I can give an example from the New York Times relating to the Iraq War, I took it from wikipedia [1]:

In the buildup to the 2003 war, the New York Times published a number of stories claiming to prove that Iraq possessed WMD. One story in particular, written by Judith Miller, helped persuade the American public that Iraq had WMD: in September 2002 she wrote about an intercepted shipment of aluminum tubes which the NYT said were to be used to develop nuclear material.[83] It is now generally understood that they were not intended (or well suited) for that purpose but rather for artillery rockets.[84] The story was followed up with television appearances by Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice all pointing to the story as part of the basis for taking military action against Iraq.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destr...

That was not "the media is lying". Miller used Bush administration sources and confirmed with an Iraqi source that turned out to be the source of the Bush info. Its disputed whether she was misled by one or both of these sources or perhaps one of the sources misled the other. That the administration would rely on this reporting, rather than their own CIA which was calling it into question, is a reflection on their deception not the media's.

It was bad reporting that was compounded by the editors not pushing back, as the article you cite goes on to say.

American media mostly got the story wrong, because they trusted the American government to be honest. But a lot of foreign media didn't get the story wrong, because they didn't blindly trust the American government.

I don't see being lied to as much of an excuse. It's their job to be skeptical, and they chose not to be.

Yeah, it's always the story so old, it could have a college degree by now.

The NYT got something wrong! 17 years ago! And that's why... OP no longer believes in globular world theory?

MSM takes the same stance any time the US wants to go to war and, each time, the country invaded ends up worse off than it was under the dictator they had before.

It took the NYTs over 50 years to admit their/Walter Duranty's denial of the Holodomor was bullshit. Who is to say this is the only time a lie might go unchallenged in American media for decades?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial_of_the_Holodomor#Walter...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Duranty

Sure:

* Harvey Weinstein was covered up by many in the media as detailed in Ronan Farrow's Pulitzer Prize winning piece in The New Yorker [1]

* ABC killed a story about Jeffery Epstein in 2015 in part to retain access to the royal family. Epstein continued to sex traffic children for 3 years after this report would have aired [2]

* The BBC covered up for Jimmy Savile's pedophila (and other horrors I won't reprint here) for decades. The head of the BBC during that time left right before the scandal came to light to become the current CEO of The New York Times [3]

There are many other examples but these are recent and well documented.

1. https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/from-aggressive-ove...

2. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/abc-news-amy-robach-jeffrey-e...

3. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/oct/30/jimmy-...

...and yet, it was the center of big, old liberal media that broke the Weinstein story, not some investigative citizen-youtuber.

And a large part of Ronan's story was to try how this worked. It wasn't that the people who knew (to varying degree) did not want to out him. They just feared for their livelihood, and sometimes more.

Even with Farrow's access and background he barely got the story out.

> And a large part of Ronan's story was to try how this worked. It wasn't that the people who knew (to varying degree) did not want to out him. They just feared for their livelihood, and sometimes more.

Correct, but my statement was about media trustworthiness. It doesn't really matter if people are keeping quite because they want to or because there's some super powerful individual that's coercing them to keep quiet, the result for the audience is the same. Why believe outlets that are covering up for the most heinous corruption and crimes imaginable? The media has a well earned reputation problem.

Also, I'm not sure why you want to make this a partisan argument. It's not, there's plenty of corruption to go around. I deliberately chose non-political examples of corruption.

At that point when they joined the chorus it was undeniable. That had to. In the meantime for over ten years they kept things quiet.

Remember CNN sharing debate questions to Hillary before a primary debate?

Edit: source for the downvoters [0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donna_Brazile#Sharing_debate_q...

The Covington incident was really nasty on the part of CNN especially but most outlets were implicated.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/01/07/nick-s...

From that link, it seems to be "rogue CNN contributor" rather than CNN - indeed, they forced her out 3 days after her leaking was revealed. Am I missing something that indicates it was a larger CNN issue above and beyond a single rogue contributor?

> Am I missing something that indicates it was a larger CNN issue above and beyond a single rogue contributor?

No, you aren't missing anything. No one says that CNN as a whole committed a grand conspiracy to assist Hillary with questions. However, each one of those "rogue CNN contributors" reflects poorly on the company as a whole, and the image of the whole media outlet as trustworthy suffers.

Not sure why this is downvoted. The DNC chair had to resign after her conspiracy to rig the election was leaked by Seth Rich.

CNN still up to the same tricks too. How did you like "Mr. Sanders, why did you say a woman can't be elected president?" "I never said that." "Senator Warren, how did you feel when Mr. Sanders told you a woman couldn't be president?". What the hell was that?

Are you missing a /s?

The Seth Rich conspiracy theory[1] has no factual basis in reality. It's a political smear to muddy the waters most likely started by Russian propagandists as cover to their hacking in our 2016 elections.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Seth_Rich#Conspiracy...

See any thread on a Bloomberg article. They pushed that "Big Hack" story and it turned out to be shit, yet never retracted it or fixed it.

If you think the "main stream doesn't lie" you are extremely naive

This just happens now, right before your eyes.

https://twitter.com/WhiteHouse/status/1220758756071497728?s=...

Look at mainstream media coverage of any topic that you are an actual expert in, and observe how wrong^ they get it. Now assume their reporting on other topics is as competent.

^ Wrong in terms of facts, bias, what they choose to report and choose to omit, who they cite as experts, and other aspects

> Can you give me an example of "media and establishment are repeatedly caught misleading the public"?

Look up every war we've been involved in. The media/establishment lied. Try Nayirah testimony if you want to get started. If you want more recent, look up the anti-venezuelan NYTimes piece by Joanna Hausmann, a minor youtuber. Why was she given a platform on the NYTimes? Oh because her father is an ousted former venezuelan central banker behind the coup attempts in venezuela. Did NYTimes mention this? Of course not. But then again, what more do we expect from the NYTimes which supported the first coup of Chavez. Why is an "objective" newspaper behind a coup attempt in a foreign country? Because the NYTimes was founded by bankers to support bankers interests.

Go look up the lies the media peddled on the syria war and the chemical attacks. Notice how they went quiet about that?

Look up the libya war. Look at the lies peddled about venezuela.

> My impression is the whole "media is lying" is a narrative furthered by Fox

That's because you watch too much CNN/MSNBC or read too much NYTimes/WashingtonPost. You have that impression because you've been brainwashed ( just like the poor fox news viewers you pity ). You aren't any better than what you disdain.

The "media is lying" is as old as the country.

"As for what is not true you will always find abundance in the newspapers." – Thomas Jefferson

"Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle." – Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson was a free speech proponent who hated the lying press.

We even have a famed period in history named for the lying press and journalists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism

These predate fox news by more than a hundred years. You can generally trust the media to tell the truth about innocuous or unimportant events. The media, especially the highly regarded ones, lie about important events.

So if you are getting important news from dyspotian 1984 sounding "authoritative sources", know that you are being lied to.

And what about the rest of us non-Americans who have our respectjve local media misleading the public? Perhaps we all have our own mini Fox News entities that drive this narrative?

I don't intend to bring too much cynicism in here, but if you outright believe any media in current year, whether mainstream or alternative, you are being misled. Everyone has an agenda.