New York Times CEO: Print Journalism Has Maybe Another 10 Years (cnbc.com) 208
New York Times CEO Mark Thompson believes that the newspaper printing presses may have another decade of life in them, but not much more. "I believe at least 10 years is what we can see in the U.S. for our print products," Thompson said on "Power Lunch." He said he'd like to have the print edition "survive and thrive as long as it can," but admitted it might face an expiration date. "We'll decide that simply on economics," he said. "There may come a point when the economics of [the print paper] no longer make sense for us. The key thing for us is that we're pivoting. Our plan is to go on serving our loyal print subscribers as long as we can. But meanwhile to build up the digital business, so that we have a successful growing company and a successful news operation long after print is gone." CNBC reports: Digital subscriptions, in fact, may be what's keeping the New York Times afloat for a new generation of readers. While Thompson said the number of print subscribers is relatively constant, "with a little bit of a decline every time," the company said last week that it added 157,000 digital subscribers in the fourth quarter of 2017. The majority were new subscribers, but that number also included cooking and crossword subscriptions. Revenue from digital subscriptions increased more than 51 percent in the quarter compared with a year earlier. Overall subscription revenue increased 19.2 percent. Meanwhile, the company's fourth-quarter earnings and revenue beat analysts expectations, "even though the print side of the business is still somewhat challenged," Thompson said. Total revenue rose 10 percent from a year earlier to $484.1 million. New York Times' shares have risen more than 20 percent this year. "Without question we make more money on a print subscriber," Thompson added. "But the point about digital is that we believe we can grow many, many more of them. We've already got more digital than print subscribers. Digital is growing very rapidly. Ultimately, there will be many times the number of digital subscribers compared to print."
They thought vinyl was dead, too... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:They thought vinyl was dead, too... (Score:4, Insightful)
Vinyl is dead. The technology hasn't advanced since we learned how to read a record with a laser, and that was ages ago. Records aren't improving, and record players aren't improving. Vinyl is dead as a doornail. That DJs and hipsters still consume it doesn't change that; nobody else is interested, and even DJs are using it less and less.
Re: (Score:3)
Vinyl is dead. The technology hasn't advanced since we learned how to read a record with a laser, and that was ages ago. Records aren't improving, and record players aren't improving. Vinyl is dead as a doornail. That DJs and hipsters still consume it doesn't change that; nobody else is interested, and even DJs are using it less and less.
This, and it's less about the tech and more about the fact that it's just a bunch of hipsters talking nonsense keeping it from being completely dead. There is no discernible difference in quality between vinyl and digital, the standard histories are fabrications.
There is a discernible increase in quality for from the 60's, 70's and 80's... but that was because it was before the age of Autotune.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Digital-only is where print goes to die.
Been at least 25 years since (Score:4, Informative)
Maybe if the print media kept a more just the news stance and made even a small attempt to keep opinions in the editorial sections they might be doing better.
Just my 2 cents
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I like print magazines with long, in depth articles and tutorials. Unfortunately there are very few remaining that have anything like that any more.
There is value in that kind of magazine/book. The internet is great but unless you pay someone to write something comprehensive and have it reviewed and corrected then you are going to have to rely on crap like Stack Exchange and the half baked answers post on there.
Prime example, show me a good alternative to books/magazines for learning DSP coding or FPGA deve
Re: (Score:2)
I like print magazines with long, in depth articles and tutorials. Unfortunately there are very few remaining that have anything like that any more.
Nope. Now they're just vehicles for advertisements. The average magazine is around 50% ads or more, even if you don't count articles which are really just advertisements in disguise.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm waiting for someone to say they get a magazine just for the ads like watching the Super Bowl for the ads! The true connoisseurs of advertisement.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Completely unrealistic. Print news is done because of the end user being able to digitally tailor their news. For print to compete, it would need to be say something like 10,000 pages and the customer buys it and then bins the 9,900 pages they are not interested in to read the 100 pages they are interested in. Quite simply digital media offers the end user news from multiple sites hundreds of sites that a user generally accesses in varying degrees, which they cherry pick their news from. The biggest problem
Re:Been at least 25 years since (Score:5, Interesting)
For me it's been about 20 years since I had a newspaper delivered to my doorstep.
