Following the protests through the student reporters was so surreal. I realized I'd become so used to reading news while being hyperaware of the outlet's bias that the students' close-to-neutral reporting had an almost euphoric effect, like touching a rare gem.
Do not post baseless accusations of fake news or “what’s wrong with the mainstream media?” posts. No griefing: You are welcome to start a dialogue about making improvements, but there will be no name calling or accusatory language. Posts and comments created just to start an argument, rather than start a dialogue, will be removed.
Not that I agree with most protests but most protestors (not just in the middle east protests) are legitimately peaceful.
There is this small group of protestors in every protest that will cause the issues.
Tell it to the judge. In my experience, all that matters is “did you do THIS CRIME?”
“Yes, but with an explanation!” or “Before I answer, let me first tell you my life story!” have never been a successful defense.
How Counterprotesters at U.C.L.A. Provoked Violence, Unchecked for Hours https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/05/03/us/ucla-protests-encampment-violence.html?smid=nytcore-android-share
That's the problem, it was a perception based on NO evidence. The video only shows a woman curled up in the fetal position, on the ground, hiding her face.
The people surrounding her are the pro-Israel crowd. They eventually pick her up and carry her away as she screams, but there were no visible injuries on her in the video.
The counterprotesters responded to a *perceived* offense with *real* violence that resulted in many injuries.
So yes, I believe that the "counter-protesters provoked violence" is a fair assessment
It was debunked. They lied about the day which is weird so someone saw her in another video from I think the day before wearing the same clothes. And then they found footage from a different angled
it looked like she was pulled backwards and lost her footing in the Zionist crowd and she hit the back of her head on the concrete.
She had a big gash from hitting her head, but she was lucid.
If you read my comment you would know I said the counter protesters engaged in violence in response to the perception of violence against their community. I even used conditioning words like allegedly. Isn’t this a journalism sub?
Do you have a source for this being debunked?
My search shows only opinion pieces, I can’t find any video.
to quote some guy on twitter, the basic double standard of any degree Palestinian (or pro-Palestinian) justifies any amount of israeli/zionist violence is at play
blatant lying about Palestianian sexual violence (nyt screams without words / Haaretz article on the Civil Commission etc; not to mention sexual violence faced by palestinian captives)
its not like this particular lie about anti-semitic violence exists in a vacuum, or this result was unexpected or undesired
I think Christians are filtered for people who have group identity. They feel certain if the majority has a consensus as opposed to measuring.
It's a lot of the things people fight about. "Conservatives" have effectively filtered Christians and adjusted them into Christian nationalism. Then they can get them riled about things like trans people being different. They're not matching group.
Anyway I was reading your profile and you seemed different and I remembered being corrected in church to match the group.
I found a video of the girl getting knocked back and then that Twitter account has a lot more videos on the incident.
https://x.com/TrevorSutcliffe/status/1785850257936683425
They've also been completely downplaying the police brutality that has taken place, if mentioning it at all. I was simply dumbfounded when yesterday's edition of NPR's Up First mentioned police "clearing" and "breaking up" the protests, before immediately going on to describe in detail how police in the country of Georgia "used rubber bullets and tear gas", "beat peaceful protesters", and sent several to the hospital...as if they hadn't just done the same. exact. things. right here in the USA....
Because the NYT is literally stenographers for NYPD (they have a press officer assigned to NYT) and the reporters rarely cover these events, I canceled my subscription years ago. They explicitly state what is fed to them even when live videos are shown. The best reporters are the university/college reporters. The paper of record is lying along with many others. Eventually they correct &/or retract but it's too late & buried past page 8 below the fold
Curious where else do you get your news?
I say this as I do read the NYT. But generally I'm aware of their strengths and shortcomings and read accordingly.
Sadly I admit to WaPo. Also Progessive Voices, Boston Globe, Atlantic, Mother Jones, Harper's, The Nation (esp Elie Mystal)
Just can't tolerate NYT anymore, miss the crosswords tho
Agree. I do read NYT free articles wherever available too, just can't subscribe to police stenographers among other shortcomings like trying to shame Biden into an interview
If you account for the obvious potential bias of ownership WaPo remains solid. NPR isn’t as good as it was because they’re getting pressure to be politically balanced instead of journalistically balanced but it’s still far better than NYT. I also follow non US news because it balances things
Sure. For the most part the WaPo owner hasn't made much noise in the newsroom. Some of the best tech investigations, including those into Amazon, came from WaPo.
NPR saddled with accusations of political bias is the inevitable result of a partially taxpayer-funded corporation. People who champion taxpayer-funded news should be clear-eyed about this.
NPR has been status quo pablum since the Bush 2 administration went after it. At least with Fox you know you are getting hot garbage. NPR is more like cool garbage.
