News Media Spin

AllForIt

Do you trust the so called Main Stream Media?

By msm I mean TV news especially, secondly social media news ( as promoted by tech companies on your personal social media feed) and to a lesser extend newspapers (cuz noone only oldies read them anymore).

Having observed the recent US election via watching painful to watch US TV news, all I see is spin. Now I seen our own TV media in a new light, it's just the same, if more subtle. As valid unbiased news sources go, RTE, - forget it.

What I don't get is that we all know what's going on. So why is there such acceptance of it? What I reckon is that if you have the media on your side, you're hardly going to complain. Is that a noble position to take though?

And a better question is - what can those who don't have the media on their side do about it? I think this is a question everyone should be concerned about.

Thankfully we have boards to ask these kinds of questions. Thanks boards.

Oh, and one other thing. Why do we have a 'state' media. We might validly have a state media for general TV, but to have a state news source, doesn't sound democratic to me. I mean it's so obviously ripe for manipulating by the gov of the day, even a democratic one. So surely news should never have any links to the state whatsoever. Not even a hint of it.

I'd rather pay from my taxes (not a yearly fee) for a completely independent national news service, that does only news, that is completely independent from the state in every respect. No agenda, no spin. One that is accountable to an oversight committee appointed by the people rather than the gov. Why not.

Fighting Tao

Sometimes the truth can be hard to swallow when it conflicts with your own beliefs. What exactly is the spin? Is it that you just don’t like what you hear/read? What are your alternatives? Brietbart, Gript, the liberal, etc? How can you trust non main stream that have no standards? I think this thread is probably one for the conspiracy theories forum.

ThunbergsAreGo

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Sometimes the truth can be hard to swallow when it conflicts with your own beliefs. What exactly is the spin? Is it that you just don’t like what you hear/read? What are your alternatives? Brietbart, Gript, the liberal, etc? How can you trust non main stream that have no standards? I think this thread is probably one for the conspiracy theories forum.

Why can't you look at things objectively and make your own mind up?

Fighting Tao

ThunbergsAreGo wrote: »

Why can't you look at things objectively and make your own mind up?

Is my disagreement with your beliefs causing you issues? I have looked at it objectively. Maybe it is you that has not.

ThunbergsAreGo

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Is my disagreement with your beliefs causing you issues? I have looked at it objectively. Maybe it is you that has not.

Not all, I don't know why you need to be so aggressive about things, jumping straight to accusations. I await the use of those horrible words right and left....

I do not think everything that comes from RTE is lies and agenda driven. I do not think everything that comes from RTE is not agenda driven.

ThunbergsAreGo

ThunbergsAreGo wrote: »

Not all, I don't know why you need to be so aggressive about things, jumping straight to accusations. I await the use of those horrible words right and left....

I do not think everything that comes from RTE is lies and agenda driven. I do not think everything that comes from RTE is not agenda driven.

In fairness, the poster specified that they were unwilling to use questionable sources. Doesn't mean they don't use multiple sources, as most do. Many of which are primary. Seems more like you're doing a dire attempt of provoking the poster.

splashuum

Just gobble up everything RTE tell ya. Seemed to work fine in for Nazi Germany and still is for North Korea.

ThunbergsAreGo

Deleted User wrote: »

In fairness, the poster specified that they were unwilling to use questionable sources. Doesn't mean they don't use multiple sources, as most do. Many of which are primary. Seems more like you're doing a dire attempt of provoking the poster.

Not at all.... I have no issue with anyone.

I just hate seeing Breitbart mentioned as a riposte to anyone, just seems copy and paste. It has very very little relevance to Ireland - and have never set eyes on it myself.

Irishphotodesk

Do I trust the media reporting of issues? mostly.

Are they biased ? Some have a lean alright.

I work in the media, but I would trust a report from traditional/main stream media over one a news source that claims to be telling "the truth" .

As someone who works in the traditional news media , their job is to report the news or facts as they are given them (this is possibly where the lines are being blurred, new media take this information and find/create a missing piece to suit their narrative)

Main stream media as you call it - usually accept information from trusted sources, ie gardai, PR companies, respected journalists, however, it's not to say that the information isn't given to them in a way so that some piece/pieces of information is hidden or not obvious, a good investigative journalist will sometimes find this and this has also happens by non traditional media stream publishers.

So, yes, I trust normal traditional media, but, I would also say that due to budgets and lack of experience (it's filled with newly qualified journalists who may be afraid to follow a hunch) - from what I have seen they are put under pressure to produce news content and are not given time to investigate properly, hence the mistakes/inaccurate reports.

A good journalist asks questions , most journalists these days fear being excluded if they ask the wrong questions .... How many journalists are following up on golfgate ? How many are keeping tabs on the FAI/John Delaney situation? How many are counting the trolleys in hospitals ? How many are delving into the information surrounding covid ?