I wasn't dissatisfied with the reporting or any bias in the paper, I had just moved on and got all the news I wanted from the internet (and admittedly TV). Newspapers were stacking up in my apartment waiting to be taken to the recycling center.
I used to spend Sunday afternoons flipping through every page of the newspaper while watching NFL games. Now I don't get a paper and I don't watch football. You might say I've changed as well.
When I stopped subscribing to the local paper I got so many calls from them trying to get me to resubscribe that I finally called up their
"newstips" number and told them about a newspaper who was violating the do-not-call registry. Then the calls stopped.
One interesting side effect of not getting the local paper is I'm probably more aware of what's happening in Syria than I am with what's happening locally. That doesn't mean I'm more knowledgeable about international affairs. Instead I'm probably just more ignorant of what's going on in the place where I live.
Re:Been at least 25 years since (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd be more interested in local news if the local newspaper didn't just print fluff pieces and hyper-partisan bullshit. There is real corruption in my city, for example, but it's not investigated or reported.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be more interested in local news if the local newspaper didn't just print fluff pieces and hyper-partisan bullshit. There is real corruption in my city, for example, but it's not investigated or reported.
The questions you should be asking then are: "Who owns my newspaper?" And "Why were large companies allowed to buy large swaths of smaller papers."
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe if the print media kept a more just the news stance and made even a small attempt to keep opinions in the editorial sections they might be doing better.
That problem has nothing to do with the success or failure of the physical print side of the newspaper (which is what this story is about), as the same words are on the web site.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't expect them to get it right 100% of the time. The program has been on for a long time and mistakes will be made. And if you look at the list of controversies on wikipedia, there's quite a bit of nuance to most of them. 60 Minutes takes risks, as does any serious investigative journalism. One of those risks is that people will come to them with hit pieces which may be difficult to sort out. For what they do and the risks they take, I'd argue they have a very good track record. It's much better than
Optimism (Score:4, Insightful)
Given what passes for "journalism", that might be a bit of an optimistic assessment.
Re: (Score:2)
Given what passes for "journalism", that might be a bit of an optimistic assessment.
I think the biggest problem with journalism is that there are actually too many choices. There's great investigative journalism out there, probably more than at any time in history, but there's also a boatload of crap. It's easy to monetize crap. It's difficult to monetize great investigative journalism. It's more expensive to produce and attracts less eyeballs. Most people who complain about the state of journalism are the same people who consume the crap. If you want to read good journalism, all you have
Re: (Score:2)
It's true. It's much easier to read the click-bait 3 sentence article than to read an in-depth 10-page investigative piece.
And worse still, the lengthy article may cause you to think hard about stuff - maybe even look up a word in the dictionary. One of the main features of what used to be a major city's newspaper is now just a link to "Hilarious Memes about..." and it's a different thing every few days - and none of them are actually hilarious.
So they must be employing someone to scrape memes from Redd
Re:Optimism (Score:5, Insightful)
Not that the NYT is free from bias or from making mistakes but you're basically claiming that there's no way we can ever have any idea as to what's really happening in the world.
If you want to put the NYT in the same category as the Weekly World News and other tabloids where do we turn to for current events?
Infowars?
Sorry, but some news sources are more trustworthy than others. Just because the NYT says it doesn't make it true, but excuse me if I trust them more than the Washington Times or Fox. (or Breitbart or WND or Newsmax or The Onion).
Should we reject anything we hear from a long established part of the 4th estate and instead rely on what our friends liked on Facebook?
Perhaps we should get all our news from Donald Trump's twitter feed.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you identify your bias and the overlap in the NYT to guard against confirmation bias in any story they publish? If you can't then I would suggest that it would better not to use that source because you will be ill equipped to handle news that doesn't fit in the comfort zone created by that bias overlap.