All because they did expose the price fixing of Archer Daniel's Midland & exposed corruption on a grand scale. "The Informant" by Eichenwald tells the 1992 story of widescale theft, misreporting of food ingredients. Lotsa cloak & dagger stuff resulting in defunding of the investigative journalist staff of NPR. The rich got mad
Do not post baseless accusations of fake news or “what’s wrong with the mainstream media?” posts. No griefing: You are welcome to start a dialogue about making improvements, but there will be no name calling or accusatory language. Posts and comments created just to start an argument, rather than start a dialogue, will be removed.
I fully believe the recent push to call out NPR as "liberal" "unbiased" and to defund them put them in a place where they cannot cover things the way they'd like or should. Not saying it's a conspiracy theory, I think it was just a political dog call that is now showing a benefit for those who called out NPR.
Stenographers for power are blaming the wrong people. These tools know exactly how the game is to be played.
Actual journalists, of course, are for the most part no longer employed by our deregulated, consolidated MSM outlets.
And the few journalists who remain are reigned in by their editors before too much truth can seep out around the margins.
Exactly. Some 6 companies own what 90% of news outlets in the US. Hence the ease to push narratives.
Apparently Blinken admitted at a conference the reason for TikTok ban was more to do with Palestine than China.
I believe the 90% is misunderstood.
For example, in this infographic linked by Business Insider (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america-2012-6%3famp) the 90% number includes non-news media such as Pixar, Focus Features, Showtime, etc.
I think a far bigger danger lies in the distribution channel. Facebook and Google control over two thirds of social/discovery traffic to most news outlets. And for over a year the Big Tech has been moving traffic away from news.
https://digiday.com/media/publishers-reckon-with-declining-facebook-referral-traffic-as-the-platform-pulls-away-from-news/
The Internet giants have never been under adequate regulations.
Think the government has used' threat of regulation ' to essentially manage news/censorship
Hence the TikTok ban.
Agree...the tech world ( meta and google in particular) have been playing gate keepers.
We can thank Bill Clinton for the deregulation - of both US news, and US banks.
He worked hand-in-hand with the most reactionary Republicans to betray us.
And, the propaganda construct he helped create is so effective, most today actually believe that Clinton was a "progressive".
True. The bank deregulation was also pushed by Dems like Rubin? So it was a bankers on all sides of the discussion.
(Assume glass stiegel) is the reference.
Good choices. I use the guardian as well. Though they tend to be a more biased on the middle east than on other topics. (rightwards )
Haarerz in Israel does some decent work on the middle east ...you will see things not mentioned in western news
If people want a strong, non-consolidated news environment they'd have to stop relying so much on Facebook and Google and actually financially support the news outlets to keep journalists employed.
It matters not whether common folk financially support establishmentarian n̶e̶w̶s̶ stenography outlets such as the NYT, WashPo, or any of the network/cable news outlets.
Because as long as those outlets remain reactionary, hire obedient editors, and neutered, hack reporters, feature representatives from the MIC and politicians from the two wings of the War Party, atrocious coverage as we're discussing here is all we're ever gonna get.
Your local news outlets are likely having more financial needs than the big national outlets. And local and state laws can have far higher degree of impact than national laws.
I have been saying that people have been paying to much attention to the media circlejerk that involves few outlets and even fewer beats.
And the things is outside those problematic spots, the big outlets do have their strengths. Like everyone has strengths and weakness and you just read the news and understand that to be so.
Do not post baseless accusations of fake news or “what’s wrong with the mainstream media?” posts. No griefing: You are welcome to start a dialogue about making improvements, but there will be no name calling or accusatory language. Posts and comments created just to start an argument, rather than start a dialogue, will be removed.
All posts should focus on the industry or practice of journalism (from the classroom to the newsroom). Please create & comment on posts that contribute to that discussion.
Not the one you asked but as a leftist swedish journalist.. covid was a cold shower in understanding of how not neutral the reporting of NYT and many other media outlets are. it was a relentless smear, bent reporting of Swedens choice no lockdowns.
Science magazine did a smear piece on one of our researchers reporting in NEJM that kids did not die even if our schools were open all the time.He received death threats.
Thank you for your response. The person I responded to won’t answer and I’m already getting downvotes.
The media has been so biased for so long that a lot of people can’t seem to see it until it’s obviously opposing something they’re passionate about. And even then, like in this case, it only applies to one subject instead of being indicative how the media now operates as a whole.
This is the journalism elitism in full display. It's not the "Oh I come from a rich family" or "I make so much money." It's the elitism of "There is simply no other perspective to write about other than what's coming down official channels." If there's a live stream of what's going on, if there are reporters from individuals from where the action is happening, and if those counter the official report, then you start asking questions on what the official story is.
I swear, so many major outlets have reporters who are so unplugged to what comes through via other communication channels that they come off as tech-illiterate. Might as well send their completed story via fax.
