The once-per-month approach is an interesting one, which I would imagine removes even more of the lingering "urgency" to keep up with the news treadmill. How long have you been doing it?
This is true for most "news" organizations at the moment. CNN, MSNBC, Fox, etc., are entertainment. Much of what they produce would fall under the Op. Ed. section of a newspaper. And the speed of the news cycle does not allow for rigorous fact checking and adequate opposing viewpoints to be included. "We have reached out for comment" is a common claim when there is a failure to include opposing viewpoints.
The problem is compounded by social feeds (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) that are engineered to only show you information you already agree with being the primary method of consumption. And then the comments within the article or accompanied in the social platform further drive home the biases.
Traditional print journalism, while never perfect or completely accurate, at least presented a consistent and uniform experience for all readers. The news cycle was extended to provide more time for fact checking and information/quote gathering. And the structure of the paper was clear: news, opinion, entertainment, etc. These never mixed. And corrections were clear and available in the same place in future issues.
That doesn't mean biases never existed, but the expectations were much clearer and there was less of an ability to focus on a segment of a market and ignore the views of others.
I think this sort of holds true for any modern news org in the west (and possibly world-wide). Look at the profit incentives and it makes sense which way reporting trends will go. The more outrageous/unbelievable the story, the more eyeballs; the more eyeballs, the more ad revenue. Some news orgs definitely take more liberty than others in bending the facts of a story just enough to carve out a demographic niche that they can depend on to keep coming back.
Personally, I've actually gravitated more towards long-form stories that aren't exactly news as-it-happens and more about events unfolding. Because of that personal preference, I've subscribed to The Atlantic (and considering others). I remember reading a post on here about a month ago that seemed to indicate I wasn't alone in that trend.
I posit that people are willing to pay for quality journalism that talks about a larger problem, but not for as-it-happens news. The latter has become a race to the bottom and first-out-the-door incentives drive it even lower (social media has certainly contributed immensely to this).
News organisations have never lived just out of subscriptions and/or sales - advertising has always been the major part of their revenue, for most publications.
A market also has the option to decide that a type of product is simply not economically viable.
However, certain products, while not being economically viable, can be socially necessary, so alternative models need to be found. News obviously falls in this category, similarly to public transport, healthcare and education. In those cases, other means of supporting the product can be found - usually, direct state intervention.
> certain products, while not being economically viable, can be socially necessary, so alternative models need to be found. News obviously falls in this category, similarly to public transport, healthcare and education
Totally agree. News can be paid for via government support (BBC), direct public support via donations (NPR, PBS), support from foundations (CSPAN), subscriptions (Atlantic, FT, WSJ). Advertising is the worst way — and if news is of great value, we should pay with money rather than attention AND money.
Patronage model, which (often also with subscription tiers on top of free content) is what bigger non-advertising media outlets seem to use; this works better if you qualify as a nonprofit with tax-advantaged donations, so may not be as useful for for-profit firms, but it's certainly a way that news organizations can exist and pay their staff and bills without advertising.
This version of their site has less visual clutter and flashy graphics: http://lite.cnn.com/en
Spoilers, it's still shit. The biggest problem with CNN is the shitty writing. CNN articles seem to be written for an audience of borderline illiterate idiots. Do yourself a favor and read the NYTimes instead. The biases there are basically the same, you're getting the mainstream American centrist take on things, with the difference being the NYTimes hires people who actually know how to write. CNN is dailymail-tier.
no, the nytimes is no better overall. they still have some good longer-form investigative pieces, but that's probably <1% of their volume. the rest is the same slanted, stimulant filler (corona all the time!) as other outlets.
As I said, I think they have approximately the same content and biases as CNN. I think they come out better than CNN because they have better writers and editors.
CNN articles seem like they were written by highschoolers and rubber stamped by editors who can't be bothered to read anything.
i guess our differing opinions turn on what "better" means. to me, a better writer, and especially a better editor, would correct those unsubstantiated embellishments and biases. so it's a distinction without a difference to me.
