The 4th Estate Thread Has Surrendered

[Smoove_B]

The truth is paywalled, but the lies are free:

It costs money to produce good writing, to run a website, to license photographs. A lot of money, if you want quality. Asking people for a fee to access content is therefore very reasonable. You don’t expect to get a print subscription to the newspaper gratis, why would a website be different? I try not to grumble about having to pay for online content, because I run a magazine and I know how difficult it is to pay writers what they deserve.

But let us also notice something: the New York Times, the New Yorker, the Washington Post, the New Republic, New York, Harper’s, the New York Review of Books, the Financial Times, and the London Times all have paywalls. Breitbart, Fox News, the Daily Wire, the Federalist, the Washington Examiner, InfoWars: free!

[malchior]

Moments like this are why there are rumors flying that NBC is looking to switch Todd out as host of MTP. I for one would welcome it. It is inexplicable how he holds that job still. The correct response is, "The Democrats passed a bill in May. McConnell didn't pick it up until late July."

[pr0ner]

The truth is paywalled, but the lies are free:

It costs money to produce good writing, to run a website, to license photographs. A lot of money, if you want quality. Asking people for a fee to access content is therefore very reasonable. You don’t expect to get a print subscription to the newspaper gratis, why would a website be different? I try not to grumble about having to pay for online content, because I run a magazine and I know how difficult it is to pay writers what they deserve.

But let us also notice something: the New York Times, the New Yorker, the Washington Post, the New Republic, New York, Harper’s, the New York Review of Books, the Financial Times, and the London Times all have paywalls. Breitbart, Fox News, the Daily Wire, the Federalist, the Washington Examiner, InfoWars: free!

Funny what the author omits from the paywall list (WSJ) and leaves out from the free list (CNN, MSNBC, DailyKos, etc).

[Max Peck]

Well, you need to take into account that the list is on a free website.

[malchior]

Much Presidential. Look at the pivot! That new tone is remarkable.

[Jaymann]

[Isgrimnur]

Oh, she's serious.

[LawBeefaroni]

Secret service agents always have automatic weapons ready.

[Holman]

Tactical Argyle FTW.

[Freyland]

Tactical Argyle FTW.

The dark diamond patterns are kevlar.

[El Guapo]

"Follow-mouth morons"?

[Jaymann]

Fallow-mouthed?

[Alefroth]

Fowl-mouthed?

[TheMix]

Fowl-mouthed?

That one would have been awesome!

[malchior]

I posted an absurdity in the Trump-Biden thread but to expand on it I watched several different channels coverage this morning. Now that the final race is one on I can only conclude that the big networks learned nothing from 2016. It is going to be horse race coverage all the time. I'm getting that sinking feeling that we're fucked.

[YellowKing]

Yeah I was dismayed at the press fawning over Melania's speech because she decided to give a modicum of sympathy for the Coronavirus victims that her husband killed.

[malchior]

I missed it this morning but apparently we're not alone seeing this.

[malchior]

Good lord. I saw this appear in my canary feed and this is one of the few times I agree with their take.

[malchior]

Tim Russert continues to roll in his grave. Chuck Todd is abysmal.

[LawBeefaroni]

because Todd believes journalism is asking people in power what they think about things and taking their word for it

I think that's a bit naive. It's mutually beneficial, possibly unspoken but fully understood.

If you come on my show, I'll throw you softballs.

If you throw me softballs, I'll come on your show.

Todd gets ratings with the "big names", the big names get a platform for their bullshit.

[malchior]

Yeah this access journalism is a big part of the problem. And it depends on people tuning in to this Kabuki bullshit and think they are being informed.

[Kurth]

This should be interesting: Is it possible to do unbiased news in primetime on cable? We're about to find out.

Don't have much info on this, but I hope it's legit.

[malchior]

This should be interesting: Is it possible to do unbiased news in primetime on cable? We're about to find out.

Don't have much info on this, but I hope it's legit.

Hear hear. It is kind of late -- it may very well be 11:59 PM for democracy in America -- for an experiment like this but I welcome it nonetheless.