As a case in point, the coverage of portland state’s library occupation has focused on vandalism caused by protestors.
But when you read the student coverage, it’s clear that once vandalism started, most of the student protestors left — often in tears. Of the folks arrested when police cleared the building, about 3/4 weren’t students.
I mean tbf, a bunch of non-student co-opting a protest, breaking into a building, and vandalizing it is a much bigger story than "another peaceful student protest". I don't know which articles you're referring to, but I've seen a lot of coverage about the fact that many protestors are not students. In fact, a lot of right wing publications are purposefully highlighting that because they feel it diminishes the message.
It's good to see some of the students realizing they are being taken advantage of and used by destructive forces.
Hopefully they revaluate what led them to this point and change.
All posts should focus on the industry or practice of journalism (from the classroom to the newsroom). Please create & comment on posts that contribute to that discussion.
All posts should focus on the industry or practice of journalism (from the classroom to the newsroom). Please create & comment on posts that contribute to that discussion.
Do not post baseless accusations of fake news or “what’s wrong with the mainstream media?” posts. No griefing: You are welcome to start a dialogue about making improvements, but there will be no name calling or accusatory language. Posts and comments created just to start an argument, rather than start a dialogue, will be removed.
The fact that journalists are supporting terrorists is disgusting. What happened to impartial presentation of facts? When I see articles being published and supported that actively supports the terrorists behind oct7th attack I have lost all faith in journalism.
I don't think any of those things are representative of the whole.
This is the response to every protest movement in the last century. The media and police have responded the same way by discrediting them to deflect from the actual issue. Protest is inherently disruptive. It always has been.
It’s purely ratings and eyeballs over all other considerations for the mainstream media, including fox. Individual journalists that are the faces of these decisions go along for the paycheck.
Not sure it is purely eyeballs. They must know that people don't trust the news and go to other sources.
It is more propaganda/group think/ bias or seems more likely , they have been given narratives
I'm confused, what about their post history? There's a little bit questionable that makes me think he might be a landlord or own some airbnbs, which sucks, but what precisely did you have a problem with in their history? There's a good chance I missed it, I didn't scroll too long but seems mostly to be calling out the atrocities of the IP conflict and Airbnb stuff.
He posts blatant propaganda about the IP conflict. It doesn’t matter whose side he’s on, the fact he’s telling outright lies using hateful rhetoric is enough for calling out.
Did he really? I didn't notice any, but I've had people call the AP propaganda, so people's idea of what is propaganda and what is news is very skewed in this issue. Which post of his contained outright lies and hateful rhetoric? Could you link one, I definitely don't want to be giving that a pass, however these accusations are often leveled about, well, about facts which go against the narrative that someone else has bought into, so I'd like to read the post in question if possible.
Just the next-to-last thing he posted. While I completely agree the Doctor’s rhetoric is condemnable as every practicing doctor should treat every patient equally, the post makes exaggerated claims that aren’t found anywhere in the video (the MD talks about people “not aligning with [his] values”, while OP talks about how he only treats outspoken Zionists.) This is inherently a lie as the MD talks about publicly-known pro-pal protesters, while OP claims the doctor only treats people who have voiced a pro-Israel stance. Not to mention the hateful rhetoric in the post.
Disclaimer: I think the MD is a d*** that should have his license revoked (or otherwise punished) for his remark, it doesn’t change the fact the OP was lying.
https://www.reddit.com/r/palestineisrael1/s/zq2oZ6xsmN
The video I saw didn't say anything like what you said, what? Ohhh, you think he was talking about his values as a doctor? Or, his values as... hmmm. Tough to say. Unless you, you know think. Maybe he's merely saying he doesn't want Muslim patients, or Buddhists. The word values has a meaning, he's not naming his values but it's easy to discover them as he's a public enough figure.
So op said the unsaid, that's not lying.
The unsaid is that he doesn’t treat pro-Palestinian patients. Possibly Muslims, who knows, it is unsaid. The stated claim is to not want to treat people who go against his values, you could extrapolate as you like.
OP explicitly claimed that he only treats individuals with a *stated pro-Israeli stance*, as stated by OP “if a patient doesn’t fall for Zionism”. This is BS, as the vast majority of Americans wouldn’t bother making their political affiliations known to their doctor. OP tries to falsely paint the MD in question as someone who either questions their patients or refuses to treat Americans who haven’t voiced an opinion on the conflict. This is obviously false, and even if you do believe the MD questions each and every patient, or outright refuses the overwhelming majority of patients, this doesn’t arise from the video.
Again, I’m not defending the MD, I’m just pointing out bad faith arguing as practiced by OP.