It's more than just news. It's narrative that are pushed by "expert analysis" and op-ed sold as objective news. Facts are hard to disagree on (only initially can anyone disagree with any kind of validity)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's past history (Score:2)
Interesting choice of words. They are true of course....but it's interesting how you framed up the argument. You relied on the NYT's historical credibility.
Is it possible that in recent years (10 or so) the NYT abused the credibility they built up over 100+ years and as a result, they have lost their status as the paper of record for most of America? That doesn't seem to be in dispute except in places like NYC, LA or Chicago. The rest of America sees the
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't matter how many times you call it fake news, Mueller is not going to stop investigating.
Re: (Score:3)
The New York Times belong in the same checkout lane rack as the National Enquirer and those hollywood tabloids.
What because it reports actual facts and doesn't pander to your need for confirmation bias? I'm guessing you get your "news" from Infowars, Fox "News" and Trump's twitter feed based on your post.
Dammit! I depend on print journalism... (Score:3)
... to supply me with quality crossword puzzles each week.
Sadly true (Score:5, Interesting)
I commute into a major US city every day and just today noticed someone reading an actual newspaper on the train. I can't even remember when the last time I saw that. Between me with my book and him with his newspaper, we really stood out among the rest of the passengers. If newspapers and books aren't for commuters, who are they for? And commuters have left them by. Sadly, I think this is an accurate assessment..
Re: (Score:2)
I commute too .... (Score:2)
And I'd agree with you, except on the metro, I see it littered with newspapers every time I ride it. The catch? They're not the "big name" city newspapers. What you see more of in print are the small, regional papers that get handed out free and survive on advertising dollars.
That's really where I see print media having more staying power. If you're a local publication that just wants to inform people about what local bands are playing where, covering some news items of local/regional interest that will nev
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You should upgrade from your Nokia 3310, you might get a pleasant surprise.
Re: (Score:2)
Newspapers? (Score:5, Insightful)
There are two newspaper groups nationally, and they attempted to merge with each other last year. Thankfully the regulator told them they were dreaming.
Their real problems are the fact that they have no idea who their audience is any more. They print an endless parade of celebrity tittle-tattle and no world news to speak of. Their opinion pieces are all written by 25 year-old who who know fuck-all about anything because they got rid of anyone with any real experience years ago.
Even the standard of the photography is rubbish now, because they laid off all the photographers.
The idiot managers do however wonder why no-one wants to pay for their product.
Re: (Score:2)
Where I live I can't see printed newspapers surviving another 10 years, but it is because of the awful quality.
Even if this decline in quality is true, why would this bode poorly for only printed media? Does journalistic quality improve if the same articles are shown on a screen instead of printed? Or do the incompetent writers insist on paper-only distribution and refuse to allow their words to be shown digitally? None of that makes any sense. The difference between print and screen is the revenue model of different advertising media. It has nothing to do with the quality of articles because the exact same art
Re: (Score:2)
I'm guessing several commenters read the headline and commented without reading the summary, or somehow read the summary and still came away thinking "print" in this context means written words. Several people have made comments to the effect of "if the newspapers didn't suck so much they wouldn't be in trouble", which as you say makes no sense in the context of this story.
Re: (Score:2)
Their real problems are the fact that they have no idea who their audience is any more. They print an endless parade of celebrity tittle-tattle and no world news to speak of. Their opinion pieces are all written by 25 year-old who who know fuck-all about anything because they got rid of anyone with any real experience years ago.
They know exactly who their market is: superannuated morons who are confused by computers. Everyone else is getting their news via the internet now, and it's actually superior to print media because you can rapidly get a cross-section of views on a subject instead of simply shoveling whatever the newspaper chooses to put on your plate into your information-hungry maw.
The idiot managers do however wonder why no-one wants to pay for their product.
They know well that it is because their product is inferior, but as long as people are paying for an inferior product, they will continue to p
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with you that tabloid papers wont be lasting long though. Theyve been replaced by clickbait websites with the same gimmicky subject headings and no real content in the article itself.
There is something less invasive with tabloids; without the tracking and spyware and cryptomining ads that are bundled with clickbait, tabloids can be a harmless guilty pleasure. Anonymous, no strings attached, a clean cut transaction. I don't think they're going away anytime soon.