There are many ways in which something might be judged and therefore many ways in which something might be called 'better.' I am not saying the NYTimes is better than CNN in terms of what biases they have, what stories they choose to cover or what embellishments they add. I am not saying they have better fact checking. I am essentially saying CNN's articles are written for a less literate audience and they have lazy editors who let poor writing slide. I am not taking about their fact checking or factual accuracy.
I call BS: The NY Times is in no way a "mainstream American centrist take on things", and they now freely admit their Socialist biases. I will agree the writing there is better than most other sources, but that's a low bar these days.
American conservatives think the NYTimes are socialists, and American socialists think the NYTimes are conservative. I think this sort of split reputation is characteristic of American media with a centrist bias.
It really is. They copied the FoxNews formula in 2008. Fired anyone who could edit or fact check anything. They then turned the formula up to 11. Most of the 'news' is pick your flavor and enjoy the editorial. Because that is about all you are going to get out of them. News comes way down on the list of what you get out of them.
Fox News is certainly much worse than this. They habitually and regularly post actual fake news. Of course, they do have real news mixed in there; otherwise the strategy wouldn't work.
I advocate for something like consumer warning labels on products: you cannot call something Aspirin unless it is truly, chemically Aspirin. Nobody should be able to label their product "News" unless it is strictly Who/What/When/Where; also, opinion and editorial should be required to be labeled clearly as such. Something akin to the Fairness Doctrine (now defunct) might be a place to start.
A thorny issue to discuss, but given the current state of "journalism", I think it's worthwhile.
Without commenting on the factual nature of the content or the content itself:
The biggest headlines for you aren't the biggest headlines for me. And I get quite a different view on mobile than I do on desktop. On mobile I get blasted by the coronavirus and economy sections, which are mostly gloom-and-doom (the article about a possible vaccine is far far down the list in a different subsection). On desktop those sections are there front and center, but the other stuff is visible too, so it's not quite so in-your-face.
CNN has multiple articles/videos about the exact same topics, but the headline---although any individual headline arguably represent its article technically accurately---are not equivalent to each other.
Consider:
"Dow and Nasdaq plunge after record highs" vs "Stock Market Bloodbath: Down and Nasdaq plunge"
"Trump suggests voters should commit fraud" vs "Trump encourages people to vote twice -- which is illegal" vs "Trump appears to encourage North Carolinians to vote twice to test the system"
So, from my point of view very different pictures can be painted with just:
1. Choice of headline.
2. Choice of presentation/order.
3. Choice of material to cover.
My takeaway is that, no, I can't trust it. A charitable interpretation is that the headlines are technically true, but designed to get me to click on them. That's not truthful. (Other interpretations may also be plausible, but would require more evidence.)
Ugh... Even CNN admits that the following headline is a lie... Let's follow the rabbit trail:
> Trump suggests voters should commit fraud
The source that article links is another one of CNN's own articles:
> Trump appears to encourage North Carolinians to vote twice to test the system
The first paragraph of that article then gets closer to the truth:
> President Donald Trump on Wednesday appeared to encourage people in North Carolina to vote twice -- once by mail and once in person -- during the November general election to purportedly double check that their initial vote was counted, ...
Of course, that's not "double" checking. That's checking. If you mail a ballot and never check, then you haven't checked.
Moreover... "Appeared." If the author believes Trump was saying that, then say Trump said it. However, the author knows that's not true, so the author said he "appeared" / his words could be twisted. Utter cowardice.
Then that links to this source, which gets even closer:
> President Donald Trump suggested Wednesday during his visit to Wilmington that people who vote by absentee ballot should “check their vote” by attempting to vote in person as well.
