And when they read the article or see the video that is produced, that is the day they lose faith in the press. True 50 years ago, true today.
This is true even if both sides in good faith are doing the best job they can. The media always has its own agenda, which is never identical to the goals of the profession.
Ten times worse if advocacy is involved.
My sibling spent some time working around prostitution related issues. When they were interviewed, words were literally put in their mouths as quotes, and what they actually said was ignored. You either fit the narrative that they'd been told to go out and find, or you were made to fit it. I imagine because the Overton Window is small enough that reporters aren't able to work outside of it.
I generally don't put much stock in anecdotes, but if others are sharing "the press always gets it wrong" anecdotes I might as well share my more positive ones.
I'm really hoping that this kind of stuff happens slightly more (not a lot more, that undermines the market). Just a few high-profile things that play to the kind of paranoia common here: Maybe another Facebook/CambridgeAnalytica would be a good one. Something to do with Google spying on Android phones maybe? Amazon Echos reporting to the Chinese government?
Holding out hope for a nice panic journalist to put one out. Delicious. Come on. There's got to be someone who'll do it.
Interesting choice you're making there - social acceptance prioritised over journalistic accuracy and scientific advocacy.
FWIW, I think he made the right decision.
I couldn't evaluate the merits of his claim, which is that famous people are broadcasting nonsense, because he didn't name any of these people or cite any example. Had he done so, I could have formed an opinion based on the facts presented.
Unfortunately, I don't know you or trust you, so this post seems like more noise.
Same. This year, with the coverage of Covid (an area where I have a certain level of expertise), I've been bombarded with the extremely low quality level of essentially all of the major news providers. They are more than willing to amplify the most speculative voices, credulously, without even basic fact-checking. The ones that depend on advertising are the worst, overall. Writers with no subject-matter expertise will take a scary quote from a single source, won't bother to make even the simplest of efforts to verify the claim, and will publish it just to get the scoop.
I won't mention names because I'll only be downvoted, but there are some extremely high-profile "scientific" media figures who are constantly broadcasting utter nonsense. And because they heard it from a "scientist" on the news, people will attack you if you rebut it. I am old enough to remember when journalists were skeptical of the people they interviewed, and the rule was that no fact was published without independent verification (read "All the President's Men" for example).
2020 is the year where the news media fell apart for me -- it is all simply entertainment now, which is unfortunate.