Millions of people care. It’s up to those millions to fight.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
NERW: The FCC in Authoritarian Times
- Thread starter fybush
- Start date
- Status
The question is, does the majority of the media care? Or, are they just reporting his lie, with little to no context in regard to actual facts on the subject being lied about?
How does it accomplish anything if after doing your job, telling the truth, and doing the right thing, you become a target and get fired?
I get it. You saw "All The President's Men." That was 50 years ago. That clearly doesn't work now. Even Woodward knows. Try something else.
Depends on who you ask. Most reporters care. That's why they do it. Their bosses have to deal with the more practical situation.
If you read the texts in the Dominion case, you get some insight into the thinking at Fox News.
As I said, just reporting news as though it's 1974 isn't going to work this time. They already saw the movie.
In this world today, there's no respect for the fact that you have a job and work at an established news organization. If anything, there's resentment about it. You're in the "elite," and that's not a respected position to be in right now. The people control who has the power, not the media.
We already know the answer. The media either doesn't care or the upper management/ownership muzzle anyone who does. Or both. See "sanewashing".
And no one watches NewsNation. It's among the lowest-rated channels in all of basic cable.
The ugly truth is this: the general public doesn't want to be informed but affirmed, and it's not just a right-wing problem.
It’s an important question. Early signs don’t look promising. At most, they provide milquetoast pronouncements that downplay the depth of the lies and gaslighting and minimize the scope of damage being done.
I believe that it was used prior to Usenet and first applied when college debate teams fell for the temptation to taint "the other team" by accusing them of a) acting like Hitler, b) behaving like Nazis, c) citing Mein Kampf, d) referring to the other team as supporting any of the Nazis more horrible policies or actions.
Actually, the best "in power" comparison is to Milei in Argentina.
You did your job. You used your platform, be it print, broadcast or otherwise, to tell the truth. Because you sure as heck don’t accomplish anything if you use print, broadcast (broadcast now twice mentioned, dear censors) or other medium to let lies go unchallenged.
Even on broadcast TV a few times (that’s three so far).
These are the options:
- Use your broadcast (4), print or other platform to be an actual journalist.
- Use your broadcast (5) print or other platform to become part of the regime.
You seem to be forgetting who owns and controls that ""platform" you use. It's not yours.
Future and current journalists may be wise to follow Jim Acosta's lead and go at it alone on reader-supported platforms not beholden to corporate overlords.
He’s using his established reputation garnered from being a cable television mainstay and more power to him for that. I have no doubt he will use that television background to produce solid, truthful journalism. Will it work for all? No. But if he maintains a voice he honed on television, it’s welcome in this fight.
ABC gave around 5 minutes to President Musk's first press conference at the White House, with Trump just sitting looking bored at a desk. That said more than any commentary could have
Like the effects of ketamine? That would be an important thing for television to show as well.
Maybe someone from a broadcast outlet could ask the old guy cosplaying at the desk when the people eating animals suddenly stopped being a thing they were so concerned about.
I have no idea what that means.
I imagine that there is probably a slew of journalists as well as TV and Radio anchors over the years who still have a sizable social media presence. I assume more than a few still dabble in the news editorial side to keep their fans engaged. If Acosta's social media accounts had 200K followers across all platforms, it is still a sizable chunk. If half of them viewed and shared his content, it's still getting the message out there.
Dan Rather’s newsletter is pretty popular too
"They're eating the dogs, they're eating the cats" in Springfield Ohio, demonizing Haitian migrants
Spoken as someone who obviously has never been in Haiti.
Could be. That sounds like a losing strategy in any event.
Nah, I'll stick with the Anthony Fremont comparison, involving a six-year-old, emotionally at that level but with strange powers who isolates his community and terrorizes it into believing only positive things about the lives they're forced to live under his control, while sending anyone who has any kind of thought otherwise into oblivion.
That's a Twilight Zone reference, by the way. I'm disappointed that no one picked that up.
- Status