I really hate journalism and the media

[Proud liberal 80]

So I click on CNN and see this headline

“Divided court upholds ban on political robocalls”

So I say that is interesting, I wonder the decision number (i.e 5-4) and who voted what way.

So I start reading the article and the second paragraph reads

In a decision that divided the court, Justice Brett Kavanaugh writes that an exception to the ban created by Congress is unconstitutional under the First Amendment -- and that the overall ban should remain in place.

So I am like ok so Kavanaugh was on the winning side of who else is.....after ready the whole damn thing it doesn’t tell me anything! Now I have to do some digging on my own.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/06/politics/robocalls-supreme-court-ruling/index.html

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. That's a pretty broad brush to be painting with.

Many journalists have been doing brilliant work to reveal the misdeeds of this administration. And there's nothing wrong with having to do a little digging on your own; all you would have needed to do was click on the link in the first sentence of the CNN report (so they did give you that information). To save you the effort, here's the answer:

KAVANAUGH, J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered
an opinion, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and ALITO, J., joined, and in which
THOMAS, J., joined as to Parts I and II. SOTOMAYOR, J., filed an opinion
concurring in the judgment. BREYER, J., filed an opinion concurring in
the judgment with respect to severability and dissenting in part, in
which GINSBURG and KAGAN, JJ., joined. GORSUCH, J., filed an opinion
concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part, in which
THOMAS, J., joined as to Part II.

And here's the link: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-631_2d93.pdf

[Proud liberal 80]

3. Yes it was a broad brush

And I was being a little facetious and sarcastic, with mild anger. I mean, how damn hard is it to actually report the actual breakdown...especially when you say it was a divided decision.

Thanks for providing what I was looking for. The breakdown was interesting and just what I figured. A close decision where it isn’t a liberal/conservative breakdown.

[Sherman A1]

2. Don't confuse

CNN and the rest of cable infotainment for journalism. Sometimes they brush up against it but that is rare. Mostly they are there to fill airtime between ads for drugs we never knew we needed.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

5. CNN had the information in the article.

However, it required the reader to (gasp!) click on a link, possibly because the answer to the question took up more space than was necessary for the short article, and it actually asked the reader to do a little thinking for themselves. Quelle horreur!

[live love laugh]

4. Mostly it's NOT journalism. That's the problem. nt

[SiliconValley_Dem]

6. i personally love the media. we would be toast without them

[Hoyt]

7. +1000000

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

8. Absolutely. They have their weaknesses - cable news especially -

but the print journalists at WaPo and NYT in particular have been doing stellar investigations.

[SWBTATTReg]

9. Don't blame journalism. It's the writers of the particular article(s) that is at fault. With...

the coming of the Internet, all of us are now journalists (of course some are professionals, most are amateur writers). Now whether we're good journalists or not, that depends of course on the audience and what the journalist(s) or their editors (if they're getting paid to write the article(s), write.

The important thing is that we all have a voice now (before the Internet, it was the 'letters to the editors' that allowed others to have a voice somewhat).

I'd prefer to not concentrate what a few players write on the world stage, e.g., CNN, Faux, etc. as they all have been pushed to the back of the crowd (a more minor voice in the overwhelming chorus of voices on the American stage), and there are far more voices to listen to, thank goodness. Of course the old saying 'garbage in, garage out' still applies, but we all know that.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

12. There was nothing wrong with the article.

The CNN writers were writing on deadline, and to have to explain the complicated arrangement of concurrences would have taken up a lot of words that most people probably wouldn't have been interested in. So instead, in the very first sentence of the article they linked to the opinion itself, which of course included all of that information. But it also required a teensy bit of effort and thought from readers - they'd have to click on the link and read through the syllabus, which would have been work and they wouldn't get the spoon-feeding they expected.

[Proud liberal 80]

13. Like I said

“Now I will have to do some research.” I hate clicking links on articles, it should have been explained in the article I am reading. It wouldn’t have hurt to put the Bottom Line Upfront....I stand by my claim that there was a problem with article...not many people want to read through and SCOTUS decision when they are busy doing other stuff...it was my intent to read the article to get the bottom line, and when I had more time to go back and read the decision for my own. ....and yes, I shouldn’t have to do as much work as I did.....sorry that I am not as gifted and intelligent as you are.

[Cirque du So-What]

10. Unless you like negative attention

I recommend changing your title in the OP to something less controversial. Many people recognize that the media play a vitally important role.

[onecaliberal]

11. It was suggested to me not long ago to seek out print media and pod casts for news.

I have taken that advice to heart. It really is much better than cable. I watch CNN here and there, it seems to me they are all out of fucks to give about dump and his supporters.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

14. The story was posted at DU this morning at 10:58 a.m.

Supreme Court upholds law banning cellphone robocalls

Also, most, but not all, of these twitter accounts are run by people who are in the print media:

Mon Jun 22, 2020: Twitter accounts that will be following the SC this morning and the rest of the time:

https://twitter.com/scotusblog

https://twitter.com/scotusreporter

https://twitter.com/hsu_spencer

https://twitter.com/AHoweBlogger

https://twitter.com/GregStohr

https://twitter.com/JoanBiskupic

https://twitter.com/Arianedevogue

https://twitter.com/adamliptak

https://twitter.com/mjs_DC

I'll add Pete Williams, but he seems not to tweet anymore:

https://twitter.com/PeteWilliamsNBC

[Proud liberal 80]

15. The USA Today article

Was much better than the CNN article and explained the decision breakdown.

[JonLP24]

16. Out of the 3 cable news CNN is the only one I will watch

I might watch Rachel Maddow but I gave up on MSNBC during the primaries.

The problem is corporate consolidation of the media.

Partisan media aberrations began under President Bill Clinton (& Reagan)

I discovered the other day, the deregulation [Telecommunications Act] that allowed for cross-media outlets to coalesce under a single owner was signed under President Bill Clinton, not President George W. Bush as I’ve proclaimed several times in various formats. My sincere apologies for this misleading information. I also discovered it was President Ronald Reagan who got rid of the Fairness Doctrine (FCC rule from 1949-87) for radio and broadcast mediums. These two actions are primary contributors to our current partisan divide.

Think of the McLaughlin Report as a Fairness Doctrine representation. A mediator with two peered individuals debating a subject from objective viewpoints, peered being key to the fairness aspect. This allows the audience to hear dissenting positions and format their own opinion.

With the recension of this doctrine, right-wing talk-radio arose, and then partisan news in its many formats today. These singular perspectives act as propaganda machines (intentional or not) and inflame our partisan bickering by labeling or alluding to the political opposition as enemy.

President Clinton’s deregulation consolidated competition, limiting the diversity of narratives reaching the public, thereby creating a less informed population. A well-informed citizenry is crucial to the functioning of a representative republic.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.desmoinesregister.com/amp/573742001

[hunter]

17. Television news and opinion is toxic. Don't support it.

Trump would be nobody without television.

My wife and I quit cable and broadcast television a long time ago.

We have an $8.99 subscription to Netflix and we rent or occasionally buy DVDs. We haven't run out of stuff to watch. We never suffer television commercials.

Mostly we read our news and opinion. We have electronic subscriptions to several newspapers local, national, and international. We still get a paper in our driveway as well.

We also support our local public radio station. They make me nuts sometimes with the corporate and bothsiderism shit, but better them on than religious bullshit that would make Jesus go on a rampage.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

18. I'm quite fond of Journalism, but not its evil cousin Infotainment. nt