[Kraken]

This should be interesting: Is it possible to do unbiased news in primetime on cable? We're about to find out.

Don't have much info on this, but I hope it's legit.

I wonder how it's financed (or who's backing it). I don't know if it's ultimately possible for any for-profit news organization to stay ideologically neutral.

It would be nice to read stories without having to choose your slant every time. My google newsfeed often has multiple sources for the same news, leaving me to decide whether to read CNN or NPR or The Guardian, for example. (In that example, I'd go with NPR.) Sometimes the choice is almost comical -- do I want to read this business story on the Wall Street Journal or Bloomberg?

[pr0ner]

This should be interesting: Is it possible to do unbiased news in primetime on cable? We're about to find out.

Don't have much info on this, but I hope it's legit.

Well if they don't work, Shep Smith is going to be back on TV in the Fall with an hourly straight news show on CNBC.

[Skinypupy]

This should be interesting: Is it possible to do unbiased news in primetime on cable? We're about to find out.

Don't have much info on this, but I hope it's legit.

I applaud them for trying, and it's certainly something to keep an eye on.

However, the first time they report on anything that doesn't sing the praises of Hair Furor (regardless of how truthful or accurate the reporting is), they will be immediately be branded as "liberal fake news".

Such is the way of the world now.

[Ralph-Wiggum]

After skimming the article, I’m unclear how they will act unbiasedly. Does unbiased mean reporting inaccurate statements from politicians without correction or does it mean calling them out and explaining what the facts are? The former seems to be what many people consider unbiased as long as they do the same for both sides. But since one side of the political spectrum currently lies much more often than the other, that is actually not at all unbiased.

[LordMortis]

It's been like a year since I've watched it but I used to watch Nightly Business Reports on PBS (which actually comes from NBC) and I found their news to be unbiased and straight forward factual, with the caveat that this unbiased reporting is then used to be speculate its relationship with various markets.

I was a big fan, just not a big enough fan to give them my 19:00 every week night. I really should go back to it. I wonder how the current turmoil (see racism and police thread mixes) is being reported or if it's being reported.

[Kurth]

After skimming the article, I’m unclear how they will act unbiasedly. Does unbiased mean reporting inaccurate statements from politicians without correction or does it mean calling them out and explaining what the facts are? The former seems to be what many people consider unbiased as long as they do the same for both sides. But since one side of the political spectrum currently lies much more often than the other, that is actually not at all unbiased.

The proof will be in the pudding. But my hope, from reading the article, is that they will focus on fact-based reporting. I feel like embedded in that is the notion that they won't be reporting clearly false statements made by either side, but they also won't be offering commentary and counter-opinions in response to those statements. In other words, if a statement made by a politician is so false that you can't report it in good conscience without also calling that politician a liar, then don't report it. Don't give it airplay.

I also hope that part of this new approach will be shifting the focus away from the current "news" that seems to wait with bated breath to report the latest inflammatory statement from the left or the right and then either amplify or tear it down. A shift from opinion reporting to fact reporting.

Again, we'll see how it turns out.

[LawBeefaroni]

The proof will be in the pudding. But my hope, from reading the article, is that they will focus on fact-based reporting. I feel like embedded in that is the notion that they won't be reporting clearly false statements made by either side, but they also won't be offering commentary and counter-opinions in response to those statements.

When facts are considered malleable opinions, reporting facts that someone doesn't agree with is viewed as political commentary.

Also, how do you report that Trump issued a false statement? How do you follow up when he claims it was just a joke/intentional troll?

[Kurth]

The proof will be in the pudding. But my hope, from reading the article, is that they will focus on fact-based reporting. I feel like embedded in that is the notion that they won't be reporting clearly false statements made by either side, but they also won't be offering commentary and counter-opinions in response to those statements.

When facts are considered malleable opinions, reporting facts that someone doesn't agree with is viewed as political commentary.

Also, how do you report that Trump issued a false statement? How do you follow up when he claims it was just a joke/intentional troll?

