Perhaps they could work hard at reporting the news and not reporting their opinion. Perhaps, instead of having a 24 hr news cycle, they could produce less, but higher quality content.
My hot take in this forum: this attitude is a sort of damn-if-you-do-damn-if-you-don't Catch-22 clause for traditional media which, among other things, has lead to over-cynicism towards these sources which, in turn, has allowed the rise of fake news ("alternative facts" heh).
I'm not saying don't ever be critical of the media you consume rather be nuanced in doing so. Do realize that the decision which to produce/what to report on/what counts as "news-worthy" is an opinion in itself. Deciding which headline to use is an opinion in itself. Choosing your lede down to your last sentence is an opinion. You can't ever "just report the facts"
"US Olympian ends Moscow campaign with silver" could be the same news item as "Russia takes gold at home vs US rival" but you can see they are expressing very different opinions already.
To be clear I can't agree more with "less but better" but that act is inherently---you guessed it---very opinionated. I can already read the "Hey BiasBroadCast, why you report on this war but not this other war?" all the way from here.
> they could work hard at reporting the news and not reporting their opinion
This is where any discussion about “the media” falls down because it’s too broad. There are news organisations that work hard and reporting the news. That costs a lot of money, though, and a lot of people don’t pay. But someone spouting off their opinion on that reported content on YouTube? Basically free to make and gets the clicks.
The media is far from blameless but I think we give consumers a pass. They’re the ones choosing the vacuous, empty opinion coverage.
This strikes me as kind of a naive take in 2024. Even the AP has been pushing a politicized agenda. The newspaper I paid good money to read for many years is now unreadable propaganda. I’ve been forced to get my news from X if I don’t want censorship, and oh my does X have its flaws.
It’s hardly surprising, look at who is graduating from journalism schools, what they are taught and what their agenda is. The consumers did not create this problem, they’re simply powerless to resist it - except that they can take their attention elsewhere, and that is exactly what they’re doing.
Information being bottlenecked through a handful of institutions has been increasingly harmful to society and is what has led us to this very moment. Let the people speak.
> Perhaps they could work hard at reporting the news and not reporting their opinion.
This is a bit of a confusing comment, and it's almost like an algorithmic reply - which anecdotally is the status quo.
Maybe you can develop this idea a little bit?
Because the "Alternative Media" is for the vast majority opinion and entertainment-driven, people have no problem consuming that information and taking it for facts.
This is done with ZERO accountability or responsibility, because once in a while it's thrown "Hey folks, I'm just an actor/comedian/hobbyist/retired X" and then spreads misinformation.
Unlike News outlets, if they get something wrong and acknowledge it, all hell breaks loose. It is extremely unbalanced to demand perfection from News while at the same time having a loose leash for alternative media — many of alternative media celebrities have way more resources than news outlets, and no standards.
It's almost like people prefer the illusion of understanding subjects based on sound bites (like, for example, your broad generic remark), instead of trying to think a bit more deeply and look at things for themselves. No wonder, this takes time, and effort, and most of the times it ain't fun to do research.
You had an election cycle that was heavily influenced by years of repeated conspiracy theories, post-truth commentary, and attacks on institutions like science.
Most of this content has very little quality or barely any production value, being one of the most common formats just people sitting at a table with microphones - they're not Netflix productions. Yet you claim News outlets' production is of low quality.
So yeah, it would be great if you could expand more on your idea instead of making a shallow remark like it's coming from some great insight you've developed yourself. Which news organizations are you referring to? Can you give some examples? What would you do differently to improve on those examples?
I'm not saying don't ever be critical of the media you consume rather be nuanced in doing so. Do realize that the decision which to produce/what to report on/what counts as "news-worthy" is an opinion in itself. Deciding which headline to use is an opinion in itself. Choosing your lede down to your last sentence is an opinion. You can't ever "just report the facts"
"US Olympian ends Moscow campaign with silver" could be the same news item as "Russia takes gold at home vs US rival" but you can see they are expressing very different opinions already.
To be clear I can't agree more with "less but better" but that act is inherently---you guessed it---very opinionated. I can already read the "Hey BiasBroadCast, why you report on this war but not this other war?" all the way from here.