I would suggest that the majority of journalists in this country don't have the luxury of time to deeply investigate such complex issues such as a global pandemic, there are snippets of information which can be freely available but as I mentioned earlier, main stream media can only report the information that they are fed by safe sources, it's not their job to interpret the data differently, it's their job to report it.

Fighting Tao

ThunbergsAreGo wrote: »

Not all, I don't know why you need to be so aggressive about things, jumping straight to accusations. I await the use of those horrible words right and left....

I do not think everything that comes from RTE is lies and agenda driven. I do not think everything that comes from RTE is not agenda driven.

I think you misinterpreted the tone. None was implied at all. I was questioning the OP as it wouldn’t appear that we live in a dictatorship where the government tell RTE or other media sources what to publish. Also, how would the government pull the strings of international media.

ThunbergsAreGo

Fighting Tao wrote: »

I think you misinterpreted the tone. None was implied at all. I was questioning the OP as it wouldn’t appear that we live in a dictatorship where the government tell RTE or other media sources what to publish. Also, how would the government pull the strings of international media.

That is fair, apologies, I thought it was a typical non thought out response (which comes from both sides) due to your mention of only typical right (far right) journalists. There is as much BS out there on both sides.

There is definitely more of left lean within Irish journalism and RTE in general (especially within new journalists), but its not a conspiracy its just the way Ireland as a whole is going.

I would be lieing if this year hasnt made me more skeptical of accepting the RTE/MSM view of events as gospel.

And to answer your question... George SOROS

Irishphotodesk

Fighting Tao wrote: »

I think you misinterpreted the tone. None was implied at all. I was questioning the OP as it wouldn’t appear that we live in a dictatorship where the government tell RTE or other media sources what to publish. Also, how would the government pull the strings of international media.

This wouldnt be far from the way things operate.

Have a look at any media briefing , the media are fed information and report it, often emphasis on particular areas of the information contained in what the government department wants to highlight.
I'm not saying it's a dictatorship, but most journalists who have a scoop are usually fed the information by a rival.

Anecdotally I was told a story by a journalist many moons ago that they had a video clip of a well known person doing drugs, journalist met with said person and showed clip, video clip isn't published but journalist returned back to the office with multiple exclusive stories - happy editor, news exclusives, happy journalist.... Video clip set aside for now...and becomes irrelevant over time, to me it shows how our media could be corrupt, if it was a non traditional journalist, the video clip would have out and said personality would possibly have lost their job.

Has anyone asked the housing minister what's the current situation with homelessness ? Has anyone followed the money trail from government to charities, do we need so many different charities - especially as most of the money given to them is taken up in admin/staff fees.

Fighting Tao

Irishphotodesk wrote: »

Do I trust the media reporting of issues? mostly.

Are they biased ? Some have a lean alright.

I work in the media, but I would trust a report from traditional/main stream media over one a news source that claims to be telling "the truth" .

As someone who works in the traditional news media , their job is to report the news or facts as they are given them (this is possibly where the lines are being blurred, new media take this information and find/create a missing piece to suit their narrative)

Main stream media as you call it - usually accept information from trusted sources, ie gardai, PR companies, respected journalists, however, it's not to say that the information isn't given to them in a way so that some piece/pieces of information is hidden or not obvious, a good investigative journalist will sometimes find this and this has also happens by non traditional media stream publishers.

So, yes, I trust normal traditional media, but, I would also say that due to budgets and lack of experience (it's filled with newly qualified journalists who may be afraid to follow a hunch) - from what I have seen they are put under pressure to produce news content and are not given time to investigate properly, hence the mistakes/inaccurate reports.

A good journalist asks questions , most journalists these days fear being excluded if they ask the wrong questions .... How many journalists are following up on golfgate ? How many are keeping tabs on the FAI/John Delaney situation? How many are counting the trolleys in hospitals ? How many are delving into the information surrounding covid ?

I would suggest that the majority of journalists in this country don't have the luxury of time to deeply investigate such complex issues such as a global pandemic, there are snippets of information which can be freely available but as I mentioned earlier, main stream media can only report the information that they are fed by safe sources, it's not their job to interpret the data differently, it's their job to report it.

Reporting should only be dealing with facts and so there should be no bias, as facts can’t be biased. However, it is human to have biases and so the trail of investigation can result in relevant questions not being asked.

I think you hit the nail on the head with the time it takes to investigate properly. It’s a dog eat dog world for journalists especially with everyone being able to publish content now. In the past a journalist would often have had time to fully investigate what they are reporting on. Unfortunately the way content can be published now leads to misinformation and down right lies.

What some people term as MSM won’t report on a video posted on social media as it usually unverified and can’t be stood over. At times photos and videos posted could be from a different subject, location, day, doctored, etc. It may be days later that a journalist can verify sources, and the story has died down and something else has caught the headlines.

It does not mean that media outlets are spinning everything.