Not harmless (Score:4, Funny)
tabloids can be a harmless guilty pleasure.
Tabloids might be a guilty pleasure but they are almost never harmless.
Anonymous, no strings attached, a clean cut transaction.
Wait are we talking about tabloids or the prostitute you just picked up?
problem with digital subscriptions (Score:3)
Subscription fatigue (Score:5, Interesting)
I wouldn't mind paying someone like Amazon or Google $10/month for access to every meaningful newspaper in America (with Google dividing it up among the papers I read that month), but I refuse to get sucked into a half-dozen monthly subscriptions... especially when seemingly all of them are "pay {some reasonable} rate for the first {n} weeks, then {get ass-raped} thereafter until you notice and cancel". I MIGHT do it if there were an option to automatically end the subscription once the promo rate expires, but over the past few years, I've gotten to the point where I automatically tell anyone trying to get me to sign up for teaser rates that silently go up to just go fuck themselves and die. I fell for subscription scams like that all the time when I was younger, but now it just seems like total bullshit and I refuse to put up with it anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. I don't know why the assholes at newspapers looked at the billing model for Comcast and said, "That's what customers want!."
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't mind paying someone like Amazon or Google $10/month for access to every meaningful newspaper in America (with Google dividing it up among the papers I read that month)
Papers make most of their money from advertising, same with magazines. Advertising revenues for online sites just dont make as much and aren't as effective.
Of course advertising is why I haven't picked up a paper in decades.
The entire industry needs to change, right now Murdoch cant stop complaining about the ABC (Australia) or BBC stealing his business by providing well written articles based on facts whilst his publishing empire goes down the toilet. I reckon in 20 years all we'll have left are the
Re: (Score:2)
Can I get a library card and access all this online without having to go to the library?
Ideally I should have access to all their books and other media from my home as well.
Do I have to pay for the books I never returned first?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The bit about paying off my fines was snark (and I should have left that out - I owe them in a different state anyway) but I just checked the local library and at least as far as newspapers go it does not appear that I can view them from home.
And it's my fault for bringing up books. I was aware that they had some digital books but I'm sure the whole catalog cannot be accessed electronically - which would be a ridiculous expectation anyway. I should have just stuck to the topic of newspapers and magazi
revenue increase (Score:2)
How much of the revenue increase at NYT was black money from USIC? Gotta keep that semi-official propaganda factory humming!
1 Billion Trees (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Furthermore, have you ever been near a paper factory? It stinks up half the town.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It could be the wind too. I used to work near feed lots for cattle - not right next door but close enough and most days I couldn't smell a thing but on others it stunk bad.
One of the executives there told us it was the smell of money. It just smelled like cow shit to me. Maybe that was his point.
Re: (Score:2)
Careful there - you may create a market for snobs who demand that their copy of the New York Times be printed on mahogany pulp.
Re: (Score:2)
Newsprint world wide takes about 1 Billion trees per year. That would greatly improve sustainability of the environment to reduce paper demands.
Not really; almost all of those trees were grown specifically to be made into paper. Reduce the demand for paper, and you reduce the number of trees. Whether that would be good or bad depends on what would be done with that land instead of growing trees.
Re: (Score:2)
So yes, less demand on soft woods would lower the total deforestation, and lead to more trees in the world.
Mine cryptocurrency (Score:2)
A per session use of the users CPU to mine cryptocurrency to grant access to the story.
It's a shame too (Score:5, Interesting)
The news I read on websites is often updated, edited, and re-edited to delete a controversial phrase, erase speculation which turned out to be mistaken, or add information which wasn't there in the original report (without updating the timestamp). You read a bunch of people complaining about the article, go read the source article for yourself, and because the statement was edited out you don't know what the fuss is all about and you think the people complaining are idiots. Likewise, whereas before if a newspaper published something which was later discredited, they'd print a retraction but the original evidence of their shoddy reporting was still out there. Nowadays they simply delete the discredited story, erasing their failure from history. Occasionally I link to newspaper articles from the 1990s, but I honestly have no idea if it's still true to the original or if it's been altered in the intervening quarter century. Archive.org used to help, but I'm increasingly finding more sites have set their robots.txt to not allow archiving. And perhaps more disturbingly, some sites have requested archive.org delete the entire archived history of their site.
