"We Don't Make the News" and Other Lies the Media Tell Themselves

[Nevilledog]

https://couriernewsroom.com/news/we-dont-make-the-news-and-other-lies-the-media-tell-themselves/

Journalists like to tell us what’s happening, but they hate being held responsible for what happens. “We just report the news,” they say. “We don’t make the news.”

And if MAGA fascism prevails in America, most journalists won’t think they bear any responsibility.

We warned you, they’ll say.

We put the fascists on TV so you could see how bad they were. We let them lie about the government and spread hatred toward marginalized groups. We showed you who the fascists were. And to make sure you got the message, we gave right-wing extremist liars huge amounts of airtime day after day, year after year. We amplified fascist hatred. We figured the public would know these people were lying and hateful. And we pushed back sometimes, too, but man, do those fascists talk fast, so we couldn’t correct everything.

You see, it’s not our fault. We were just doing our job.

When news organizations defend their platforming of fascist liars, they don’t seem to understand the power of television, especially its ability to legitimize extremism. Many viewers think if someone is on TV, it means they’re important. And if they didn’t have something significant to say, TV stations wouldn’t put them on the air. Right?

*snip*

[LiberalFighter]

1. Exactly what Katy Tur has been doing. She had that scum Robert Ray on.

[inthewind21]

3. Yet

You watch.

[cachukis]

4. I would argue that Mr. Ray has a perspective we should be aware of.

Don't have to like him, but the opposition does exist.

[inthewind21]

2. Tell themselves?

What they (the media) "tell themselves" matters not, it's the public who hangs on their every word as gospel that's the issue.

[crickets]

5. Which brings up the question: what is the media's job?

So what should media do? Ignore a major political party completely? No. But avoid live interviews with consistently dishonest people. Record the interviews and fact-check them thoroughly. Consider not sharing their dishonest statements with your audience. Also, tell your guests that if they keep lying, you won’t invite them back.

For a media intent on disseminating facts and truthful information, this would be part of the job, of course. But that's not what media pundits are hired for in the main, and most of the talking heads we see these days are pundits, not journalists. 'News' channels no longer care about the news, just about hooking an audience and raking in the profits. That one cost of those profits might be the demise of the country isn't being added to bottom line calculations.

[inthewind21]

6. I'll go

a bit more and say, what is seen on Cable isn't "news" it's 96% commentary, speculation and discussion with a tiny bit of actual news tossed in. That's the mistake that's being made by viewers, thinking they are watching "news" shows. They aren't. The majority are not really unlike "The View" or any other talk show just with mostly political discussion/commentary/opinion. And really not many of them have news in their title at all. MSNBC doesn't have a single show that I know of with the word NEWS in the title. Dateline, Meet the Press, Deadline White House, Morning Joe, The Last Word, 11th Hour, The Beat, The Reidout, Velshi, All In, The Rachel Maddow Show. NONE with the word NEWS in their title. Same with the other cable networks. There are a very few, but not many. When I watch THE NEWS, it's local. Everything else, is commentary/discussion/opinion.

[gratuitous]

7. Yeah, right

After all, during the 2004 campaign, the New York Times sat on an explosive story that showed the Bush administration had been spying domestically on U.S. citizens. It was the kind of thing that could be embarrassing for a presidential candidate, and darn-near impeach worthy for a sitting president. The Times held the story for eight months or so and then boldly published it in December 2004 once the election was safely decided in favor of George W. Bush. But they never missed a chance to publish whatever nonsense the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were peddling on any given day. But that's not making the news; the Times said they sat on the domestic spying story because publishing it in the middle of the campaign might have influenced the campaign. See?

In the same way, the Times faithfully published James Comey's tidbit about the investigation into Hillary Clinton's e-mail server the week before the election. Front page. Ominous headline and all. But that's not making the news; they were just publishing what Comey had to say. See?

Every journalistic decision about what to publish or what to air (or not) is part of making the news. Any journalist or media outlet that says differently is lying, and the audience should not hesitate to ask why.