Where Trump clearly explains that people should go to their polling places so that the poll workers can check the voter rolls and confirm whether their ballots have been received. If so, then voters will be turned away. If no, they'll already be at the polling place and will be able to cast a ballot. You, I, WECT, and CNN all know that Trump isn't saying to lie about whether you mailed a ballot. To say otherwise is to lie.
> Moreover... "Appeared." If the author believes Trump was saying that, then say Trump said it. However, the author knows that's not true, so the author said he "appeared" / his words could be twisted. Utter cowardice.
Trump is so confused and unclear sometimes that it's hard to tell exactly what he's trying to say, hence the "appeared.". What he says is newsworthy, and some of the most likely interpretations are shocking, so it can't just be ignored. It wouldn't surprise me if he advised his supporters to do something that clearly amounted to voter fraud without actually understanding that it was fraud.
> Where Trump clearly explains that people should go to their polling places so that the poll workers can check the voter rolls and confirm whether their ballots have been received. If so, then voters will be turned away. If no, they'll already be at the polling place and will be able to cast a ballot. You, I, WECT, and CNN all know that Trump isn't saying to lie about whether you mailed a ballot. To say otherwise is to lie.
I don't know how it is in North Carolina, but where I live they never ask if you've already mailed in a ballot at the polling place. They just ask for your name, look it up in the voter roll, and cross it off, and give you a ballot.
North Carolina accepts absentee ballots postmarked on election day (https://www.ncsbe.gov/voting/vote-mail/five-steps-vote-mail-...), so following Trump's advice could potentially bypass the poll worker check if the poll workers are like those in my state. I believe North Carolina has other checks to prevent double absentee/in-person votes from being counted, but fraud is still fraud if the deception doesn't work.
Where I live if you are registered to vote by mail and you show up at the polling place on election day, you have to vote provisionally, which means that you have to make a sworn statement about why you are weird, and your ballot will be subject to additional verification to make sure you had a right to cast it.
> Trump is so confused and unclear sometimes that it's hard to tell exactly what he's trying to say, hence the "appeared.".
It's irrelevant what he's "trying to say". If he writes "covfefe", the accurate reporting is "he wrote covfefe", not "he appeared to have written covfefe".
Qualifying something with "he appeared to say" is just a way to write anything. Turns out it's not at all what he said? "Well, it appeared that way to me, don't tell me how I have to perceive reality!"
> It's irrelevant what he's "trying to say". If he writes "covfefe", the accurate reporting is "he wrote covfefe", not "he appeared to have written covfefe".
You're asking for a raw transcript, but that's not what the news is. For instance, when the OJ trial was in the news, do you think the papers should have just printed the court reporters transcripts verbatim? The news make judgements about what's important, then summarizes what happened and adds context necessary to understand it, which requires figuring out what he was "trying to say."
> If he writes "covfefe", the accurate reporting is "he wrote covfefe", not "he appeared to have written covfefe".
Actually, if you want to be really nitpicky, "he appeared to have written covfefe" is the most accurate. No one saw him type that word. It could have been some social media aide instead.
The video in the tweet you link to is explicitly as in the headline: Trump tells people to mail in a ballot and then to go vote in person. He repeats it multiple times and is very clear that the "check" is done by them attempting to actually vote, not merely asking to confirm the ballot was received. I had really assumed it would be much more ambiguous than this from the headlines.
Above the fold on my 2016 MacBook running uBlock Origin (so I may be dropping some ads if they have advertorial stuff, not sure), here's what I get:
Trump suggests voters should commit fraud; an uncharitable read, but basically true -- Trump suggested voters in NC vote by mail and in person as part of his contention that vote by mail is easily exploitable by fraudsters. I suspect when this blows up he'll say he was joking, but the words were literally true and nothing about the context of him saying it (let alone the broader context of his attacks on vote by mail and election integrity generally) suggests it's especially a joke. I agree that this is an uncharitable framing.
