Mika Brzezinski says the media's job is to "control exactly what people think"
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 12, 2024, 07:26:40 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Mika Brzezinski says the media's job is to "control exactly what people think"
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: Mika Brzezinski says the media's job is to "control exactly what people think"  (Read 1399 times)
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,271
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: February 22, 2017, 06:44:31 PM »

lol I can't Mika serious on morning joe. I don't know she is so giddy with no independent thought.

Also, It's the media's job to inform people with truth, not control.

     The media has been doing a crummy job of it in recent years. I am reluctant to attribute malice where stupidity suffices, but it would explain a few things if they were trying to control what people thought. A more likely explanation is that the MSM journalists are stuck in an echo chamber already and this affects the quality of their reporting.

may if, for the sake of an open debate, ask, what kind of mistakes you could describe, which wouldn't happen in the past and aren't mostly connected to technical progress and new competition/lower financial security?

     Actually, I'm sure technical progress has had a lot to do with it. In the earliest days of television, there was a heavier focus on reporting the facts. The advent of cable news and the 24-hour cycle has created a need to fill time, and so we get endless panel discussions between various partisans pushing an agenda. The journalists are naturally tasked with moderating these discussions and the result is that genuine reportage gets pushed to the back in favor of commentary.

     Now you may note that this does constitute a sort of debate, so how are they in an echo chamber? It is less about left v. right and more to do with elite interests. Journalists do lean left as a profession and have for a long time, but the issue blew up in 2016 because they completely failed to grasp Donald Trump's appeal since he didn't appeal to the segments they were familiar with. They built him up without realizing it, because they didn't know what was going on. How can they report properly if they have such a big blindspot in the current events that they are supposed to be reporting on?

1) can't agree more on the upper part of your post.....reason i have hated CNN so much for years. if they are not in the field...cause something happens...they kill time with stupid debates, which are IMHO worse than MSNBC/FOX NEWS debates, cause unbiased stupidity is still stupidity. and if something real happens, to talk it to death, without educating anyone ......i am learning more on twitter than i could ever on CNN.

2) i agree in general on your point regarding Trump and stuff, even while i guess it is hard to bame "the media" for that one, cause his victory doesn't "make sense", since it literally broke all political rules regarding gaffes.

i am pretty sure, some stereotypical beltway journalists are out of touch with the even more stereotypical rust belt-small city inhabitants.

but...i think, trump's shtick wouldn't have worked in other years and if a few 1000 people voted in a different way, we would talk about the whole election differently, even while trump would still have been REALLY successful with broad parts of rural america.


the important question should be, imho, how can the "MSM" react to the challenge of trump?

     It's a funny quirk of how we think about elections that a difference of 0.1% of all voters can create a vast change in how people perceive the outcome of the election. What he did is heavily bound in the context of history and what was going on. Something that is really significant though is how well Trump did when the media gave him no chance. Huffington Post gave Clinton a 98% chance to win just as an example.

     As for what they could do overall, I think they really just need less editorializing and more humility. Have faith in the viewers to draw conclusions from the facts presented to them. Part of why you can learn more from Twitter than CNN is that it involves tracing stories back to their sources, where the truth is oftentimes much more nuanced than the news makes it appear.

     The MSM faces an existential crisis at the moment because public faith in them is at an all-time low. Very few people trust them to report the news accurately, and it makes it very easy for President Trump to antagonize them. They really need to own up to the fact that they have a significant trust issue with the public and they need to work on rebuilding all of the good will that they lost.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.02 seconds with 9 queries.