The News as We Once Knew It Is Dead

Sailor

Verified User
Article worth a read. By a highly intelligent person. Wonder who will try and refute it on here. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/09/17/the_news_as_we_once_knew_it_is_dead_144223.html


The News as We Once Knew It Is Dead
By Victor Davis Hanson

n 2017, the liberal Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard University found that 93 percent of CNN's coverage of the Trump administration was negative. The center found similarly negative Trump coverage at other major news outlets.

The election year 2020 has only accelerated that asymmetrical bias -- to the point that major newspapers and network and cable news organizations are now fused with the Joe Biden campaign.

Sometimes stories are covered only in terms of political agendas. Take COVID-19.

The media assure us that the Trump administration's handling of the pandemic has been a disaster. But their conclusions are not supported by any evidence.

In the United States, the coronavirus death rate per million people is similar to, or lower than, most major European countries except Germany

When the virus was at its worst, before the partisan campaign of this election year heated up, the governors in our four largest states had only compliments for the Trump administration.

Democrats Andrew Cuomo of New York and Gavin Newsom of California and Republicans Greg Abbott of Texas and Ron DeSantis of Florida effusively praised the administration's cooperation with their own frontline efforts.

The most recent conclusions of impartial heads of federal agencies responsible for coordinating national and state policies are about the same.

Dr. Deborah Birx (adviser to both the Obama and Trump administrations on responses to infectious diseases), Dr. Anthony Fauci (director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases) and Dr. Scott Gottlieb (former head of the Food and Drug Administration) have not faulted the Trump administration's overall COVID-19 response. They attribute any shortcomings to initial global ignorance about the origins and nature of the epidemic, incompetence at the World Health Organization, or the initial inability of bureaucracies to produce easily available and reliable test kits.

Prominent progressive Trump critics such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi criticized the necessary Trump travel ban, yet Pelosi told people there was no reason to cancel planned travel to San Francisco's Chinatown.

However, the real warping of the news is not just a matter of slanting coverage, but deliberately not covering the news at all.

In the last two weeks, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has achieved the most stunning breakthroughs in Middle Eastern diplomacy in over half a century.

Countries once hostile to Israel, such as the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, now formally recognize it. Other Arab nations may follow. Ancient existential enemies Kosovo and Serbia also agreed to normalize their relationship with Israel by signing economic agreements.

Yet none of these historic events have drawn much media attention. All of them would have been canonized were they achievements of the Obama administration.

In 2017, the media suggested that Trump's plans to get out of the Iran nuclear deal and the Paris climate accord, to confront Chinese mercantilism, to forge new alliances between Israel and moderate Arab regimes, to isolate an ascendant Iran, to close the southern border to illegal immigration, to jawbone NATO alliance members into honoring their defense expenditure commitments, and to destroy ISIS and weaken Hezbollah were all impossible, counterproductive or sheer madness.

And now?

An embargoed and bankrupt Iran is teetering on the brink. Its international terrorist appendages, including Hezbollah, are broke.

China is increasingly being ostracized by much of the world.

The U.S. has cut its carbon emissions, often at a rate superior to those nations still adhering to the Paris climate accord targets.

Cross-border illegal immigration has been reduced, according to many metrics.

ISIS was bombed into near dissolution. Moderate regimes in the Middle East are ascendant; radical cliques like Hamas and al-Qaeda are not.

More NATO members are meeting their commitments. The alliance's aggregate defense investments are way up.

Is any of that considered news? Not really.

Instead, every three or four days the public is fed a series of fantasy "bombshells" much like the daily hysterias of the Robert Mueller investigation into alleged collusion between the Trump team and Russia -- a two-year, media-hyped dud.

In recent weeks the media warned us that Trump was dismantling the Post Office to disrupt mail-in balloting.

Trump, we are told, has decided never to concede his sure loss in November and might have to be forcibly removed, perhaps by the military.

We read that Trump defiled the memory of fallen American soldiers in cemeteries abroad. We are lectured that Trump supposedly never took COVID-19 seriously.

All of these stories were either demonstrably untrue, were supported only by anonymous sources, or were the sensationalism of authors hawking books.

Yet such concocted melodramas will continue each week up to Election Day, while fundamental geostrategic shifts abroad brought about by American diplomacy will by intent go unnoticed.

The news as we once understood it is dead.

It has been replaced by the un-news: a political narrative created by partisans who believe the noble ends of destroying Trump justify any biased means necessary -- including destroying their own reputation and craft.
 
Fox is no different.

I preferred the "good old days" where the talking heads related what was going on in the world, and left it up to the viewers what to make of it.

RWers and Trump cultists have no bones to pick with mainstream media: the MSM are the ones who featured the Toadstool Nuremberg rallies night after night, and gave scant attention to the rest of the candidates. Even after Clinton was nominated, Trump got far more national news air time than she did.