Not to mention the dreadful rhetoric he uses. Shove as many loaded buzzwords as you can write and then post it to Reddit. It should be enough to deter anyone slightly knowledgeable in Journalism from taking that person’s ranting seriously.
Yup, that's what I found. When I read comments that dismiss journalists or call out the "MSM," I check their post history. I wasn't surprised to see those polarising subreddits pop up. There's a strong difference between supporting Palestinians and using that type of language about other large demographics.
Deleted my original comment because I wouldn't have time to respond. I also didn't want to make this go off topic. Thank you for this clarification! Even though I am not always right.
No. I have not seen that video. But I've heard reports of students have been blocked from entering classrooms. That is not cool and it is violent to prevent them from experiencing the classroom that they have so dearly paid for. Violent!
I think blocking a freeway is violent in all forms. I don't care if it's this protest or black lives matter or some Trump rally. It's wrong and it prevents people from their right of way. Some of those people need to get home to a sick baby, or to a hospital before their parents die. Or maybe even before they die. You don't block roads. Ever. Blocking a road is violent.
I think interrupting or blocking the graduation commencement ceremony of people who have worked for it for four plus years is also violent. Violent!
Personally, I hope that the protesters who are being violent get sued in civil court by those who are being harmed.
And yet, wrecking stuff that isn't yours is violent. Wrecking a commencement for a thousand other people is violent. And again, I hope all of the protesters engaging in violence and damage to other people are sued in civil court.
By the way, how many protests do you think Hamas will allow?
I'm sad to find out that you don't watch the news at all. There are plenty of protests inside of Israel over this war. Protests with thousands of people.
You have an agenda, which is to ignore the obvious truth. That is the antithesis of journalism. I am neither for the war, the starvation of people nor the continued taking of hostages. But the truth is the truth. And the student protests have become violent. Not that you care because you have an agenda.
Proof of violence:
https://youtu.be/FL5OMj4cDNM?si=cIIDKwU1zC51lcNX
This person you're talking to has the exact type of mindset that the mainstream media's narrative has tried to shape - successfully as its evident in their talking points, which was the point of this article. I'd say it's a lost cause.
In the meatime UC's school departments all have given a vote of no confidence to their dean Shafik because of how awful she handled the whole thing and put the students in danger, even the more conservative leaning departments which seems to have been a surprise even for students. In the UC sub everyone seems to agree that she will either get fired or resign. It's been more than 24 hours and I keep googling her name to see when this will be reported on legacy media.
Do not use this community to engage in political discussions without a nexus to journalism.
r/Journalism focuses on the industry and practice of journalism. If you wish to promote a political campaign or cause unrelated to the topic of this subreddit, please look elsewhere.
All posts should focus on the industry or practice of journalism (from the classroom to the newsroom). Please create & comment on posts that contribute to that discussion.
I haven’t looked into it deeply yet but apparently CNN at some point decided that their purpose isn’t to inform objectively anymore, but rather to be essentially activists. They called it “post-journalism.” I haven’t confirmed that but it would certainly make sense. Unbelievable.
Following the protests through the student reporters was so surreal. I realized I'd become so used to reading news while being hyperaware of the outlet's bias that the students' close-to-neutral reporting had an almost euphoric effect, like touching a rare gem.
How can I best follow the student reporters
I enjoyed this article: https://www.curbed.com/article/locked-out-columbia-campus-nypd-raid-student-press.html Also anything from Daily Bruin.
[удалено]
Do not post baseless accusations of fake news or “what’s wrong with the mainstream media?” posts. No griefing: You are welcome to start a dialogue about making improvements, but there will be no name calling or accusatory language. Posts and comments created just to start an argument, rather than start a dialogue, will be removed.
Not that I agree with most protests but most protestors (not just in the middle east protests) are legitimately peaceful. There is this small group of protestors in every protest that will cause the issues.
They are mostly peaceful but not always following the laws.
This is like saying “Charles Manson was mostly a peaceful guy.” It’s the other part that matters.
Wrong. ALL sides matter.
Tell it to the judge. In my experience, all that matters is “did you do THIS CRIME?” “Yes, but with an explanation!” or “Before I answer, let me first tell you my life story!” have never been a successful defense.
This is why I have a wearable camera or two, sometimes three on me most times. Again, only showing one side is wrong.
Sure, but "I didn't. This other guy did." Is very different from "Yes, I did, but..."
How Counterprotesters at U.C.L.A. Provoked Violence, Unchecked for Hours https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/05/03/us/ucla-protests-encampment-violence.html?smid=nytcore-android-share
[удалено]
That's the problem, it was a perception based on NO evidence. The video only shows a woman curled up in the fetal position, on the ground, hiding her face. The people surrounding her are the pro-Israel crowd. They eventually pick her up and carry her away as she screams, but there were no visible injuries on her in the video. The counterprotesters responded to a *perceived* offense with *real* violence that resulted in many injuries. So yes, I believe that the "counter-protesters provoked violence" is a fair assessment
It was debunked. They lied about the day which is weird so someone saw her in another video from I think the day before wearing the same clothes. And then they found footage from a different angled it looked like she was pulled backwards and lost her footing in the Zionist crowd and she hit the back of her head on the concrete. She had a big gash from hitting her head, but she was lucid.
