I'm not saying that the media is faultless and never makes mistakes. Or that they don't, from time to time, overhype absolute nonsense stories or clicks or viewing figures. But we're comparing infrequent reporting mistakes with deliberate and calculated lying. They are not anywhere near the same thing.
The fact that you feel like fake news is being used as a scapegoat should make you stop and wonder if there is any evidence to back up that feeling, rather than double down on it.
What they didn't mention is what he did instead, which was to desegregate schools. There's good evidence that desegregating schools is the most effective way to improve them. You have to admit it's a little dishonest to throw the word segregation around over and over again in response to someone following a strategy of desegregation instead of your personal solution of raising taxes. It's a strategy that would make Orwell proud.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/opinion/jeff-sessions-othe...
It's an opinion piece, so neither is it written by the New York Times, nor is it surprising that the author might be "inserting opinions".
It's an especially good example because it is an opinion piece. It checks facts, cites sources, and presents a lot of evidence instead of just giving a straightforward opinion. All these facts give legitimacy to the implications. Instead of making the article more objective, they enhance the bias.
I never said anything about it not being an opinion piece, just that it's published by the media.
I agree with your original critique, but writing "the New York Times recently wrote an article" is not saying "just that it's published by the media". Whether or not an opinion piece is sufficient to make your point, you said the NYT wrote it, it turns out that they did not, but you are claiming that despite this you were right all along. Don't do that!
That is an opinion piece. A lot of people seem to be conflating opinion pieces and reporting. You can't use opinion pieces to prove bias in a newspaper's reporting.
Anyway, my point was to show how sources and facts can push an agenda.
If you really really investigate all the claims by both sides, and at the end dont throw your hands up and say "well I cant exactly be sure either way" then either you have incredible sources or you are reading into stories what you want to hear to confirm your beliefs.
I was watching live when Martha Raddatz almost broke into tears on ABC news. I was thinking "Is she going to start crying? Who is allowing her to be on camera as a serious news person".
For instance, no cable network broadcast incorrect election results. They all informed viewers of the accurate, correct vote counts as they came in. By comparison, a fake news site was at the top of Google a few days ago with a story that literally lied about the popular vote count, saying that Trump had won it.
I'm not saying cable news is great - far from it - but these fake news sites are in a league of their own.
When I see the kind of blatant bias that the anchors on ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN etc showed on election night I can't help feeling like the networks that write their paychecks are intentionally trying to misinform people for their own gain.
A scientific journal doesn't say "hey - we only occasionally let through a few articles without peer review; the majority of our content is peer reviewed, so we're ok."
Even the most "trustworthy" US-based news organizations have lost a lot of credibility in the past couple of weeks. And yes, there have even been a fair number of cases of deliberate and calculated lying - all without corrections or retractions.
Or, you know, keep trusting these companies (not knowing which stories are "mistakes" vs truth). I'm not going to stop anyone from trusting a source of information just because I don't trust it myself.
Still, the point of my original comment is more about how we deal with it in social media. I have no problem letting the market decide what to do with media organizations.
No, it doesn't work that way.
News organizations, like people, make mistakes. It's how they address those mistakes that matter.
If genuine mistakes are made, those responsible admit those mistakes and issue corrections. When that happens, one's reputation can remain mostly intact.
The media you read will not match your day-to-day reality, because it is impossible to match everyone's. That doesn't mean it is factually incorrect.
If there is a problem with the media in general (apart from strong political bias), it's a human problem that we all share. People respond to shock, outrage, and disgust much more than they respond to pragmatic ideas, logic, or even truth in general. As long as media companies are built on revenue models tied to ad impressions and social engagement, we'll likely see more of the same.
Censorship will not help; it can only make the problem worse. Perhaps instead, social networks should return to being social networks rather than scrolling billboards. I recall a time (around 2005-2006) when Facebook consisted mostly of people's own words, thoughts, and conversations rather than embedded media. I think I'd really enjoy a Facebook that didn't even turn URLs into hyperlinks - one where the only media that can be embedded is your own original content. That's partly why I believe Instagram is on the rise, while Facebook seems to be on the decline (depending on who you ask - and yes, I know Instagram is owned by FB).
The current social media landscape is like trying to host a party at your house with TVs on every wall (showing random propaganda) so loud that no one can even hear themselves talk.