The Power of "The Press"

[The Bread Guy]

Not Canadian media, but interesting bit from an article about the incoming U.S. secretary of defence:

... In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, Mattis commanded the Marines who launched an early amphibious assault into Afghanistan and established a U.S. foothold in the Taliban heartland ...

Onto what beach, pray tell, given Afghanistan's landlocked?

 

[Kirkhill]

With the dawning of the realization that "The Press" has opinions - a revelation to North Americans apparently, a given in Europe - a discussion about the making of news and fakery.

On December 15 2016 the EU had a conference.  "The Press" trumpeted "Theresa-no-mates" headlines and described the cold shoulder that she had received from the other Heads of Government, and Angela Merkel in particular.

Here is another image from the same day.

No headlines in that one, I guess.

 

[The Bread Guy]

With the dawning of the realization that "The Press" has opinions - a revelation to North Americans apparently, a given in Europe - a discussion about the making of news and fakery.

On December 15 2016 the EU had a conference.  "The Press" trumpeted "Theresa-no-mates" headlines and described the cold shoulder that she had received from the other Heads of Government, and Angela Merkel in particular.

Here is another image from the same day.

No headlines in that one, I guess.

I agree that the general narrative has been "UK's been sidelined by EU", and media of all persuasions have been known to "follow the herd" (for better or worse), but what evidence, other than the one photo, do you offer that she wasn't, indeed, sidelined - other than the one photo that appeared in the Daily Mail?

Also, are you saying that we should judge an event from only one image, instead of a range of events/indicators?

Yeah, I'm sure that'll add nuance and subtlety to media coverage ...

 

[Flavus101]

Milnews, I have come to know your posts as generally quite insightful and offering up a solid viewpoint on an issue.

I think you are grabbing at straws with the "well we can't judge how things went by only one picture" narrative. It is quite obvious that the majority of the media are against the UK leaving the EU and are doing their damn best to make sure that it doesn't happen.

The media needs to start working hard to get back to the basics by reporting the facts instead of constantly speculating on issues. Give the reader the information they require to create their own position on the subject matter instead of creating the position for them.

 

[QV]

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."

Christopher Hitchens

 

[Kirkhill]

Milnews - I am suggesting that no information is "trustworthy".  That everything is a balance of probabilities and the only "reliable" judge is the person whom the information affects.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I will argue that the UK press was a tad more upfront in their given lenses/viewpoints. If you picked up a brit newspaper, there was no doubting from which angle they were viewing a story.

 

[Kirkhill]

I will argue that the UK press was a tad more upfront in their given lenses/viewpoints. If you picked up a brit newspaper, there was no doubting from which angle they were viewing a story.

And in that lies clarity - red filter left lens, blue filter right lens - coloured, stereoscopic picture.  (Guardian and Telegraph = reality)

It is important to understand the point of view.  Hiding that point of view leads one to consider that the "informer" may be more "propagandist" than "reporter" or even "proselytizer".

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

You just have to know who reads which paper, that's all:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGscoaUWW2M

 

[The Bread Guy]

I think you are grabbing at straws with the "well we can't judge how things went by only one picture" narrative. It is quite obvious that the majority of the media are against the UK leaving the EU and are doing their damn best to make sure that it doesn't happen.

I'm not denying that, but the OP showed one photo going against the narrative stream, and asked why there was no headline about it.

The media needs to start working hard to get back to the basics by reporting the facts instead of constantly speculating on issues. Give the reader the information they require to create their own position on the subject matter instead of creating the position for them.

Also agreed, and, as someone else said ...

I will argue that the UK press was a tad more upfront in their given lenses/viewpoints. If you picked up a brit newspaper, there was no doubting from which angle they were viewing a story.

... it's up to the consumer to consider the source.  Also, more (information) tiles makes the ("truth") mosaic clearer to understand, as the OP later suggested

And in that lies clarity - red filter left lens, blue filter right lens - coloured, stereoscopic picture.  (Guardian and Telegraph = reality)

More of the same ...

Milnews - I am suggesting that no information is "trustworthy".  That everything is a balance of probabilities and the only "reliable" judge is the person whom the information affects.

Also agreed.  The trouble is that a lot of information affects a lot of people, so who's the "reference" judge?  And if we believe everyone, even those who may base their assessment on little information, or only information that's previously fed into their preconceptions, who's "right"?  Versus what's "true"?  That may be too big a question, I know, but that's what came out  ;D

It is important to understand the point of view.  Hiding that point of view leads one to consider that the "informer" may be more "propagandist" than "reporter" or even "proselytizer".

While some people know "where their media's coming from", many may not -- or don't care as long as it agrees with their world view.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I will argue that several news media like to portray themselves as a "balanced and neutral observers of the news" When in fact they clearly were not. Media is a business attempting to get people to buy, read, watch and listen to their stuff in hope of either subscriptions or ad revenue. Editors will slant content to fit the space, the pace and that which is most likely to catch and hold the revenue generators.