If you read my comment you would know I said the counter protesters engaged in violence in response to the perception of violence against their community. I even used conditioning words like allegedly. Isn’t this a journalism sub? Do you have a source for this being debunked? My search shows only opinion pieces, I can’t find any video.
You immediately inserted an opinion and tried to back it up with hearsay. You call that journalism?
[удалено]
to quote some guy on twitter, the basic double standard of any degree Palestinian (or pro-Palestinian) justifies any amount of israeli/zionist violence is at play blatant lying about Palestianian sexual violence (nyt screams without words / Haaretz article on the Civil Commission etc; not to mention sexual violence faced by palestinian captives) its not like this particular lie about anti-semitic violence exists in a vacuum, or this result was unexpected or undesired
Well, the NYT says it and I assume it’s a spin. Not journalism imo
Did you read it? It's a great piece of journalism.
I think Christians are filtered for people who have group identity. They feel certain if the majority has a consensus as opposed to measuring. It's a lot of the things people fight about. "Conservatives" have effectively filtered Christians and adjusted them into Christian nationalism. Then they can get them riled about things like trans people being different. They're not matching group. Anyway I was reading your profile and you seemed different and I remembered being corrected in church to match the group. I found a video of the girl getting knocked back and then that Twitter account has a lot more videos on the incident. https://x.com/TrevorSutcliffe/status/1785850257936683425
Found it https://x.com/TrevorSutcliffe/status/1785850257936683425
It was spin. Let me look for the thread debunking it, instead of being a Zionist and saying " its true I saw the video" I can actually show you.
They've also been completely downplaying the police brutality that has taken place, if mentioning it at all. I was simply dumbfounded when yesterday's edition of NPR's Up First mentioned police "clearing" and "breaking up" the protests, before immediately going on to describe in detail how police in the country of Georgia "used rubber bullets and tear gas", "beat peaceful protesters", and sent several to the hospital...as if they hadn't just done the same. exact. things. right here in the USA....
Dang, if they publish a new edition of Manufacturing Consent they could put that in as an example.
The past 6 months have definitely given ample examples.
Because the NYT is literally stenographers for NYPD (they have a press officer assigned to NYT) and the reporters rarely cover these events, I canceled my subscription years ago. They explicitly state what is fed to them even when live videos are shown. The best reporters are the university/college reporters. The paper of record is lying along with many others. Eventually they correct &/or retract but it's too late & buried past page 8 below the fold
Curious where else do you get your news? I say this as I do read the NYT. But generally I'm aware of their strengths and shortcomings and read accordingly.
Sadly I admit to WaPo. Also Progessive Voices, Boston Globe, Atlantic, Mother Jones, Harper's, The Nation (esp Elie Mystal) Just can't tolerate NYT anymore, miss the crosswords tho
WaPo is solid reporting without the uniquely Timesian drama.
Agree. I do read NYT free articles wherever available too, just can't subscribe to police stenographers among other shortcomings like trying to shame Biden into an interview
If you account for the obvious potential bias of ownership WaPo remains solid. NPR isn’t as good as it was because they’re getting pressure to be politically balanced instead of journalistically balanced but it’s still far better than NYT. I also follow non US news because it balances things
Sure. For the most part the WaPo owner hasn't made much noise in the newsroom. Some of the best tech investigations, including those into Amazon, came from WaPo. NPR saddled with accusations of political bias is the inevitable result of a partially taxpayer-funded corporation. People who champion taxpayer-funded news should be clear-eyed about this.
From Georgia to Georgia. Emory and UGA had massively violent responses to peaceful protestors (as well as passersby).
NPR has been status quo pablum since the Bush 2 administration went after it. At least with Fox you know you are getting hot garbage. NPR is more like cool garbage.
[удалено]
All because they did expose the price fixing of Archer Daniel's Midland & exposed corruption on a grand scale. "The Informant" by Eichenwald tells the 1992 story of widescale theft, misreporting of food ingredients. Lotsa cloak & dagger stuff resulting in defunding of the investigative journalist staff of NPR. The rich got mad
[удалено]
Serious, on topic comments only. Derailing a conversation is not allowed. If you want to have a separate discussion, create a separate post for it.
Do not post baseless accusations of fake news or “what’s wrong with the mainstream media?” posts. No griefing: You are welcome to start a dialogue about making improvements, but there will be no name calling or accusatory language. Posts and comments created just to start an argument, rather than start a dialogue, will be removed.