Fighting Tao

Irishphotodesk wrote: »

This wouldnt be far from the way things operate.

Have a look at any media briefing , the media are fed information and report it, often emphasis on particular areas of the information contained in what the government department wants to highlight.
I'm not saying it's a dictatorship, but most journalists who have a scoop are usually fed the information by a rival.

Anecdotally I was told a story by a journalist many moons ago that they had a video clip of a well known person doing drugs, journalist met with said person and showed clip, video clip isn't published but journalist returned back to the office with multiple exclusive stories - happy editor, news exclusives, happy journalist.... Video clip set aside for now...and becomes irrelevant over time, to me it shows how our media could be corrupt, if it was a non traditional journalist, the video clip would have out and said personality would possibly have lost their job.

Has anyone asked the housing minister what's the current situation with homelessness ? Has anyone followed the money trail from government to charities, do we need so many different charities - especially as most of the money given to them is taken up in admin/staff fees.

There is no issue if they are reporting that minister X said ‘blah blah blah’. That is a valid role in journalism and is used by them a lot on social media platforms. It is factual in the sense that x, y, and z was said. However, there should be other journalists asking questions about what was said. It seems to occur less these days as media has changed to be real time.

Journalism always has stories about stuff being hidden. I’d hope but not be confident that it is stories that are not in the nations interest. E.g. who cares if a politician smoked weed when they were in college? It would be a lot different if they were a drug addict when representing the public.

Irishphotodesk

Fighting Tao wrote: »

I think you misinterpreted the tone. None was implied at all. I was questioning the OP as it wouldn’t appear that we live in a dictatorship where the government tell RTE or other media sources what to publish. Also, how would the government pull the strings of international media.

When the media turn up to a government briefing (let's say for an annual report) they are fed with information which is in the report, they are given statistics that the government department wants to discuss, the person launching the report says their speech and answers questions by the journalist who (in general) hasn't had the opportunity to verify any of the information in the report.

So, in essence, some journalists are fed information and report it as given by government sources, often because their report is due shortly after they are given the information and they have to move on to the next topic, it may not be investigated properly.

How many times have we seen a government minister make a claim only to backtrack because it was their interpretation of the information or make a claim which was only highlighted as being inaccurate because of statistical analysis, these are issues which should cost ministers their jobs (but in Ireland it seems it is acceptable to not be fully truthful).

For the vast majority of news outlets we have churnalists, not journalists.... These days it's all about churning out stories, getting clicks, likes, hearts and shares, proper hard news takes time to investigate, a luxury which a lot of journalists are not afforded these days.

Fighting Tao

Irishphotodesk wrote: »

When the media turn up to a government briefing (let's say for an annual report) they are fed with information which is in the report, they are given statistics that the government department wants to discuss, the person launching the report says their speech and answers questions by the journalist who (in general) hasn't had the opportunity to verify any of the information in the report.

So, in essence, some journalists are fed information and report it as given by government sources, often because their report is due shortly after they are given the information and they have to move on to the next topic, it may not be investigated properly.

How many times have we seen a government minister make a claim only to backtrack because it was their interpretation of the information or make a claim which was only highlighted as being inaccurate because of statistical analysis, these are issues which should cost ministers their jobs (but in Ireland it seems it is acceptable to not be fully truthful).

For the vast majority of news outlets we have churnalists, not journalists.... These days it's all about churning out stories, getting clicks, likes, hearts and shares, proper hard news takes time to investigate, a luxury which a lot of journalists are not afforded these days.

We posted at almost the same time and I think we agree. See my previous post

MOH

AllForIt wrote: »

Oh, and one other thing. Why do we have a 'state' media. We might validly have a state media for general TV, but to have a state news source, doesn't sound democratic to me. I mean it's so obviously ripe for manipulating by the gov of the day, even a democratic one. So surely news should never have any links to the state whatsoever. Not even a hint of it.

I'd rather pay from my taxes (not a yearly fee) for a completely independent national news service, that does only news, that is completely independent from the state in every respect. No agenda, no spin. One that is accountable to an oversight committee appointed by the people rather than the gov. Why not.

Even better, why not go and set up your own independent news source? If you feel none of the existing options are good enough there should be a huge market there

(Hint: news < funding < ads < controversial clickbait. See how long no agenda, no spin reporting lasts without a bottomless moneypit)

Kivaro

AllForIt wrote: »

Do you trust the so called Main Stream Media?
....................

So the question is immediately followed by:

Fighting Tao wrote: »

....... What are your alternatives? Brietbart, Gript, the liberal, etc? How can you trust non main stream that have no standards? I think this thread is probably one for the conspiracy theories forum.

I guess we should be thankful that the usual cohort did not respond with the alt right/far right attack on the poster for just asking the question.