The writer of this article is right about CNN. We don't watch their broadcasts, but do read their non-political stories on their web site. They have made no bones at all about despising the Toadstool and don't try to hide their bias... hence why I only use it for non-political news stories.
 
Article worth a read. By a highly intelligent person. Wonder who will try and refute it on here. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/09/17/the_news_as_we_once_knew_it_is_dead_144223.html


The News as We Once Knew It Is Dead
By Victor Davis Hanson

n 2017, the liberal Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard University found that 93 percent of CNN's coverage of the Trump administration was negative. The center found similarly negative Trump coverage at other major news outlets.

The election year 2020 has only accelerated that asymmetrical bias -- to the point that major newspapers and network and cable news organizations are now fused with the Joe Biden campaign.

Sometimes stories are covered only in terms of political agendas. Take COVID-19.

The media assure us that the Trump administration's handling of the pandemic has been a disaster. But their conclusions are not supported by any evidence.

In the United States, the coronavirus death rate per million people is similar to, or lower than, most major European countries except Germany

When the virus was at its worst, before the partisan campaign of this election year heated up, the governors in our four largest states had only compliments for the Trump administration.

Democrats Andrew Cuomo of New York and Gavin Newsom of California and Republicans Greg Abbott of Texas and Ron DeSantis of Florida effusively praised the administration's cooperation with their own frontline efforts.

The most recent conclusions of impartial heads of federal agencies responsible for coordinating national and state policies are about the same.

Dr. Deborah Birx (adviser to both the Obama and Trump administrations on responses to infectious diseases), Dr. Anthony Fauci (director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases) and Dr. Scott Gottlieb (former head of the Food and Drug Administration) have not faulted the Trump administration's overall COVID-19 response. They attribute any shortcomings to initial global ignorance about the origins and nature of the epidemic, incompetence at the World Health Organization, or the initial inability of bureaucracies to produce easily available and reliable test kits.

Prominent progressive Trump critics such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi criticized the necessary Trump travel ban, yet Pelosi told people there was no reason to cancel planned travel to San Francisco's Chinatown.

However, the real warping of the news is not just a matter of slanting coverage, but deliberately not covering the news at all.

In the last two weeks, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has achieved the most stunning breakthroughs in Middle Eastern diplomacy in over half a century.

Countries once hostile to Israel, such as the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, now formally recognize it. Other Arab nations may follow. Ancient existential enemies Kosovo and Serbia also agreed to normalize their relationship with Israel by signing economic agreements.

Yet none of these historic events have drawn much media attention. All of them would have been canonized were they achievements of the Obama administration.

In 2017, the media suggested that Trump's plans to get out of the Iran nuclear deal and the Paris climate accord, to confront Chinese mercantilism, to forge new alliances between Israel and moderate Arab regimes, to isolate an ascendant Iran, to close the southern border to illegal immigration, to jawbone NATO alliance members into honoring their defense expenditure commitments, and to destroy ISIS and weaken Hezbollah were all impossible, counterproductive or sheer madness.

And now?

An embargoed and bankrupt Iran is teetering on the brink. Its international terrorist appendages, including Hezbollah, are broke.

China is increasingly being ostracized by much of the world.

The U.S. has cut its carbon emissions, often at a rate superior to those nations still adhering to the Paris climate accord targets.

Cross-border illegal immigration has been reduced, according to many metrics.

ISIS was bombed into near dissolution. Moderate regimes in the Middle East are ascendant; radical cliques like Hamas and al-Qaeda are not.

More NATO members are meeting their commitments. The alliance's aggregate defense investments are way up.

Is any of that considered news? Not really.

Instead, every three or four days the public is fed a series of fantasy "bombshells" much like the daily hysterias of the Robert Mueller investigation into alleged collusion between the Trump team and Russia -- a two-year, media-hyped dud.

In recent weeks the media warned us that Trump was dismantling the Post Office to disrupt mail-in balloting.

Trump, we are told, has decided never to concede his sure loss in November and might have to be forcibly removed, perhaps by the military.

We read that Trump defiled the memory of fallen American soldiers in cemeteries abroad. We are lectured that Trump supposedly never took COVID-19 seriously.

All of these stories were either demonstrably untrue, were supported only by anonymous sources, or were the sensationalism of authors hawking books.

Yet such concocted melodramas will continue each week up to Election Day, while fundamental geostrategic shifts abroad brought about by American diplomacy will by intent go unnoticed.

The news as we once understood it is dead.

It has been replaced by the un-news: a political narrative created by partisans who believe the noble ends of destroying Trump justify any biased means necessary -- including destroying their own reputation and craft.

Aye, Cap'n.
 
Fox is no different.

I preferred the "good old days" where the talking heads related what was going on in the world, and left it up to the viewers what to make of it.