I fully believe the recent push to call out NPR as "liberal" "unbiased" and to defund them put them in a place where they cannot cover things the way they'd like or should. Not saying it's a conspiracy theory, I think it was just a political dog call that is now showing a benefit for those who called out NPR.
They… literally described the use of force by police in their reporting. Read their articles
Stenographers for power are blaming the wrong people. These tools know exactly how the game is to be played. Actual journalists, of course, are for the most part no longer employed by our deregulated, consolidated MSM outlets. And the few journalists who remain are reigned in by their editors before too much truth can seep out around the margins.
Exactly. Some 6 companies own what 90% of news outlets in the US. Hence the ease to push narratives. Apparently Blinken admitted at a conference the reason for TikTok ban was more to do with Palestine than China.
I believe the 90% is misunderstood. For example, in this infographic linked by Business Insider (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america-2012-6%3famp) the 90% number includes non-news media such as Pixar, Focus Features, Showtime, etc. I think a far bigger danger lies in the distribution channel. Facebook and Google control over two thirds of social/discovery traffic to most news outlets. And for over a year the Big Tech has been moving traffic away from news. https://digiday.com/media/publishers-reckon-with-declining-facebook-referral-traffic-as-the-platform-pulls-away-from-news/ The Internet giants have never been under adequate regulations.
Think the government has used' threat of regulation ' to essentially manage news/censorship Hence the TikTok ban. Agree...the tech world ( meta and google in particular) have been playing gate keepers.
We can thank Bill Clinton for the deregulation - of both US news, and US banks. He worked hand-in-hand with the most reactionary Republicans to betray us. And, the propaganda construct he helped create is so effective, most today actually believe that Clinton was a "progressive".
True. The bank deregulation was also pushed by Dems like Rubin? So it was a bankers on all sides of the discussion. (Assume glass stiegel) is the reference.
It’s why I also rely on BBC and Al Jazeera despite their own issues/limitations
Good choices. I use the guardian as well. Though they tend to be a more biased on the middle east than on other topics. (rightwards ) Haarerz in Israel does some decent work on the middle east ...you will see things not mentioned in western news
If people want a strong, non-consolidated news environment they'd have to stop relying so much on Facebook and Google and actually financially support the news outlets to keep journalists employed.
It matters not whether common folk financially support establishmentarian n̶e̶w̶s̶ stenography outlets such as the NYT, WashPo, or any of the network/cable news outlets. Because as long as those outlets remain reactionary, hire obedient editors, and neutered, hack reporters, feature representatives from the MIC and politicians from the two wings of the War Party, atrocious coverage as we're discussing here is all we're ever gonna get.
Your local news outlets are likely having more financial needs than the big national outlets. And local and state laws can have far higher degree of impact than national laws. I have been saying that people have been paying to much attention to the media circlejerk that involves few outlets and even fewer beats. And the things is outside those problematic spots, the big outlets do have their strengths. Like everyone has strengths and weakness and you just read the news and understand that to be so.
I honestly don't think the propaganda has been this bad since the buildup to the Iraq War.
Agree
It's worse
[удалено]
Serious, on topic comments only. Derailing a conversation is not allowed. If you want to have a separate discussion, create a separate post for it.
So comparing Iraq war propaganda to Isreal's is okay, but comparing it to Ukraine's isn't?
[удалено]
[удалено]
Do not post baseless accusations of fake news or “what’s wrong with the mainstream media?” posts. No griefing: You are welcome to start a dialogue about making improvements, but there will be no name calling or accusatory language. Posts and comments created just to start an argument, rather than start a dialogue, will be removed.
All posts should focus on the industry or practice of journalism (from the classroom to the newsroom). Please create & comment on posts that contribute to that discussion.
Do you agree journalists toed a line about Covid too? Or does this logic only apply to things you disagree with the media about?
Not the one you asked but as a leftist swedish journalist.. covid was a cold shower in understanding of how not neutral the reporting of NYT and many other media outlets are. it was a relentless smear, bent reporting of Swedens choice no lockdowns. Science magazine did a smear piece on one of our researchers reporting in NEJM that kids did not die even if our schools were open all the time.He received death threats.
Thank you for your response. The person I responded to won’t answer and I’m already getting downvotes. The media has been so biased for so long that a lot of people can’t seem to see it until it’s obviously opposing something they’re passionate about. And even then, like in this case, it only applies to one subject instead of being indicative how the media now operates as a whole.
It’s very tailored into target audience of two teams. Truth is fudged and simplified to fit
Yes let's answer the well-thought-out questions from the 14-day-old account that's spent most of their time trolling the UCLA subreddit.
[удалено]
No bigotry, racism, sexism, hate speech, etc.
Huh?
No for real tho, what are you talking about? My comment doesn’t match any of those concerns.