Denying that there is media slant/spin by main stream media outlets is ludicrous when it is out there for all reasonably minded people to see and hear. News bias can also be described as not reporting news and events e.g. when black "protestors" racially abused white people in Blanchardstown recently due to the colour of their skin. These "protestors" had no idea whether the white people could have been members of the BLM movement or an asylum NGO; yet they were still abused just based on the colour of their skin. This aspect of the story was not reported. Why not? The Margaret Cash story is another obvious example of news media spin. RTE were complicit in the false narrative put forth by Cash, and failed in asking pertinent questions of this person who as part of her criminal career was involved in a Traveler gang who terrorised old people in Wexford.

So is there spin in media?
Most definitely there is, and in many directions, and to hold that view does not equate to a conspiracy theorist; it actually points to a logical mind that can challenge a news story when something is "off" about it.

Beasty

ThunbergsAreGo wrote: »

Why can't you look at things objectively and make your own mind up?

The problem is that as soon as you see media commentary your own views start being influenced. You may already have some views supporting the media commentary, and your own views are then reinforced with little in the way of critical analysis. If you have differing views you may dismiss it as some kind of media conspiracy which again can strengthen your resolve in the other direction.

It actually takes some discipline to look at media commentary and then consider it objectively, and there will always be things at the back of your mind that may influence such analysis.

keano_afc

"Turn on RTE there, I want to hear the news"

"Well, you can do one or the other....."

Our print media are worse, constantly telling us about the non-existent "far-right" while not having the stones to ask probing questions when given the chance.

Fighting Tao

keano_afc wrote: »

"Turn on RTE there, I want to hear the news"

"Well, you can do one or the other....."

Our print media are worse, constantly telling us about the non-existent "far-right" while not having the stones to ask probing questions when given the chance.

Usually it is older people that will automatically refer to RTE as the news channel, and that is probably due to habit created by there being limited options years ago. If I recall my childhood, I think we were lucky to have 6 TV stations because we lived near the border. Other parts of the country may have had 2 (both RTE I think).

Smacruairi

I've really started to get irritated with the lack of followup and hard questions in the last year or so. Some of the issues which I don't feel have been tackled strongly or critically enough:
- Norma Foley given new politician of the year despite the absolute fiasco surrounding schools, the leaving cert, remote learning etc
- Josepha Madigan being made minister for diversity despite protesting against travellers in her area
- The recent "hot takes" against the Gardai from certain politicians, see Paul Murphy et al
- Swinggate, Bailey was essentially protected by the media until her position became untenable.
-voting scandals, expenses scandals, all just hand waved away.
- Lack of investigation into machinations of the HSE, what has the dept done to increase capacity in 9 months.
-the rise of polarisation in media, everything being described as alt right if it doesn't align exactly to a journalists standards (see Rowling)

When I was younger you regularly had the Vincent Brown's of the world grilling someone over their ideas, if only to tease out the logic. Now you have press releases reported verbatim with no "eh hold on a second that makes no sense" element. That for me is the issue and is turning me away from the usual sources.

Kivaro

A multitude of sources are required these days to gleam what may be the truth on any given news item. This is hard work. For international events, AP News and Reuters are generally good go-to sources; unfortunately we do not have those options for events in our little country. I actually find that Boards can eventually produce a reasonable accurate description of a news topic. After you strip away the extremes on both sides, the truth generally lies in the middle. With Boards, you are provided with a multitude of sources to check and sometimes you have actual experts on the topic to help you form an informed opinion.

Fighting Tao

Smacruairi wrote: »

I've really started to get irritated with the lack of followup and hard questions in the last year or so. Some of the issues which I don't feel have been tackled strongly or critically enough:
- Norma Foley given new politician of the year despite the absolute fiasco surrounding schools, the leaving cert, remote learning etc
- Josepha Madigan being made minister for diversity despite protesting against travellers in her area
- The recent "hot takes" against the Gardai from certain politicians, see Paul Murphy et al
- Swinggate, Bailey was essentially protected by the media until her position became untenable
- Lack of investigation into machinations of the HSE, what has the dept done to increase capacity in 9 months.
-the rise of polarisation in media, everything being described as alt right if it doesn't align exactly to a journalists standards (see Rowling)

When I was younger you regularly had the Vincent Brown's of the world grilling someone over their ideas, if only to tease out the logic. Now you have press releases reported verbatim with no "eh hold on a second that makes no sense" element. That for me is the issue and is turning me away from the usual sources.

Not knowing any journalists or never studying journalism, I do wonder if there is a failing in journalism courses where journalists are not thought how to think of questions, phrase them, or follow up. It may just be that the courses and journalists haven’t been able to adopt to the swift change in media consumption. I don’t know if a journalist would have had a research team in the past or do all the work themselves, but I think they certainly need one these days to assist in getting to the root of an issue quicker due to the pace that stories develop and bits and pieces are published in so many locations without anyone detailing the full story.