RWers and Trump cultists have no bones to pick with mainstream media: the MSM are the ones who featured the Toadstool Nuremberg rallies night after night, and gave scant attention to the rest of the candidates. Even after Clinton was nominated, Trump got far more national news air time than she did.

The writer of this article is right about CNN. We don't watch their broadcasts, but do read their non-political stories on their web site. They have made no bones at all about despising the Toadstool and don't try to hide their bias... hence why I only use it for non-political news stories.
According to the Harvard study quoted in the article Fox was the most balanced of the media outlets they studied.

https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-donald-trumps-first-100-days/
 
Article worth a read. By a highly intelligent person. Wonder who will try and refute it on here. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/09/17/the_news_as_we_once_knew_it_is_dead_144223.html


The News as We Once Knew It Is Dead
By Victor Davis Hanson
n 2017, the liberal Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard University found that 93 percent of CNN's coverage of the Trump administration was negative. The center found similarly negative Trump coverage at other major news outlets.

The election year 2020 has only accelerated that asymmetrical bias -- to the point that major newspapers and network and cable news organizations are now fused with the Joe Biden campaign.

Sometimes stories are covered only in terms of political agendas. Take COVID-19.

The media assure us that the Trump administration's handling of the pandemic has been a disaster. But their conclusions are not supported by any evidence.

In the United States, the coronavirus death rate per million people is similar to, or lower than, most major European countries except Germany

When the virus was at its worst, before the partisan campaign of this election year heated up, the governors in our four largest states had only compliments for the Trump administration.

Democrats Andrew Cuomo of New York and Gavin Newsom of California and Republicans Greg Abbott of Texas and Ron DeSantis of Florida effusively praised the administration's cooperation with their own frontline efforts.

The most recent conclusions of impartial heads of federal agencies responsible for coordinating national and state policies are about the same.

Dr. Deborah Birx (adviser to both the Obama and Trump administrations on responses to infectious diseases), Dr. Anthony Fauci (director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases) and Dr. Scott Gottlieb (former head of the Food and Drug Administration) have not faulted the Trump administration's overall COVID-19 response. They attribute any shortcomings to initial global ignorance about the origins and nature of the epidemic, incompetence at the World Health Organization, or the initial inability of bureaucracies to produce easily available and reliable test kits.

Prominent progressive Trump critics such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi criticized the necessary Trump travel ban, yet Pelosi told people there was no reason to cancel planned travel to San Francisco's Chinatown.

However, the real warping of the news is not just a matter of slanting coverage, but deliberately not covering the news at all.

In the last two weeks, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has achieved the most stunning breakthroughs in Middle Eastern diplomacy in over half a century.

Countries once hostile to Israel, such as the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, now formally recognize it. Other Arab nations may follow. Ancient existential enemies Kosovo and Serbia also agreed to normalize their relationship with Israel by signing economic agreements.

Yet none of these historic events have drawn much media attention. All of them would have been canonized were they achievements of the Obama administration.

In 2017, the media suggested that Trump's plans to get out of the Iran nuclear deal and the Paris climate accord, to confront Chinese mercantilism, to forge new alliances between Israel and moderate Arab regimes, to isolate an ascendant Iran, to close the southern border to illegal immigration, to jawbone NATO alliance members into honoring their defense expenditure commitments, and to destroy ISIS and weaken Hezbollah were all impossible, counterproductive or sheer madness.

And now?

An embargoed and bankrupt Iran is teetering on the brink. Its international terrorist appendages, including Hezbollah, are broke.

China is increasingly being ostracized by much of the world.

The U.S. has cut its carbon emissions, often at a rate superior to those nations still adhering to the Paris climate accord targets.

Cross-border illegal immigration has been reduced, according to many metrics.

ISIS was bombed into near dissolution. Moderate regimes in the Middle East are ascendant; radical cliques like Hamas and al-Qaeda are not.

More NATO members are meeting their commitments. The alliance's aggregate defense investments are way up.

Is any of that considered news? Not really.

Instead, every three or four days the public is fed a series of fantasy "bombshells" much like the daily hysterias of the Robert Mueller investigation into alleged collusion between the Trump team and Russia -- a two-year, media-hyped dud.

In recent weeks the media warned us that Trump was dismantling the Post Office to disrupt mail-in balloting.

Trump, we are told, has decided never to concede his sure loss in November and might have to be forcibly removed, perhaps by the military.

We read that Trump defiled the memory of fallen American soldiers in cemeteries abroad. We are lectured that Trump supposedly never took COVID-19 seriously.

All of these stories were either demonstrably untrue, were supported only by anonymous sources, or were the sensationalism of authors hawking books.

Yet such concocted melodramas will continue each week up to Election Day, while fundamental geostrategic shifts abroad brought about by American diplomacy will by intent go unnoticed.