 

[Kirkhill]

...While some people know "where their media's coming from", many may not -- or don't care as long as it agrees with their world view.

IMHO - pretty much their problem.  They are the ones surprised by events.

My bigger problem is with those that feel then need to "create a common narrative".  In my view that is equivalent to "settling science".  An arbiter of "Truth" is created - and I want to know who that is and who they serve. 

Or I can accept that everybody has their own view and leave it at that.  But that doesn't bring out big crowds.

 

[Kirkhill]

I will argue that several news media like to portray themselves as a "balanced and neutral observers of the news" When in fact they clearly were not. Media is a business attempting to get people to buy, read, watch and listen to their stuff in hope of either subscriptions or ad revenue. Editors will slant content to fit the space, the pace and that which is most likely to catch and hold the revenue generators.

Colin - one of the Press's greatest revenue generating commodities is influence.

 

[The Bread Guy]

My bigger problem is with those that feel then need to "create a common narrative".

Having been guilty myself of being a reporter in a previous life, I can tell you that some of that is intentional, some of that is laziness and some of that is that an element is the only "new" thing out there.  Although I only worked in a small/medium market, and had minimal "here's what you should write" pressure (although not zero), I understand the larger outlets may sometimes have bosses watching outlet x, y and z, asking their reporter "why don't we have this angle?".  And I think if/where that might happen, it's driven by this ...

Media is a business attempting to get people to buy, read, watch and listen to their stuff in hope of either subscriptions or ad revenue. Editors will slant content to fit the space, the pace and that which is most likely to catch and hold the revenue generators.

... with more and more revenue generated by clicks and "lookit the shiny thing" - and the attendant requirement to boil a story down to a tiny, yet eye-catching, element that in some cases is completely out of context.

...I can accept that everybody has their own view and leave it at that.  But that doesn't bring out big crowds.

And consensus doesn't sell, either ...

 

[Kirkhill]

And consensus doesn't sell, either ...

And are media revenues rising? There seems to be a fair degree of "consensus" among the Premium/Legacy/Mainstream Media in both the US and Canada.  Maybe somebody could try something different.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Media is a business. Business follows the money. George Soros and his ilk own and run the MSM. The story you'll get is the one they want you to hear. All you can depend on, mostly, is a report something happened. After that, you're much better off starting to research the story yourself. You'll never get the full truth from the MSM. Only what they want you to think.

 

[The Bread Guy]

And I'll just leave this right here ...

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Chris,

Any information you come upon should be treated with a grain of salt until it's properly verified, this is where the internet, comparative analysis and the balance of probabilities come in to play. 

Over time and with lots of practice, you'll be able to pick out trend lines and build some predictive intelligence.  The military uses an excellent system for grading intelligence both in terms of source reliability and information reliability.

Source Reliability:

A: Reliable - No doubt about the source's authenticity, trustworthiness, or competency. History of complete reliability.
B: Usually reliable - Minor doubts. History of mostly valid information.
C: Fairly reliable - Doubts. Provided valid information in the past.
D: Not usually reliable - Significant doubts. Provided valid information in the past.
E: Unreliable - Lacks authenticity, trustworthiness, and competency. History of invalid information.
F: Cannot be judged - Insufficient information to evaluate reliability. May or may not be reliable.

Information Reliability:

1: Confirmed - Logical, consistent with other relevant information, confirmed by independent sources.
2: Probably true - Logical, consistent with other relevant information, not confirmed.
3: Possibly true - Reasonably logical, agrees with some relevant information, not confirmed.
4: Doubtfully true - Not logical but possible, no other information on the subject, not confirmed.
5: Improbable - Not logical, contradicted by other relevant information.
6: Cannot be judged - The validity of the information can not be determined.

You can use this system to score information.  For instance, if some homeless person on the street who you didn't know came up and told you that they used to be a millionaire, do you believe them?  It would score an F6, now if you were to do additional research and you found out the person used to work for a certain company that score would improve to an F5.  As you continue to engage with this person and gather more information, the scores continue to improve or diminish (if they're a big liar) and you can slowly build an accurate intelligence picture of someone or something.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

So basically, don't believe anything an E-5 tells you  [.







(E-5: a Sergeant or  Petty Officer)

 

[The Bread Guy]

... The military uses an excellent system for grading intelligence both in terms of source reliability and information reliability ...

While the x-y system you've laid out is a very good one, the problem -- especially with information with political implications -- becomes:  how you get all sides to agree to a source assessment?  There are people who would consider this site or this one reliable, and others who would consider this one and this one reliable when both are far from fully reliable.