Despite the explosion in the availability of information, historians of the future are going to have a bitch of a time figuring out what we were actually saying and thinking, because a lot of the evidence is being scrubbed, sanitized, or deleted. It's the digital equivalent of burning books, except it's all being done silently and out of sight. The only evidence being a broken link; or a "quote" in a forum posting which no longer matches the purported source, and you have no idea if the post is in error or if the source was edited.
Re: (Score:3)
Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past
George Orwell, 1984
One of the issues raised in 1984 is the idea that history is mutable or changeable, that truth is what the Party deems it to be, and that the truths found in history are the bases of the principles of the future. Some Fascist German leaders of the time boasted that if you tell a lie loud enough and often enough, people will accept it as truth. The Stalinists perfected this modus operandi by re-writing people and events in and out of history or distorting historical facts to suit the
Re: (Score:2)
Despite the explosion in the availability of information, historians of the future are going to have a bitch of a time figuring out what we were actually saying and thinking, because a lot of the evidence is being scrubbed, sanitized, or deleted. It's the digital equivalent of burning books, except it's all being done silently and out of sight. The only evidence being a broken link; or a "quote" in a forum posting which no longer matches the purported source, and you have no idea if the post is in error or if the source was edited.
Fortunately for future historians, Facebook and other social media have enough people spewing their opinions and reactions that even if Facebook was not keeping a permanent record of everything, there would still be abundant data available to them.
The only down side is that people who spew everything online and never bother to go back and fix their mistakes will probably be taken as representative of the rest of us...
Re: (Score:2)
> more sites have set their robots.txt to not allow archiving.
robots.txt is only a suggestion. Nobody is obligated to obey it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
> robots.txt is only a suggestion. Nobody is obligated to obey it.
However, https://web.archive.org/ [archive.org] does honor it. (If you know of a bigger public archive, please let me know.)
That poor decision to honor robots.txt even when the crawl is instigated by a human is one of the reasons https://archive.is/ [archive.is] was created.
https://archive.is/faq#Why_doe... [archive.is]
Paperless? Oh you mean like the Office? (Score:2)
I'll believe printed journalism is dead when the Paperless Office and IPv6 become more than a kitschy theme song.
Been hearing about that shit for the last two decades, and the overwhelming majority of business still runs on IPv4 and holds on to their beloved multi-function paper killing machines.
Not what it used to be. (Score:2)
Reading a daily paper used to be one of the highlights of my day. Especially if I had plenty of time in the morning and could relax with the paper and a cup of tea. Bliss.
I read the same publication online every day but the experience is diminished.
Look for a comeback (Score:2)
Sad, but... (Score:2)
... how long until we can get rid of the twice-monthly collection of super-saver ads, wrapped in a 1/2 page "article" so it can be legally litter^H^H^H^H^H^Hthrown onto my property? Because that thing is strictly waste from beginning to end -- from the paper and ink, to the power needed to print it, to the guys who drive around throwing them out their windows, to the trucks that carry them back to the recycling center (it goes straight from my driveway to the recycle bin), which then processes it. Oh yeah,
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not really, a lot of people like to have a physical newspaper, especially the elderly.
Of course the use of paper is terrible for the environment, all the millions of newspapers printed every day not to mention all the worthless advertising junk that gets delivered to people on a daily basis which gets thrown away without ever being read.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course the use of paper is terrible for the environment
Only if it is recycled. If paper is dumped into landfills, thus sequestering the carbon, it is a great way to mitigate AGW.
Re: Gross overestimate (Score:2)
Are you on crack?
Re: (Score:2)
As I type this I am sitting. Yes indeed I am on a crack.
However, I would like to purchase 3 cracks please. For science.
