Intercept, The Guardian, The Information (though I can't afford to read the last one). But a lot of our news has been all hype and no substance, and I don't feel we should be giving them a pass right now, just because Trump's against them.

[omnius19]

Many people, myself included, have supported the media long before Trump became president. It is easy to forget now, but Obama was also known at times for having an adversarial relationship with the media. Of course there are click bait articles and examples of bad journalism to look at. Just as there are examples of good and bad work in every profession. But pointing out singular incidents of questionable journalism to prove that the news media is "all hype and no substance," meanwhile ignoring the important, significant, and often times dangerous work that journalists do to keep the public informed is, at best, ill advised.

Go and read the Pulitzer prize winning journalism that has come out in the last two years. I would be shocked if you could walk away saying it is hype. Or even look at another story from the last few weeks, Michael Flynn's pre-election sanction discussions with the Russian Ambassador and subsequent firing. People might have different opinions on the issue or different feelings on the way the information was leaked, but it can't be argued that it was a serious story of national importance. Meat loaf isn't the only thing out there.

Your criticisms of some media practices are valid and have been made many times before. They will and should be made again. But finding a bad article and saying "see the media is terrible don't trust them" is not the answer. If you see an article that seems silly, look at other sources to find one that's not. If you see an article that seems biased, read about the story from several other sources to get the full picture. Or even better, do that even if you don't think the initial source seems biased. Become a savvy news consumer who stays outside of ideological bubbles by purposely popping them.

And I will also say this... when something important is under attack, it is possible to try and save it even if you have concerns about certain aspects of how it functions. It's hard to prune weeds from a garden that has been burned to the ground.

[ocdtrekkie]

As I said, I've definitely seen some good journalists persisting to this day. Though it's hard to support and defend what Trump's followers refer to as the "mainstream media" when the outlets I've found producing that great work, like The Guardian or The Intercept, aren't really mainstream.

[omnius19]

You're right, the Guardian and the Intercept have done some very good investigative journalism in the last few years, particularly around Snowden and the US surveillance state. However they are certainly not the only ones producing impactful journalism.

http://www.cjr.org/criticism/best_journalism_of_2016.php

Here is a good list of some great journalism from the last year. Some of the media outlets are "mainstream" (note I really dislike that term as it is usually used by people being adversarial towards the media for their own gain). Some are small local papers. Some have what is perceived to be a left leaning ideological bent, and some have a right.

I find that many people laud the journalism and outlets that support their viewpoint. However, they avoid or actively denigrate good journalism and outlets that oppose their viewpoint. From your reading choices, I'm guessing that you probably don't read the Wall Street Journal or other sources with a perceived conservative bent. If not, you should try. And try some sources such as the Associated Press and Reuters which focus on producing content for many media outlets with different viewpoints and biases. Good journalism is being done across the spectrum. It should be supported, regardless of your political leanings, as the basis of a shared reality in which we as humans can make good decisions.

[ocdtrekkie]

On the contrary, I'm significantly more conservative than most of my friends (heck, I shared a post from National Review yesterday), and don't prescribe to either party. I have a hit and miss chance of reading WSJ because of their paywall.

[omnius19]

Fair enough and I apologize for adding that assumption. It was unnecessary for making my point and disrespectful to you. I will leave it in for context but please disregard it.

[smueller1234]

"But I feel like we've lost sight of who is probably chiefly responsible for Trump to begin with: A media framework which rewards views, leading to focus on the most outrageous and entertaining "news" over important information."

I agree with you on this point, but I'd like to add that this argument can be spun further: the media framework is as rigged for views as it is due to poor prioritization of the media consumers.

Of course, next step in the chain is that it's the media companies that failed to find business models that adapted to digital and retained sufficient journalistic integrity. But I think that's a bit unfair. None of us have figured that out. I highly doubt that journalists are celebrating the new age of clickbait. I'd rather suspect they cry themselves to sleep over it, so it's not for lack of trying.

Sigh. I think I'm going to buy a Guardian subscription now.

[ocdtrekkie]

I did, in fact, also recently buy a Guardian subscription. :)

[rollthehard6]

Characters like Trump and Farage largely owe their success to 24 hour news channels and their insatiable appetite for soundbites and headlines - those guys are non-stop controversy generators and are, as such the ideal match for rolling news.