(1) Facts are not malleable opinions. If NewsNation reports facts and partisans take them as political commentary, that's not NewsNation's fault, and that doesn't mean they've fallen short of the mark.

(2) Maybe you just . . . don't. I honestly have no idea how NewsNation is going to handle reporting on the blatantly counter-factual and made up statements that come out of Trump every day, but maybe one approach is simply to give them less air time. The approach CNN takes - hanging on his every word and then racing to fact check him - certainly has not been effective. I mean, really, what good does it do for CNN to trot out Daniel Dale, fact checker extraordinaire to fact check whether a dark and shadowy cabal is actually running Joe Biden's campaign? I mean, the title says it all: "It's almost too stupid to fact check.". So maybe, just maybe, if it's that stupid, don't focus on it so much.

[Alefroth]

An outlet can show bias just in the stories chosen to run. Unless they can report absolutely everything, there is going to be some bias. Who decides what runs on any given day?

but maybe one approach is simply to give them less air time.

Choosing not to air something is bias.

[Kurth]

An outlet can show bias just in the stories chosen to run. Unless they can report absolutely everything, there is going to be some bias. Who decides what runs on any given day?

but maybe one approach is simply to give them less air time.

Choosing not to air something is bias.

Well, sounds like there's not point in even trying. But that's not really what you're suggesting, is it?

[Alefroth]

An outlet can show bias just in the stories chosen to run. Unless they can report absolutely everything, there is going to be some bias. Who decides what runs on any given day?

but maybe one approach is simply to give them less air time.

Choosing not to air something is bias.

Well, sounds like there's not point in even trying. But that's not really what you're suggesting, is it?

I'm more concerned with news being factual than unbiased.

[LawBeefaroni]

(1) Facts are not malleable opinions. If NewsNation reports facts and partisans take them as political commentary, that's not NewsNation's fault, and that doesn't mean they've fallen short of the mark.

Not saying they will have fallen short of the mark, just that they will lose viewers who are used to having their own "facts" spat back at them. Left and right.

News is now entertainment. People won't watch something that doesn't entertain them.

No viewers, no money.

[Kurth]

(1) Facts are not malleable opinions. If NewsNation reports facts and partisans take them as political commentary, that's not NewsNation's fault, and that doesn't mean they've fallen short of the mark.

Not saying they will have fallen short of the mark, just that they will lose viewers who are used to having their own "facts" spat back at them. Left and right.

News is now entertainment. People won't watch something that doesn't entertain them.

No viewers, no money.

Very true. What we really need is a civic-minded billionaire to fund an objective, unbiased news source that doesn't need to depend on advertising and click-bait headlines to justify its existence. Paging Warren Buffet. Paging Bill Gates.

[BTW, I've been watching the mini-series on Netflix about Gates, Inside Bill's Brain, and while it's not perfect, it's pretty good. Worth a watch, if nothing else, just to reaffirm that where there's a will to change something and resources to back the effort, there's not much that can't be accomplished.]

[AWS260]

[Enough]

OMG, go home NYT you're drunk. Fyre festival says hiiiii.

[Pyperkub]

Until firefly is renewed?

[Max Peck]

Sometimes it's a literal death watch.

Pentagon orders shutdown of Stars and Stripes newspaper

The Pentagon has ordered the military’s independent newspaper, Stars and Stripes, to cease publication at the end of the month, despite congressional efforts to continue funding the century-old publication.

The order to halt publication by Sept. 30, and dissolve the organization by the end of January, follows the Pentagon’s move earlier this year to cut the $15.5 million in funding for the paper from the Defense Department budget. And it is a reflection of the Trump administration’s broader animosity for the media and members of the press.

Members of Congress have objected to the defunding move for months. And senators sent a letter to Defense Secretary Mark Esper this week urging him to reinstate the money. The letter, signed by 15 senators — including Republicans and Democrats — also warns Esper that the department is legally prohibited from canceling a budget program while a temporary continuing resolution to fund the federal government is in effect.