Reply to Thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Dave70968" data-source="post: 3004406" data-attributes="member: 13624">Actually, that pursuit of profit is their motivation to get things right.&nbsp; With the internet bringing a printing press into everybody&#039;s home, bad information is rapidly exposed and the proof disseminated (Exhibit A: Dan Rather; Exhibit B: the UVA rape case; I could go on indefinitely).&nbsp; Media outlets are on notice that &quot;the whole world is watching,&quot; and there are enough of us with our eyes open that we&#039;ll find the errors and inconsistencies...and point them out, in public and embarrassing ways.&nbsp; They can&#039;t just hide their mistakes (or outright fabrications) and survive on obscurity, because obscurity is gone.&nbsp; Their brands depend upon being seen as credible; when they lose that, they lose big.&nbsp; Maybe not existential-level failure, but certainly loss.&nbsp; Their only means of dealing with that effectively is to be transparent in how they deal with it...which is why we get high-profile firings that are publicly disclosed, as in this case.&nbsp; CNN didn&#039;t just get rid of some sloppy reporters, it made a show of doing so to reassure the world that it took credibility seriously, and to make an example of them for its other reporters (who are similarly in a position to harm its reputation).As to the idea that the media was somehow less biased in colonial times...wow.&nbsp; No, if anything, the media was more biased, and quite blatant about it.&nbsp; In some ways, that&#039;s better--when the press is up front about its bias, you can look at the story through the appropriate lens.&nbsp; It&#039;s the allegedly &quot;unbiased&quot; or &quot;neutral&quot; or &quot;balanced&quot; press that&#039;s scary: there&#039;s really no such thing, but if people believe it is, they accept it uncritically.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Dave70968, post: 3004406, member: 13624"] Actually, that pursuit of profit is their motivation to get things right. With the internet bringing a printing press into everybody's home, bad information is rapidly exposed and the proof disseminated (Exhibit A: Dan Rather; Exhibit B: the UVA rape case; I could go on indefinitely). Media outlets are on notice that "the whole world is watching," and there are enough of us with our eyes open that we'll find the errors and inconsistencies...and point them out, in public and embarrassing ways. They can't just hide their mistakes (or outright fabrications) and survive on obscurity, because obscurity is gone. Their brands [I]depend[/I] upon being seen as credible; when they lose that, they lose big. Maybe not existential-level failure, but certainly loss. Their only means of dealing with that effectively is to be transparent in how they deal with it...which is why we get high-profile firings that are publicly disclosed, as in this case. CNN didn't just get rid of some sloppy reporters, it made a show of doing so to reassure the world that it took credibility seriously, and to make an example of them for its other reporters (who are similarly in a position to harm its reputation). As to the idea that the media was somehow less biased in colonial times...wow. No, if anything, the media was [I]more[/I] biased, and quite blatant about it. In some ways, that's better--when the press is up front about its bias, you can look at the story through the appropriate lens. It's the allegedly "unbiased" or "neutral" or "balanced" press that's scary: there's really no such thing, but if people believe it is, they accept it uncritically. [/QUOTE]

Verification