[SoylentOrange]

I don’t live in the US, so please take what I’m saying with a grain of salt. I imagine you are a smart and decent person on the other side of this screen.

Usually print media is considered higher quality journalism than TV media. There are numerous studies that show reading print media leads to people being more informed than just watching TV news. Whether this is correlation or causation I can’t really say.

My understanding of both Fox and MSNBC is they are entertainment programs, not so much news programs. I’m not sure it’s fair to compare those to anything in print, nor do I think it’s entirely possible.

A good news article might present both sides of a story, but try to fact-check claims by both sides, and bring in supporting evidence. That’s the key differentiating factor of quality journalism - helping bring facts to the forefront rather than let people on either side spin the facts for their purposes.

[kkotak]

Print media is akin to software released on DVDs - a lot more testing (fact checking), approvals (Editorial decisions) need to happen due to the perceived finality of the medium.

TV on the other hand is like SaaS - continious integration and deployment. Release first and apologize later if needed.

[jhelphenstine]

I think you've got a witty metaphor here, but after mulling it over:

Doesn't CI rely on robust testing to ensure buggy software doesn't make it into production? I'm not sure the fire-and-forget of the 24/7 news cycle lends itself to a comparison to continuous deployment, as there is a strong bias to 'deliver now' given competition to break the news first, and it's hard to build in 'automated testing' (vetting?) of content.

[deadbunny]

CI doesn't imply CI with testing.

[ComputerGuru]

I think the world would be better off if no one ever referred to anything they watched on TV as “news” any more and kept it that news is something you read that can be cited and referenced.

[billme]

>> “ Fox and MSNBC is they are entertainment programs”

No, maybe to you, but to vast amounts of people, millions of people, they watch a singular source for news and to them, that is the news.

In the US, since you’re referring to them, the news legally used to have to allow all sides of an issues to present their views. In the 1980s, the laws changed, and that is how news became so one-side.

[artificial]

They are news entertainment not just to him, pretty much all the mainstream sources are news entertainment. They're not objective. This argument seems like calling breakfast cereal breakfast whereas it's marketed as part of a complete breakfast. The differences are subtle, like the WHO is a political organization that covers medical topics. A decent write up of the broadcast transition: https://www.medialit.org/reading-room/whatever-happened-news

[billme]

I would argue mainstream media is literally propaganda, or at least the US government is legally allowed to broadcast propaganda [1] — either directly via direct government intervention— or like what is now known to be the case in Turkey, for example, where parties buy out the media to gain favor from a given political group.

My point is that the majority of people actually watching these news outlets see it as news, not entertainment or propaganda.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_of_America#Smith–Mundt_A...

—- EDIT: Reviewed your CML link from spring of 1990, interesting read, but really fails to do critical analysis of the specific regulatory changes by name, what impact changes had, etc. Beyond that, stating obvious, it fails to cover all the material events since 1990.

[artificial]

Ah, thanks for the clarification. I see and completely agree with your points. Everybody believing something that's wrong doesn't make it right, critical thinking is down and I believe that there's far too many distractions for people to stay on top of things (it's a full time job following politics).

[mark_l_watson]

+1 thanks for the great reply.

[Kuzutsukake]

As misleading as a particular spin of a story might be, those perspectives are still valid in the sense they connect with what is important to their readers.

I'd like to see a news app that has the facts and sensationalism separated, and then a reference to a more relevant fact/story that relates more directly to what a particular spin was getting at. So I guess feed their bubble with more accurate stories.

[ComputerGuru]

I disagree since these days (And especially TV-based) MSM has taken it upon themselves to tell readers what should be important to them.