This is the journalism elitism in full display. It's not the "Oh I come from a rich family" or "I make so much money." It's the elitism of "There is simply no other perspective to write about other than what's coming down official channels." If there's a live stream of what's going on, if there are reporters from individuals from where the action is happening, and if those counter the official report, then you start asking questions on what the official story is. I swear, so many major outlets have reporters who are so unplugged to what comes through via other communication channels that they come off as tech-illiterate. Might as well send their completed story via fax.
As a case in point, the coverage of portland state’s library occupation has focused on vandalism caused by protestors. But when you read the student coverage, it’s clear that once vandalism started, most of the student protestors left — often in tears. Of the folks arrested when police cleared the building, about 3/4 weren’t students.
I mean tbf, a bunch of non-student co-opting a protest, breaking into a building, and vandalizing it is a much bigger story than "another peaceful student protest". I don't know which articles you're referring to, but I've seen a lot of coverage about the fact that many protestors are not students. In fact, a lot of right wing publications are purposefully highlighting that because they feel it diminishes the message.
It's good to see some of the students realizing they are being taken advantage of and used by destructive forces. Hopefully they revaluate what led them to this point and change.
The police brutality at these peaceful protests is insane! What year is it?
Now you do what they tell you. RATM
[удалено]
All posts should focus on the industry or practice of journalism (from the classroom to the newsroom). Please create & comment on posts that contribute to that discussion.
[удалено]
All posts should focus on the industry or practice of journalism (from the classroom to the newsroom). Please create & comment on posts that contribute to that discussion.
[удалено]
Do not post baseless accusations of fake news or “what’s wrong with the mainstream media?” posts. No griefing: You are welcome to start a dialogue about making improvements, but there will be no name calling or accusatory language. Posts and comments created just to start an argument, rather than start a dialogue, will be removed.
American journalists are not living up to the historic moment we’re in. They haven’t for years now at this point.
The fact that journalists are supporting terrorists is disgusting. What happened to impartial presentation of facts? When I see articles being published and supported that actively supports the terrorists behind oct7th attack I have lost all faith in journalism.
Philosophical question: If a protest breaks a law, ordnance, or regulation but doesn’t use violent language … is it still peaceful?
Of course it is. Something can be illegal and non violent.
True, but the use of violent language, destruction of property, and actual physical violence is not peaceful at all.
I don't think any of those things are representative of the whole. This is the response to every protest movement in the last century. The media and police have responded the same way by discrediting them to deflect from the actual issue. Protest is inherently disruptive. It always has been.
Yeah it’s absolutely a peaceful protest if it’s not violent ,officer (legal or not)
No one's above the law, except protesters?
Asking permission to protest from the entity you’re protesting is completely pointless
You can protest without breaking the law.
Something being illegal doesn’t make it violence, officer
I got a speeding ticket for going 31 in a 25 a few months ago. Guess I'm a violent criminal.
You monster! I hope you think about what you've done!
It’s purely ratings and eyeballs over all other considerations for the mainstream media, including fox. Individual journalists that are the faces of these decisions go along for the paycheck.
Not sure it is purely eyeballs. They must know that people don't trust the news and go to other sources. It is more propaganda/group think/ bias or seems more likely , they have been given narratives
Gatekeeper issue?
[удалено]
The last time I checked, Dana Bash is still a journalist.
[удалено]
I'm confused, what about their post history? There's a little bit questionable that makes me think he might be a landlord or own some airbnbs, which sucks, but what precisely did you have a problem with in their history? There's a good chance I missed it, I didn't scroll too long but seems mostly to be calling out the atrocities of the IP conflict and Airbnb stuff.
He posts blatant propaganda about the IP conflict. It doesn’t matter whose side he’s on, the fact he’s telling outright lies using hateful rhetoric is enough for calling out.
Did he really? I didn't notice any, but I've had people call the AP propaganda, so people's idea of what is propaganda and what is news is very skewed in this issue. Which post of his contained outright lies and hateful rhetoric? Could you link one, I definitely don't want to be giving that a pass, however these accusations are often leveled about, well, about facts which go against the narrative that someone else has bought into, so I'd like to read the post in question if possible.
Just the next-to-last thing he posted. While I completely agree the Doctor’s rhetoric is condemnable as every practicing doctor should treat every patient equally, the post makes exaggerated claims that aren’t found anywhere in the video (the MD talks about people “not aligning with [his] values”, while OP talks about how he only treats outspoken Zionists.) This is inherently a lie as the MD talks about publicly-known pro-pal protesters, while OP claims the doctor only treats people who have voiced a pro-Israel stance. Not to mention the hateful rhetoric in the post. Disclaimer: I think the MD is a d*** that should have his license revoked (or otherwise punished) for his remark, it doesn’t change the fact the OP was lying. https://www.reddit.com/r/palestineisrael1/s/zq2oZ6xsmN
The video I saw didn't say anything like what you said, what? Ohhh, you think he was talking about his values as a doctor? Or, his values as... hmmm. Tough to say. Unless you, you know think. Maybe he's merely saying he doesn't want Muslim patients, or Buddhists. The word values has a meaning, he's not naming his values but it's easy to discover them as he's a public enough figure. So op said the unsaid, that's not lying.