Smacruairi

Maybe they are underpaid and rushing to fulfil a deadline, but there seems to be no critical thinking involved. It's either search a few tweets and use that to get opinion, or just ask the editor what the ethos of the paper is and go with that.

Our Tanaiste is a qualified doctor, yet went on live TV and questioned NPHET (after a letter was leaked, and he was shown subsequently to be fond of passing on information..), and that then was followed by us going into a harsh lockdown in October. That's all forgotten about it seems by our media.

francois

splashuum wrote: »

Just gobble up everything RTE tell ya. Seemed to work fine in for Nazi Germany and still is for North Korea.

I invoke Gowdin

AllForIt

Has anyone ever noticed all this conversational brainwashing that goes on.

I recall when years back when we first got CNN on satellite, you'd have a news anchor reading the news. Sky News still follows that format, but you hardly see it on US tv anymore, at least much less.

What you get is conversational pieces, with a group of 'expert' panellist. Highly respected you know.

Looks like this.



Way it works: They agree the topic of discussion and the way it will pan out in advance. To make it look legit they plant someone to disagree. It all looks like a healthy debate, but the killer answer to the detracting voice is then shot down with an answer conceived in advance before the live debate ever took place.

Yes, I think things are that bad.


edit: And I think this evenings event's in the US are connected to where I'm coming from.

MisterAnarchy

AllForIt wrote: »

Has anyone ever noticed all this conversational brainwashing that goes on.

I recall when years back when we first got CNN on satellite, you'd have a news anchor reading the news. Sky News still follows that format, but you hardly see it on US tv anymore, at least much less.

What you get is conversational pieces, with a group of 'expert' panellist. Highly respected you know.

CNN hate Trump, and their claim that they are the most trusted name in news is pretty laughable.

CNN’s “anti-Trump all-the-time” strategy is the brain-child of network president Jeff Zucker, a veteran of NBC’s entertainment division, who actually first green-llt Donald Trump’s “The Apprentice” TV show in 2004 and then used the next decade to learn not only what made his reality show meal-ticket tick but also, for CNN’s purposes, what most ticked Trump off.

Zucker was caught on tape recently outlining CNN's narrative .
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9013069/Leaked-tapes-reveal-CNN-burying-Hunter-Biden-story-saying-Cuban-Americans-voted-Trump.html
https://www.foxnews.com/media/cnn-jeff-zucker-david-chalian-hunter-biden-project-veritas

News channels are supposed to be objective, CNN and the cable network news channels aren't, they are subjective.
Its worked well for them, CNN ratings have surged this year.

You'd wonder what they will do now that the Golden Goose is leaving office.

AllForIt

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

CNN hate Trump, and their claim that they are the most trusted name in news is pretty laughable.

CNN’s “anti-Trump all-the-time” strategy is the brain-child of network president Jeff Zucker, a veteran of NBC’s entertainment division, who actually first green-llt Donald Trump’s “The Apprentice” TV show in 2004 and then used the next decade to learn not only what made his reality show meal-ticket tick but also, for CNN’s purposes, what most ticked Trump off.

Zucker was caught on tape recently outlining CNN's narrative .
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9013069/Leaked-tapes-reveal-CNN-burying-Hunter-Biden-story-saying-Cuban-Americans-voted-Trump.html
https://www.foxnews.com/media/cnn-jeff-zucker-david-chalian-hunter-biden-project-veritas

News channels are supposed to be objective, CNN and the cable network news channels aren't, they are subjective.
Its worked well for them, CNN ratings have surged this year.

You'd wonder what they will do now that the Golden Goose is leaving office.

Trumps calling out of the media was the best thing he ever did (maybe even only) because it opened my personal eyes at least to what's going on. He was right.

Buy my main point has noting to do with CNN or Trump per se or which political left or right is the worst of them, it's that we cannot trust our media now no matter who you are. The meida should never pick sides.

edit:

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

CNN hate Trump, and their claim that they are the most trusted name in news is pretty laughable.

Oh yes, all the news networks are rushing to tell us how trustworthy they are. And I don't think much is more cringe that RTE's advert if you've seen it that promotes same from them. Imagine producing an ad to tell us how trustworthy they are. How thick do RTE think we are. Very, obviously.

Fighting Tao

AllForIt wrote: »

Trumps calling out of the media was the best thing he ever did (maybe even only) because it opened my personal eyes at least to what's going on. He was right.

Buy my main point has noting to do with CNN or Trump per se or which political left or right is the worst of them, it's that we cannot trust our media now no matter who you are. The meida should never pick sides.

edit:


Oh yes, all the news networks are rushing to tell us how trustworthy they are. And I don't think much is more cringe that RTE's advert if you've seen it that promotes same from them. Imagine producing an ad to tell us how trustworthy they are. How thick do RTE think we are. Very, obviously.

I’ll ask again.

What exactly is the spin? Is it that you just don’t like what you hear/read? What are your alternatives? How can you trust non main stream that have no standards?

