No more topics sexualizing individuals

[Sabby]

You guys have to remember that no creditable news agency ever runs a story accusing someone of a serious crime or ethical issue without first fact checking, seeking evidence, interviewing credible sources and then double checking the facts again. So when the shit hits the nightly news; it's usually fairly correct accusations. Now that stuff on twitter that's open to anyone... yea it's a lost cause. I don't consider it nor any social media in general credible.

This immediately sprang to mind. Although I'm sure there are other instances, and sure, it may not qualify as your definition of "credible news agency," but that article was very powerful when it came out.

That's a much better example.

[whiterabbit]

Yea but you guys are taking the few bad examples and towing out the baby with the bath water. Also the rolling stone and CNN are not true journalistic entities. One is more tabloid while the other is a news arrogate reporting on other's journalist news stories. CNN does do news to a point but they are also smitten by the entertainment bug. Still in most cases the facts are sorted out before hand.

[Sabby]

Yea but you guys are taking the few bad examples and towing out the baby with the bath water. Also the rolling stone and CNN are not true journalistic entities. One is more tabloid while the other is a news arrogate reporting on other's journalist news stories. CNN does do news to a point but they are also smitten by the entertainment bug. Still in most cases the facts are sorted out before hand.

But are they, though? Can they really be 'bitten by the entertainment bug' and also adhere to the kinds of strict journalistic ethics that would be necessary to make a massive reporting entity like CNN not corrupt? We can piss and moan all day about what the definition of journalism is and what entity is and isn't a journalistic outlet, but I see no reason to try and quarantine these events as just a few bad apples. They could very well be indicative of a greater problem. That's something you have to investigate, not just dismissed.

Arguing CNN into a 'reporting aggregate', and so 'not really journalism', doesn't really address any concerns. I'm not even sure what exactly it's supposed to do, if not obfuscate the issue.

[whiterabbit]

CNN reports the news from other sources. Such as the AP and Reuters and then they talk about it. For a long time. They don't do much of their own investigative reporting because it is a very expensive endeavor and 24 hours a day is a lot to fill.

All news can have a liberal, conservative or nihilist bias as a few examples. However those that distrust journalism more often then not have fallen victim to propaganda when arriving at a reason to believe or not to believe something. Also you have to separate what is journalism and opinionated news programming. The line's been blurred between what is news and entertainment. Most on air 24 hour tv news channels and radio are not journalism, they are opinion and entertainment. Many newspaper agencies are still manned by journalist's and adhere to strict ethical guidelines.  If they didn't, they would be out of there. Too many interest in the world want people to believe that journalist are not to be trusted but they are doing the same job as they have done for well over a hundred years and that is to get the facts out there.

So when people site a loss of confidence is journalism that is troubling. However is it really what is happening or just confusion on what is and is not real journalism. I mean you think fake news was by accident?

[Sabby]

So when people site a loss of confidence is journalism that is troubling.

Speaking personally, my distrust comes from everything you said before this quoted text. Specifically, this.

Also you have to separate what is journalism and opinionated news programming. The line's been blurred between what is news and entertainment. Most on air 24 hour tv news channels and radio are not journalism, they are opinion and entertainment. Many newspaper agencies are still manned by journalist's and adhere to strict ethical guidelines.

EVEN if I grant you that last part, and that's a big even, you're still describing exactly the kind of environment where shit like that Rolling Stones article and its effects can become more prevalent. It's a danger you have to consider. The 24 hour news cycle and the need for views is poison to integrity. Telling me there's 'pure sources' out there that the likes of CNN can draw from doesn't really reassure me, man, it just makes those sources seem powerless and likely to get a bit tainted themselves.

However is it really what is happening or just confusion on what is and is not real journalism. I mean you think fake news was by accident?

What, exactly, are you saying here? I don't want to misunderstand you, and I also don't want to be misunderstood as irrationally against 'da mainstream media what is evil and money'. I want to be able to trust news sources, really, but as you've said, the lines are blurred. I always feel like I'm walking a minefield whenever I need to find a source on anything to add to these discussions, just in case it's a shitty source that looks presentable and I end up looking bad and discrediting whatever point I'm trying to get across.

Honestly, such a scenario makes the minutia of journalism vs reporting seem kind of pointless. Does it matter where the information is coming from if the way I need to consume it is this f**ked? The potential presence of good corn in a shit tornado isn't very appealing.

[Alionic]

Before you believe anything you read or see in the media, look at where their funding and advertising revenue is coming from. Most American media companies receive the bulk of their money from 1) defense contractors, 2) big pharma, 3) insurance companies, and 4) oligarchs/billionaires. For instance, the WaPo is currently a subsidiary of Amazon--which currently has a $600 million contract with the CIA. Is it any wonder why the WaPo is constantly shilling for more war and foreign intervention?

WaPo and CNN are hot garbage.

[Shinawi]

[Sabby]

So how many individuals have you people sexualized today?

[Biomechanoid]

When I honk my horn at a woman walking along, any you ladies consider that sexual harassment?

[Samhain13]

So how many individuals have you people sexualized today?

Not enough.

When I honk my horn at a woman walking along, any you ladies consider that sexual harassment?

That's pretty much rape nowadays.

[BigDaddyJohn]

So how many individuals have you people sexualized today?

Not enough.

When I honk my horn at a woman walking along, any you ladies consider that sexual harassment?

That's pretty much rape nowadays.

[Scorpio]

When I honk my horn at a woman walking along, any you ladies consider that sexual harassment?

I'm not a lady, but that's pretty stupid and annoying, why would you do that?

[SM]

Ladies?  Here?  With the kind of attitudes on display?

[Biomechanoid]

I'm not a lady, but that's pretty stupid and annoying, why would you do that?

When I honk my horn at a man, any you gentlemen consider that sexual harassment?

[Samhain13]

I'm not a lady, but that's pretty stupid and annoying, why would you do that?

When I honk my horn at a man, any you gentlemen consider that sexual harassment?

Depends on how good you look.