This is my experience as well. If you've ever worked in a field that's reported on consistently, or a field you're an expert in, you'll see it is about 30% is accurate and 70% is completely made up. Many times it was like "I didn't say that" or "that didn't happen at all" while I was standing next to the person who wrote the story. The media in the US is in sorry shape. They definitely earned, and deserve, their place at the bottom of those 'most respected profession' surveys.

Now, extrapolate that to reporting on fields you aren't an expert in and form your thoughts accordingly.

Can also corroborate this. While working in the field for a news agency and sending in the news as an intern. Whenever any of the stories made the news, I was most times left with the same feeling. "This is not what I reported".

The newspaper's editors butchered the news. The facts were not accurate or had been watered down.

Not sure why're you're being downvoted. The common name for this is Gell-Mann Amnesia[1], and is casually observable.

Pick any field where you would be considered by the layperson to be a subject-matter expert. Then, go and consume popular media -- news, movies, fiction -- related to that field. How accurate would you say they are?

Perhaps the downvoters would care to explain?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Crichton#GellMannAmnes...

FYI: you've been downvoted because you talk about downvotes, which is frowned upon here. Have you referenced the Gell-Mann effect only it would be ok. Also, don't worry about things "being downvoted": there are often large swings in up- and downvotes in the first few hours after posting. In most cases they even out and there's no need to go out of your way to support seemingly downvoted comment (unless you have something to add to the discussion, outside of discussing the voting).

Same thing with reporters they're not on the scene getting a story they're sitting at home waiting for the phone to ring so that the police department can tell them what happened. "We're waiting on reports" "we're waiting for the investigation report" ect.

And a lot of that revolves around the news departments not paying those expenses to actually go to a location and be on the ground. However, you can see and support independent journalists that still do that. There was a debate recently on HN on the value of Twitter (probably recurring), but one great thing about Twitter is that I've found direct connections to those journalists and you can see live reporting on issues in a way that mass media just doesn't do, or do well anymore.

E.g. I often read the live tweet coverage of LA City Council meetings and public Q&A.

A lot of "news" these days is filler around a tweet that actually witnessed an event, followed by opinions and retweets, followed by memes.

WaPo is a great example - the youth and inexperience of most of their "foreign" bureaus is shocking, given how supposedly esteemed their journalism is supposed to be, and how much foreign governments also rely on their reporting to inform themselves. Bad situation all around, people still think it's 1965 instead of the clickbait new millennium.

And anchors are glorified game show hosts. Access media journalists rarely press for answers and don’t often ask follow up questions. Journalists need to make less money and there needs to be more of them locally. The more journalists are just rich celebrities they get class solidarity with the people they should be trying to hold accountable. Their kids go to the same schools as the elite. They’re too cozy with the people who hold power.

> Journalists need to make less money

It's not exactly a lucrative line of work as it stands. At the NYT, GlassDoor tells me they get paid $110k. It's a fine salary (although not quite so fine by New York standards), but that's at one of the most profitable papers in the country. The Orlando Sentinel apparently pays only around $50k.

Is $50k then not an acceptable salary in smaller cities if that comes with benefits? That would be quite a normal engineer's salary in many Western European countries.

Not at all, its well below entry level salary for an engineer, and not really a livabe income unless you rely on 2 incomes..

Ah, it's well above the median wage -- almost twice as high, in fact. It's not enough to live a life of extreme luxury, but to say it isn't livable is going a bit far.

Local news often means a $50k a year editor managing a number of freelancers paid by the word.

This reminds me of that bit from the BBC's "Yes Minister", where Sir Humphrey tries to dissuade Minister Hacker from actually leaving his office and talking to other people in the building himself - rather than allowing all information to be mediated by his permanent and personal secretaries:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wW-iC1FLqFQ

Al Jazeera is the result of the BBC shedding some of its foreign presence, isn't it?

A little bit. But to be honest, it was more that the BBC simply pays very badly, and Al Jazeera found it extremely easy to recruit whomever they wanted at the BBC by giving people nearer retirement a decent paycheck and a bumper pension.

Pays who badly, because it's quite common in the UK to criticise the BBC for seemingly overpaying presenters.

Perhaps everybody except a few top presenters?

I'm speculating based on experience where I live: When contract negotiations in the public sector comes up, the finance ministry makes a point of having its loyal economic affairs journalists and pundits point out how the top paying position at, say, some port authority is almost as high as the prime minister's. But they neglect to mention that 99.975% of employees make a lot less then that; and it was a one-time situation where the guy worked extra overtime; and that they also counted employer taxes rather than what the employee gets etc. etc.

Common /= stupid. The BBC pay very badly for presenters too, but especially for anything below that.

The British press is a big fan of misrepresentation.

Pays reporters on the ground badly.

No, that was al Thani wanting to make little Qatar the media giant of the ME and the Beeb probably took advantage of.

Yesterday I saw the BBC with the “Brussels Chief” of Politico as the foreign correspondent on some EU issue... we are getting news from the dregs now.

At least in Europe the bar to became a journalist is very high. Apprentices for Top tier jobs even for TV stations known for low standards need to go through tests where they get asked for instance who is the boss of the IAEA. People generally underestimate how knowledgeable most journalists are. (I read news daily for an hour but I wouldn't pass such a test)

Also overwhelmingly white, oblivious to their bias and entitlement resulting in very narrow, US/Eurocentric perspective.

Reporters back in the day were like responsible hunters. They would peddle their bullshit while occasionally adding what little truth they knew, maintaining the semblance of neutral information providers.

Modern journalism has this breed of reporters outcompeted by a new one that has discovered that that semblance of neutrality was unnecessary.

Judith Miller wasn't a 20 year old when she fabricated tales. I have seen articles in Bloomberg News I know are fabricated (I had access to the raw data misreported) and the reporters aren't children.

Of course the oldies are sad. Their personal breed of lies have now been outcompeted by those of superior liars.

They write articles decrying this particular breed of overfishing the ocean. But they are just obsolete.