What do you trust?

Kivaro

Fighting Tao wrote: »

I’ll ask again.

What exactly is the spin? Is it that you just don’t like what you hear/read? What are your alternatives? How can you trust non main stream that have no standards?

What do you trust?

That is so funny. It sounds like RTE's "Trust Matters" advertisement.
So called mainstream media outlets (CNN, SKY, FOX etc.) outside of Ireland are owned by billionaires who's primary purpose for those outlets is to make money. The fact that these billionaires have their own agenda would make these media outlets untrustworthy, with no little to no integrity in their reporting and editorials. Similarly, mainstream media in Ireland is agenda driven.

CrazyFather1

Kivaro wrote: »

That is so funny. It sounds like RTE's "Trust Matters" advertisement.
So called mainstream media outlets (CNN, SKY, FOX etc.) outside of Ireland are owned by billionaires who's primary purpose for those outlets is to make money. The fact that these billionaires have their own agenda would make these media outlets untrustworthy, with no little to no integrity in their reporting and editorials. Similarly, mainstream media in Ireland is agenda driven.

All media is agenda driven. At the end of the day it is a person who is writing/reporting etc and they all have a personal opinion which they allow to sway their point of view.
People holding aloft non mainstream media as the only valid source of information is laughable.
Which media source do you think has integrity?

Fighting Tao

Kivaro wrote: »

That is so funny. It sounds like RTE's "Trust Matters" advertisement.
So called mainstream media outlets (CNN, SKY, FOX etc.) outside of Ireland are owned by billionaires who's primary purpose for those outlets is to make money. The fact that these billionaires have their own agenda would make these media outlets untrustworthy, with no little to no integrity in their reporting and editorials. Similarly, mainstream media in Ireland is agenda driven.

RTE isn’t exactly profitable, so what billionaire is pulling the strings there?

Fighting Tao

“In this day and age, people want something that tends to affirm their views and opinions”, Christopher Ruddy - owner of Newsmax. It shows that he has an agenda. He is actually running an openly biased news outlet that tells his target audience exactly what they want to hear and that is not necessarily the truth.

No one is disagreeing that many news outlets (if some can even be called that) are not heavily biased.

Critical thinking comes into play, and Ruddy seems to acknowledge that some people don’t want to be thinking and just spoon fed nonsense. There is a portion of the population that are not capable of critical thinking, another that never want to critically think either. Maybe critical thinking should be taught (better) in school.

It may be worth reading the whole thread as it does identify some potential reasons why stories are not as in-depth as they once were, are not followed up on etc. It does not mean that the particular stories are wrong even if they clash with an individual’s ingrained beliefs.

doublejobbing 2

AllForIt wrote: »

As valid unbiased news sources go, RTE, - forget it.

.

Can somebody explain this one to me? Both the left in all its forms and the very small far right in this country always make this claim. That RTE has a FF FG bias.

Prime Time, and other RTE documentaries, have in recent years done widely recevied special investigations on issues which are either directly run by government, regulated by government, or are a monumental failure of government policy.

Off the top of my head

- mismanaged creches

- mismanaged nursing homes

- overcrowded unsafe rental accommodation

- more features on the housing crisis and hotel living than I care to remember

- that local FF or FG councillor in Monaghan or wherever it was taking bribes

- hospital beds crisis

- frequently giving a roasting to incompetent FF/ FG figures on Prime Time, the Week in Politics etc etc

The above are just a handful of examples of RTE shining a light on government mismanagement, either direct or regulatory.

They also give a more than equal billing to the hard left. They get 4 percent of the vote yet it is rare to see a four person panel discussion without one of Murphy, Barrett, Smith or, in the past, the odious Coppinger in attendance.

Regarding those who claim it has a left wing bias, I've seen a handful of pieces which would go against that. Prime Time broadcast a piece that asked questions about what exactly Ibrahim Halawa was doing in Egypt and who his father was really connected to. They did a piece on the decline of the Irish population in inner city Dublin.

They dropped the ball banning MLMD from the leaders debate that time (and I am no SF voter) but aside from that RTE really do tend to give everyone a fair slot.

Kivaro

CrazyFather1 wrote: »

All media is agenda driven. At the end of the day it is a person who is writing/reporting etc and they all have a personal opinion which they allow to sway their point of view.
People holding aloft non mainstream media as the only valid source of information is laughable.
Which media source do you think has integrity?

Already provided earlier.

Fighting Tao

doublejobbing 2 wrote: »

Can somebody explain this one to me? Both the left in all its forms and the very small far right in this country always make this claim. That RTE has a FF FG bias.

Prime Time, and other RTE documentaries, have in recent years done widely recevied special investigations on issues which are either directly run by government, regulated by government, or are a monumental failure of government policy.