Re: (Score:2)
Most of trees used for paper ware intentionally grown for that purpose. The alternative is permanent deforestation and the land put into some other use.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree.
I have the most annoying experiences trying to read large articles or books on a screen. The font is always smaller than I find comfortable, and enlarging the page causes the necessity of scanning back and forth by moving the "sheet" back and forth, and then of course the stuff is still in 2 columns per page, so you have to read down to the bottom and then scroll up to the top of the next column, all of that taking a tremendous amount of attention that isn't necessary with a real book where you ca
Re: (Score:2)
Now that's odd. I often scan the NYT headlines...and I tend to think that they have a right wing slant, though not a strong one. I'll admit I never read their stories, and perhaps if I did I'ld have a different opinion.
FWIW, in my opinion newspapers highly process all their stories to make them more exciting. Using them as "sources of reputable information" isn't viable...but then there *aren't* any accurate sources of politically important information. And it seems plausible to me that there never were
Re: (Score:2)
With a computer, you have to search for something in order to bring it up to see - if you don't know it exists, then how do you search for it.
I didn't know about this story about printing presses, and I read it on a computer. It was on my slashdot news feed.
Deliberate misrepresentation by CNN (Score:5, Interesting)
CNN's story (and the /. summary above) promulgate its own propaganda thusly:
newspaper printing presses may have another decade of life in them
The headline and CNN reporter Kellie Eli's quote above completely misstate NYT CEO Mark Thompson's actual point. What he said was "I believe at least 10 years is what we can see in the U.S. for our print products." (Emphasis added by me, for clarity's sake.)
Note the profound difference in meaning between Thompson 's statement "at least 10 years," and Eli's characterization of his meaning as, "another decade of life ... but not much more." (My elision here is, once more, strictly for the purpose of clarity.) Her story quotes him as saying, "an absolute minimum of 10 years" of existence for the NYT print edition, whereas the CNN headline (precisely echoed by /.'s own headline) twists that to, "Print journalism has maybe another 10 years," and that mischaracterization continues in Eli's purported paraphrase of his statement.
This would merely be another case of CNN clickbait, were it not for the fact that this time they're straight out lying to their audience about the content of the interview their story pretends to be about. And that point seems to have completely escaped /. editor BeauHD. The real story here is that a reporter for CNN - a non-print news organization - is deliberately misrepresenting what the CEO of one of best and most professional print journals still in existence has to say about the medium-term future of his own publication, one of CNN's major competitors.
In my universe, that's yellow journalism at its most despicable.
I think Donald Trump is a lying asswipe who wouldn't recognize an actual fact if it rose up and bit him on the bunghole - but, sadly, this story is patent, deliberate, no-shit, fake news.
CNN should be ashamed of itself - but it's been pellucidly clear for at least 3 decades now that it it has no sense of organizatonal shame, so I'm not holding my breath on that score. But it pisses me off mightily that it has so casually discarded what pitiful shreds of journalistic integrity it might once have had - and thereby placed me in the profoundly awkward and embarrassing position of being forced to publicly agree with the likes of Donald fucking Trump ...
Re: (Score:2)
I might give them the benefit of the doubt, that what happened is comparable to what happens with science reporting. Interviewer makes executive summary of interview, with choice quotes. One of those quotes is misinterpreted by editor/producer/whoever. Misinterpretation turned into headline and made subject of an article, article handed down to junior writer who's not going to tell his boss 3 levels up that his English comprehension sucks. Misinformation makes it to press time, retraction happens a week lat
Re: (Score:2)
mentil cautioned:
I might give them the benefit of the doubt, that what happened is comparable to what happens with science reporting. Interviewer makes executive summary of interview, with choice quotes. One of those quotes is misinterpreted by editor/producer/whoever. Misinterpretation turned into headline and made subject of an article, article handed down to junior writer who's not going to tell his boss 3 levels up that his English comprehension sucks. Misinformation makes it to press time, retraction happens a week later in size 4 print next to the 4 pages of ads.