BREAKING Facebook will limit some ads in the week before the election, but it will let politicians run ads with lies. Clicked on the article and this seems like an accurate summary of events; Facebook will not get into the business of policing lies in political ads generally, but will limit them in the last week of the campaign
Analysis: Donald Trump is already working the debate refs; Analysis implies it's an opinion piece. My biggest objection here is the style of putting asterisks around the word already instead of using <em> tags. It looks like the biggest objection to the headline is that it's the Trump campaign who are working the refs, not Trump himself. I think that kind of "royal we" thing is pretty common, though.
Analysis: Bill Barr's indefensible defense of 2020 voter fraud. This title is all sorts of mangled, the actual thesis is that Barr is alleging systematic mail vote fraud including by foreign actors with no evidence to support it. That seems in keeping with past statements he's made.
Barr interview gets tense when pressed on mail-in voting; this appears to just be a link to the video discussed in the piece immediately above.
AG William Barr: "I don't think there are two justice systems"; this is Barr discussing racial inequality in justice. The headline is a direct quote and surely Barr knew to the extent that this is an inflammatory argument, he was making it.
Opinion: What Barr could have up his sleeve for Trump; dumb title, the op-ed piece's thesis is that the Justice Department customarily avoids announcing any major activity within 60 days of the election to avoid the appearance of impropriety, and that Barr might not respect this precedent. I don't see strong evidence here and as an editor I think I'd have pressed the writer to revise the argument a bit, but it doesn't seem false per se?
Police officer poisoned by Novichok in UK issues cryptic tweet on Navalny; the tweet is clearly deliberately cryptic, and the headline seems true. I would argue this is a bit of a nothingburger as a story.
Pelosi says she was set up by salon owner; Pelosi's defence here seems quite thin. She responds very poorly to criticism and this specific story I think is the kind of personal gotcha that tends to get a bunch of traction. But she did literally say this, so...
Officers covered a Black man's head before he stopped breathing, video shows; there's clearly an implied frame here that the officers action was police abuse, so you could maybe argue that a fairer frame would contextualize the actions better, but again seems literally true
Laid off and now evicted amid Covid-19, a Houston father contemplates homelessness; story seems true, although you can argue whether this is adequately framed in terms of how common or uncommon it is
The US jobs market is gradually recovering from the pandemic lockdown; this seems basically true. We're still down a bunch from highs, but recovery is happening. The headline attributes the job losses to the lockdown in a way that is causally clearer than I think the evidence suggests, but it exists in the realm of truth certainly.
CNN political director: This is a problem for Trump; truly awful headline, and it links to a video whose thesis is basically that Trump is behind in polling in "swing states" and in "key demographics". This is factually true [I have not worked for CNN but have polled this election for the last 15 months for a day job]. You could argue some of the conclusions require an exploration of the limits of polling, or the uses of "basically tied" -- and the reported MOEs are classical sample MOEs, not TSEs -- but this is consistent with what most pollsters would tell you.
These children are being held in hotels, then kicked out of the US; again, terrible headline, but it seems to be true and is a story about migrant ("illegal immigrant" if you prefer) children detention.
MacKenzie Scott has become the world's richest woman; I think it's difficult to assess the wealth of autocrats or whatever, but given the restriction that wealth lists relate to public, documented wealth this seems likely, especially given Bezos' wealth growth over the last few years.
Overall, I would say that this is certainly a news source whose editorial voice is focusing on stories closer to the interest of Democratic voters, but covering generally true things without a particularly strong editorial slant. I don't habitually read CNN or watch any TV news an I'm not about to start because a lot of these pieces are pretty shallow and I didn't learn anything. But if the question is "Do you still believe all of it?", subject to the general limitations I would apply to skepticism of any source, I think the stories presented are broadly true.
Since I took time out of my day to do your exercise, do you think you could flesh out your own position a little bit more about what exactly it is you think I missed? In asking me to do this, surely you did it yourself, and I have to believe you wouldn't have posted if you didn't have specific objections.