Off the top of my head

- mismanaged creches

- mismanaged nursing homes

- overcrowded unsafe rental accommodation

- more features on the housing crisis and hotel living than I care to remember

- that local FF or FG councillor in Monaghan or wherever it was taking bribes

- hospital beds crisis

- frequently giving a roasting to incompetent FF/ FG figures on Prime Time, the Week in Politics etc etc

The above are just a handful of examples of RTE shining a light on government mismanagement, either direct or regulatory.

They also give a more than equal billing to the hard left. They get 4 percent of the vote yet it is rare to see a four person panel discussion without one of Murphy, Barrett, Smith or, in the past, the odious Coppinger in attendance.

Regarding those who claim it has a left wing bias, I've seen a handful of pieces which would go against that. Prime Time broadcast a piece that asked questions about what exactly Ibrahim Halawa was doing in Egypt and who his father was really connected to. They did a piece on the decline of the Irish population in inner city Dublin.

They dropped the ball banning MLMD from the leaders debate that time (and I am no SF voter) but aside from that RTE really do tend to give everyone a fair slot.

As you rightly point out, RTE are not afraid to tackle the government. It seems like RTE isn’t backing some people’s beliefs 100% and so is completely discounted just for that reason alone. Big bad government/billionaire is in charge...

Montage of Feck

I think some people look for media that fits their own personal bias regardless of facts.

Smacruairi

It's not the lack of coverage, it's how that coverage is used. Compare the treatment of one Dr Joseph Ebun in her racist rhetoric on prime time vs the racist rhetoric of a presidential candidate.

One gets pilloried and follow up questions, the other gets soft ball agreement. That's the "bias" we are discussing.

Mad_maxx

doublejobbing 2 wrote: »

Can somebody explain this one to me? Both the left in all its forms and the very small far right in this country always make this claim. That RTE has a FF FG bias.

Prime Time, and other RTE documentaries, have in recent years done widely recevied special investigations on issues which are either directly run by government, regulated by government, or are a monumental failure of government policy.

Off the top of my head

- mismanaged creches

- mismanaged nursing homes

- overcrowded unsafe rental accommodation

- more features on the housing crisis and hotel living than I care to remember

- that local FF or FG councillor in Monaghan or wherever it was taking bribes

- hospital beds crisis

- frequently giving a roasting to incompetent FF/ FG figures on Prime Time, the Week in Politics etc etc

The above are just a handful of examples of RTE shining a light on government mismanagement, either direct or regulatory.

They also give a more than equal billing to the hard left. They get 4 percent of the vote yet it is rare to see a four person panel discussion without one of Murphy, Barrett, Smith or, in the past, the odious Coppinger in attendance.

Regarding those who claim it has a left wing bias, I've seen a handful of pieces which would go against that. Prime Time broadcast a piece that asked questions about what exactly Ibrahim Halawa was doing in Egypt and who his father was really connected to. They did a piece on the decline of the Irish population in inner city Dublin.

They dropped the ball banning MLMD from the leaders debate that time (and I am no SF voter) but aside from that RTE really do tend to give everyone a fair slot.

the only area where RTE has a bias against a left wing party or left wing ideals is with respect of SF , they are undoubtedly very anti Sinn Fein

RTE has always been a Labour party home , with the demise of Labour , they have since devoted their love to the Soc Dems and the Greens but PBP are seen as at worst well meaning if a little naive

they might scratch the backs of FF and FG in order to pay the bills but they share no ideological thinking with either

CrazyFather1

Mad_maxx wrote: »

the only area where RTE has a bias against a left wing party or left wing ideals is with respect of SF , they are undoubtedly very anti Sinn Fein

RTE has always been a Labour party home , with the demise of Labour , they have since devoted their love to the Soc Dems and the Greens but PBP are seen as at worst well meaning if a little naive

they might scratch the backs of FF and FG in order to pay the bills but they share no ideological thinking with either

RTE are far from anti Sinn Fein, just look at the interview on the Late Late Show with Mary Lou. Ryan nearly tripping over himself to tell her how great she was.

The news every night has a huge push of SF into every story even if they have zero to add. Maybe 20 years ago when old Gaybo couldn't stomach sitting beside Gerry but that has long passed. RTE are more than happy to push the SF agenda as much as possible.

Mad_maxx

CrazyFather1 wrote: »

RTE are far from anti Sinn Fein, just look at the interview on the Late Late Show with Mary Lou. Ryan nearly tripping over himself to tell her how great she was.

The news every night has a huge push of SF into every story even if they have zero to add. Maybe 20 years ago when old Gaybo couldn't stomach sitting beside Gerry but that has long passed. RTE are more than happy to push the SF agenda as much as possible.

They push any progressive agenda that SF share with the middle class left

RTE never showed much sympathy for Northern nationalists

Irishphotodesk

doublejobbing 2 wrote: »

Can somebody explain this one to me? Both the left in all its forms and the very small far right in this country always make this claim. That RTE has a FF FG bias.