Hanlon's Razor [wikipedia.org] notwithstanding, I'd find it easier to give CNN credit for mere incompetence in this case were it not for the fact that the NYT is its direct competitor for news consumers. It's just too conveniently "on the nose" for a non-print news organization to be putting these particular words in that specific mouth, given that most people won't bother reading past the headline - and that the majority of those who do won't read CNN's report closely enough to catch the contra
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
And the media can't understand why Russian trolls are able to spread lies on social media. The Russians learned how to write headlines from 24 hour news networks. We wouldn't have a fake news epidemic if major news outlets (on all fronts) didn't sell out their objectivity for political gains.
Re: (Score:3)
danbert8 noted:
And the media can't understand why Russian trolls are able to spread lies on social media. The Russians learned how to write headlines from 24 hour news networks. We wouldn't have a fake news epidemic if major news outlets (on all fronts) didn't sell out their objectivity for political gains.
I have to disagree with your conclusion:
We wouldn't have a fake news epidemic if major news outlets (on all fronts) didn't sell out their objectivity for political gains.
The vast majority of major newspapers, newsmagazines, and TV news organizations do not, in fact, "sell out their objectivity for political gains." Fox News certainly does.It's true that MSNBC does lean sharply left in its editorial content - although, in fairness, it tries to provide at least some conservative counterbalance to that bias in the form of the Morning Joe show - but its news coverage qua news coverage clearly attempts to be object
propaganda (Score:3)
Actually the US Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 "would effectively nullify the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948, which explicitly forbids information and psychological operations aimed at influencing U.S. public opinion.
Thornberry said that the current law "ties the hands of America's diplomatic officials, military, and others by inhibiting our ability to effectively communicate in a credible way," according to Buzzfeed. "
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The real story here is that a reporter for CNN - a non-print news organization - is deliberately misrepresenting
Not CNN! CNN would never deliberately misrepresent someone or something.
The sad thing even if it was stupidity instead of malice that doesn't change the damage done.
Re: (Score:3)
CNN would never deliberately misrepresent someone or something.
And in this case they didn't. thomst got himself all excited about CNBC's headline, confused CNN & CNBC, and took himself off the rails on a CNN rant. It's an easy mistake to make, what with the 'C' and the 'N' and all. Every major news outlet has at times been guilty of misleading headlines, but on this topic I can't even find a CNN story much less one that demonstrates thomst's accusations.
Re: (Score:2)
Fair enough.
Re: (Score:2)
I watch all the cable news channels. It should be clear to any viewer that all the mainstream media "news" stations have become the public relations arm of the democratic party. There is no longer any journalistic integrity on mainstream media (MM) channels. If you watch MM news for more than a minute or two and don't se
Re: Deliberate misrepresentation by CNN (Score:2, Troll)
Nonsense! CNN would NEVER lie.
Also, water is dry, the Pope is Lutheran, and bears only shit on robotoilets in downtown Tokyo.
Re: (Score:2)
CNN would NEVER lie.
I would LOVE to see an example of CNN lying. Just one. One link to a story they've got up with lies in it. I'd even settle for an example of them doubling down on misinformation instead of correcting themselves when a mistake was made. I really doubt you can provide one. You might start here [wikipedia.org].
Regarding CNN's story on this topic that they're apparently misrepresenting so badly, I can't find it. I'm starting to think thomst just pulled it out of his ass. Does anyone have a link to the CNN story everyone's bitc
Re: (Score:2)
Well I guess it's illegal to read wikileaks and Clinton Email.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not going to watch that at work, but I'm assuming that's Chris Cuomo saying that only media outlets could legally read that stuff. That's stupid and inaccurate. It's not a link to a story with lies or an example of them backing up misinformation, but that is an instance where they should have corrected Cuomo's statement and I don't think they did.
Re: (Score:2)
If you really can't find examples of CNN being doing bad journalism you aren't looking or blind. Hell just Wikipedia gives a couple of recent examples [wikipedia.org].