The news as we once understood it is dead.

It has been replaced by the un-news: a political narrative created by partisans who believe the noble ends of destroying Trump justify any biased means necessary -- including destroying their own reputation and craft.
Hanson, who is a smart and educated guy, but he's as guilty as CNN.

I'm agreed with him that "news" is biased; it's biased to make money off of viewers through advertising. Intelligent, critically-thinking people can pick out the facts from the bullshit...and there's a lot of bullshit on all the cable news channels, including Fox which Victor neglected to mention in his complaint. :)

He also wrote this: "We read that Trump defiled the memory of fallen American soldiers in cemeteries abroad. We are lectured that Trump supposedly never took COVID-19 seriously.

All of these stories were either demonstrably untrue, were supported only by anonymous sources, or were the sensationalism of authors hawking books
" which itself is demonstrably untrue as Victor, an author himself hawking books, knows.
 
Fox is no different.

I preferred the "good old days" where the talking heads related what was going on in the world, and left it up to the viewers what to make of it.

RWers and Trump cultists have no bones to pick with mainstream media: the MSM are the ones who featured the Toadstool Nuremberg rallies night after night, and gave scant attention to the rest of the candidates. Even after Clinton was nominated, Trump got far more national news air time than she did.

The writer of this article is right about CNN. We don't watch their broadcasts, but do read their non-political stories on their web site. They have made no bones at all about despising the Toadstool and don't try to hide their bias... hence why I only use it for non-political news stories.

Agreed on Fox. It's all about the money for all the cable news channels. Fox has their niche, CNN has theirs...which they are trying to share with MSNBC and both losing money to Fox. If a fourth news channel which is hard right like Fox grew as large as CNN and MSNBC, it'd probably even everything out.
 
According to the Harvard study quoted in the article Fox was the most balanced of the media outlets they studied.

https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-donald-trumps-first-100-days/

That's not what it says, slick. There's balanced media and then there's "Fox was the only news outlet in the study that came close to giving Trump positive coverage overall, however, there was variation in the tone of Fox’s coverage depending on the topic.

It's like saying US newspapers are biased against Putin but RT is balanced media because they report more positive things about Putin like Putin fishing, Putin riding bareback and Putin shooting rifles.

The key, of course, isn't what newspaper, magazine or cable news a person watches, but that the person is able to use critical thinking to analyze the report.
 
If you get your news from television, you are not getting the news...

Every hour it's about 5 minutes of news, 10 minutes of commercials and 45 minutes of bullshit opinions. I like a news mix channel which has all the CNN, Fox, MSNBC and BBC in quarters on the screen. It's interesting to see what they choose to cover and what they do not.
 
We read that Trump defiled the memory of fallen American soldiers in cemeteries abroad.
anonymous lies treated as gospel by Fake News

We are lectured that Trump supposedly never took COVID-19 seriously.
travel bans that Biden called "xenophobic racism" is taking COVI seriously

Countries once hostile to Israel, such as the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, now formally recognize it. Other Arab nations may follow. Ancient existential enemies Kosovo and Serbia also agreed to normalize their relationship with Israel by signing economic agreements.

Yet none of these historic events have drawn much media attention. All of them would have been canonized were they achievements of the Obama administration.
the coverage is scant to non-existent and "what about the Palestinians" -crap.

Kerry was so far afield he said peace without solving the Palestinian was "impossible".
Kerry is an idiot
 
The writer of this article is right about CNN. We don't watch their broadcasts, but do read their non-political stories on their web site. They have made no bones at all about despising the Toadstool and don't try to hide their bias... hence why I only use it for non-political news stories.
:palm:
 
It has been replaced by the un-news: a political narrative created by partisans who believe the noble ends of destroying Trump justify any biased means necessary -- including destroying their own reputation and craft.
exactly what the NYTimes let out of the bag..

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/08/...oudly-provocative-presidential-candidate.html
If you view a Trump presidency as something that’s potentially dangerous, then your reporting is going to reflect that. You would move closer than you’ve ever been to being oppositional.
 
The key, of course, isn't what newspaper, magazine or cable news a person watches, but that the person is able to use critical thinking to analyze the report.

Indeed, and IMO, most leftists fail to use that faculty if the "news" they see feeds their confirmation bias.
 
First of all, the news in the US has never been "unbiased." You ought to read some of the articles about Lincoln's assassination if you don't believe me.

Second, Donald Trump is a lying, corrupt sack of shit who deserves to be called out for his numerous lies. You don't get to call journalists liars simply for debunking Trump's nonsense.
 
Indeed, and IMO, most leftists fail to use that faculty if the "news" they see feeds their confirmation bias.

Agreed, but like Victor's article, you neglect to mention most rightists do the same. It follows a bell curve of human behavior.
 
Back
Top