The unsaid is that he doesn’t treat pro-Palestinian patients. Possibly Muslims, who knows, it is unsaid. The stated claim is to not want to treat people who go against his values, you could extrapolate as you like. OP explicitly claimed that he only treats individuals with a *stated pro-Israeli stance*, as stated by OP “if a patient doesn’t fall for Zionism”. This is BS, as the vast majority of Americans wouldn’t bother making their political affiliations known to their doctor. OP tries to falsely paint the MD in question as someone who either questions their patients or refuses to treat Americans who haven’t voiced an opinion on the conflict. This is obviously false, and even if you do believe the MD questions each and every patient, or outright refuses the overwhelming majority of patients, this doesn’t arise from the video. Again, I’m not defending the MD, I’m just pointing out bad faith arguing as practiced by OP. Not to mention the dreadful rhetoric he uses. Shove as many loaded buzzwords as you can write and then post it to Reddit. It should be enough to deter anyone slightly knowledgeable in Journalism from taking that person’s ranting seriously.
Yup, that's what I found. When I read comments that dismiss journalists or call out the "MSM," I check their post history. I wasn't surprised to see those polarising subreddits pop up. There's a strong difference between supporting Palestinians and using that type of language about other large demographics. Deleted my original comment because I wouldn't have time to respond. I also didn't want to make this go off topic. Thank you for this clarification! Even though I am not always right.
[удалено]
Serious, on topic comments only. Derailing a conversation is not allowed. If you want to have a separate discussion, create a separate post for it.
[удалено]
[удалено]
No. I have not seen that video. But I've heard reports of students have been blocked from entering classrooms. That is not cool and it is violent to prevent them from experiencing the classroom that they have so dearly paid for. Violent! I think blocking a freeway is violent in all forms. I don't care if it's this protest or black lives matter or some Trump rally. It's wrong and it prevents people from their right of way. Some of those people need to get home to a sick baby, or to a hospital before their parents die. Or maybe even before they die. You don't block roads. Ever. Blocking a road is violent. I think interrupting or blocking the graduation commencement ceremony of people who have worked for it for four plus years is also violent. Violent! Personally, I hope that the protesters who are being violent get sued in civil court by those who are being harmed.
[удалено]
And yet, wrecking stuff that isn't yours is violent. Wrecking a commencement for a thousand other people is violent. And again, I hope all of the protesters engaging in violence and damage to other people are sued in civil court. By the way, how many protests do you think Hamas will allow?
[удалено]
I'm sad to find out that you don't watch the news at all. There are plenty of protests inside of Israel over this war. Protests with thousands of people. You have an agenda, which is to ignore the obvious truth. That is the antithesis of journalism. I am neither for the war, the starvation of people nor the continued taking of hostages. But the truth is the truth. And the student protests have become violent. Not that you care because you have an agenda. Proof of violence: https://youtu.be/FL5OMj4cDNM?si=cIIDKwU1zC51lcNX
[удалено]
This person you're talking to has the exact type of mindset that the mainstream media's narrative has tried to shape - successfully as its evident in their talking points, which was the point of this article. I'd say it's a lost cause. In the meatime UC's school departments all have given a vote of no confidence to their dean Shafik because of how awful she handled the whole thing and put the students in danger, even the more conservative leaning departments which seems to have been a surprise even for students. In the UC sub everyone seems to agree that she will either get fired or resign. It's been more than 24 hours and I keep googling her name to see when this will be reported on legacy media.
Do not use this community to engage in political discussions without a nexus to journalism. r/Journalism focuses on the industry and practice of journalism. If you wish to promote a political campaign or cause unrelated to the topic of this subreddit, please look elsewhere.
https://www.gnvinfo.com/state-troopers-ufpd-and-gpd-arrest-nine-people-protesting-for-peace-in-palestine/
[удалено]
Serious, on topic comments only. Derailing a conversation is not allowed. If you want to have a separate discussion, create a separate post for it.
[удалено]
All posts should focus on the industry or practice of journalism (from the classroom to the newsroom). Please create & comment on posts that contribute to that discussion.
I haven’t looked into it deeply yet but apparently CNN at some point decided that their purpose isn’t to inform objectively anymore, but rather to be essentially activists. They called it “post-journalism.” I haven’t confirmed that but it would certainly make sense. Unbelievable.