Yes that video was Chris Cuomo. I am not sure why you have such an insistence of a link to a story when most of CNN is a broadcast. Are you saying when they lie during their broadcast it isn't the same as lying in an online article? Oh, I know. Because they can't retract their live broadcast. Because if I point out the Scaramucci affair, where people resigne
Re: (Score:2)
I'm assuming that you realize you linked to the same Wikipedia article that I did? Yeah, I've seen it. I can't find a link there to a story full of lies or an example of them doubling down on misinformation. Can you?
I am not sure why you have such an insistence of a link to a story when most of CNN is a broadcast.
Because their stories are edited for accuracy. Their broadcast is fallible people doing their best. They're careful, but an occasional mistake is inevitable and isn't terribly interesting as long as it's handled appropriately.
Sorry but just because they issue a large number of retractions on their written stories doesn't mean they're trustworthy.
I think we'll disagree on the definition of "large number". I've seen
Re: (Score:3)
"Also interesting is, remember, it’s illegal to possess these stolen documents. It’s different for the media. So everything you learn about this, you’re learning from us." - Chris Cuomo
Not in print but still damning and highlights CNN deliberately lying. The first amendment applies equally to media and the public. They are not special.
Since you are averse to video (though the below has a video).
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
Re: (Score:2)
CNN would NEVER lie.
I would LOVE to see an example of CNN lying. Just one.
Might I suggest you try using that google thingy people talk about using to search for things?
My personal favorite is CNN's Chris Cuomo telling us during the election that it is illegal for us peons to possess or view the Hillary e-mails from Wikileaks - but journalists have different rules so we have to listen to them.
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
Given that CNN is suing the shit out of anyone who says anything bad about them, and issued a DMCA takedown for the youtube video of *this* debacle, try this
Re: (Score:2)
Might I suggest you try using that google thingy people talk about using to search for things?
That's why I linked here [wikipedia.org]. It covers most of the usual complaints. If it was so easy to find an example like I asked for, I expect you would have shared one.
...Chris Cuomo telling us during the election that it is illegal...
CNN never published a story saying it was illegal to read Wikileaks. Chris Cuomo did say something to that effect on camera and should have been corrected.
...one of my favorites is the "White men account for 69% of violent crimes."
Did you read this favorite story you linked to? It says, "Whites account for 69% of those arrested for crimes." The quote you posted about violent crime came from the comments section. It didn't come
Re: (Score:3)
The link you can't seem to locate IS IN THE FUCKING SUMMARY.
There are 2 links in the summary. One to cnbc.com and one to mediaite.com. The link to the CNN story that you're so excited about IS NOT IN THE FUCKING SUMMARY. It's telling that you've yet to share it.
Re: (Score:2)
I glanced at CNN and didn't see this, but maybe I missed it. Either way a link would be helpful if your making arguments like this.
The link(s) you demand ARE IN THE FUCKING SUMMARY. Try actually reading it.
The link AC asked for and that you're railing about IS NOT IN THE FUCKING SUMMARY. You're bitching about CNN posting a misleading headline. I'm starting to think you invented CNN's story for a chance to bag on them. I'm not saying that CNN has never had a misleading headline, but I am saying they've got an excellent record of getting the facts straight and there is no CNN link in the summary. Try actually reading it.
Re: Gross overestimate (Score:2, Funny)
Slashdot has always been political. That's why people come here.
You're just butthurt that many nerds favored Emperor Trump over his opponent The Butcher of Libya.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm sorry, but that's twisting the truth a bit. I've been coming here since the 90s and there has always been political discussions, but at nowhere near the level, and without the sheer bitterness, on display these days. I'd like to blame the editors for pushing political stories, but sadly I think they are just pandering to the user base since the political crap gets all the comment - plus its the same all over the Internet.
Re: (Score:2)
Not everything was politicized in the 90s like they are now.
Re: (Score:2)
Generally these days "Liberal" just seems to mean people I don't like with different opinions. I haven't heard anyone self-identify as a liberal for nearly a decade. Part of the reason is it never had a solid definition (in the US)...or at least I don't remember it having one.
And these days most of the people who self-identify as conservatives tend to be xenophobes. The ideological conservatives of several stripes seem to have abandoned the term.