Prime Time, and other RTE documentaries, have in recent years done widely recevied special investigations on issues which are either directly run by government, regulated by government, or are a monumental failure of government policy.

Off the top of my head

- mismanaged creches

- mismanaged nursing homes

- overcrowded unsafe rental accommodation

- more features on the housing crisis and hotel living than I care to remember

- that local FF or FG councillor in Monaghan or wherever it was taking bribes

- hospital beds crisis

- frequently giving a roasting to incompetent FF/ FG figures on Prime Time, the Week in Politics etc etc

The above are just a handful of examples of RTE shining a light on government mismanagement, either direct or regulatory.

They also give a more than equal billing to the hard left. They get 4 percent of the vote yet it is rare to see a four person panel discussion without one of Murphy, Barrett, Smith or, in the past, the odious Coppinger in attendance.

Regarding those who claim it has a left wing bias, I've seen a handful of pieces which would go against that. Prime Time broadcast a piece that asked questions about what exactly Ibrahim Halawa was doing in Egypt and who his father was really connected to. They did a piece on the decline of the Irish population in inner city Dublin.

They dropped the ball banning MLMD from the leaders debate that time (and I am no SF voter) but aside from that RTE really do tend to give everyone a fair slot.

The highlighted part above is subject to a legal challenge later this year, if the whispers are true, and the challenge is upheld, there could be a payout to the crèche(s).

mynamejeff

.

smurgen

I think we need to look at the coverage of covid after all of this is done. I would argue that the opinion pieces by journalists masqueraded as news has been really unhelpful during the pandemic. It's created a sense of safety when there was only the illusion of safety and pitted certain businesses,lobby groups and organisations against one another. It's increased the cynicism and undermined health professionals and must shoulder a large amount of blame for where we are. The opinions should have been toned down and objective factual reporting increased.

MisterAnarchy

Fighting Tao wrote: »

“In this day and age, people want something that tends to affirm their views and opinions”, Christopher Ruddy - owner of Newsmax. It shows that he has an agenda. He is actually running an openly biased news outlet that tells his target audience exactly what they want to hear and that is not necessarily the truth.

No one is disagreeing that many news outlets (if some can even be called that) are not heavily biased.

Well at least Ruddy and Newsmax are being honest and upfront about it unlike so many other so called News channels.

Some channels have more scripted storylines than the WWE.

super_furry

CrazyFather1 wrote: »

RTE are far from anti Sinn Fein, just look at the interview on the Late Late Show with Mary Lou. Ryan nearly tripping over himself to tell her how great she was.
.

The Late Late Show is a light entertainment show. We're talking about News and Current Affairs.

MisterAnarchy

super_furry wrote: »

The Late Late Show is a light entertainment show. We're talking about News and Current Affairs.

The Late Late show is supposed to be light entertainment.
But somewhere over the last year it morphed into a propaganda brainwashing experiment.

Most weeks the show is a box ticking exercise in wokism and political correctness gone mad.
For example on one show there was a black singer suffering racism, an Asian ethnicity politician, some US political spiel with Gloria Estefan, the Covid fearmongering , and the weekly Trump bashing slot.

Its like something off the Twilight Zone and insulting to viewers, repeatedly shoving this garbage down their throats.

Tubs the teacher, teaching his audience to be better people.
We are so lucky to have him.

super_furry

super_furry wrote: »

The Late Late Show is a light entertainment show. We're talking about News and Current Affairs.

RTE are still very easy on SF. Mary-Lou took over leadership of SF from a guy who protected a paedophile, not once (afaik) has she been asked why she didn't try to have him removed from his position in the party as soon as that story broke.

Every time I see her I can't help but think "this woman worked with a person who protected a child rapist". It's such an obvious question and yet we'll be dead in the ground before RTE ask it.

Dyr

The mainstream media always had spin and pushed an agenda, its always courted polticians favour and vice versa.

What you're seeing now is that the spin has become more blatant as the agenda has become more extreme and is being challenged by more people. MSNBC, CNN, the New York times, the Guardian, they are all almost beyond parody.

AllForIt

Fighting Tao wrote: »

I’ll ask again.

What exactly is the spin? Is it that you just don’t like what you hear/read? What are your alternatives? How can you trust non main stream that have no standards?

What do you trust?

Spin = biased = one-sided = economical with the facts = brainwashing (e.g. fake discussions as per CNN), = favouritism = insinuations = targeted vilifications = ignoring some stories, pushing others. Etc.


I just tuned into Sky News and watched a story Sky News themselves created - which was Priti Patel didn't condemn Trump enough according to THEIR standards. After their initial interview with her they ran with a story about her in later updates. That's not the news, that's their spin/slant on things. The news is about what happened in the US not Patel. The news is not what SKY NEWS's opinion is on anything, unless you prefer for the media to think for you? Maybe you do.