Jump to content

Media Bias Thread

Hugo Stiglitz

By Hugo Stiglitz
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Captainant
Captainant

Ok, here's some 9/11 jokes brought to you by our president's actions and record regarding 9/11: 1) On 9/11 itself Trump was on the phone with a TV station hours after the buildings collapsed to b

Doris
Doris
henrygandorf
henrygandorf

the reason that this is so dangerous in today's climate - is fucking social media. not that long ago, you heard a story on the news, on the radio, from a friend or family member.  maybe you read

Posted Images

Guest Lobo

Guest Lobo

Posted
Posted

Wasn't it Trump's that said (after his inheritance kicked in), "The first 60 million is always the hardest"?   was he talking about dollars or people?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JBJ

JBJ 3598

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 8/19/2019 at 1:24 PM, Captainant said:

Youtube, surly, reddit, et al, are public forums - meaning their main content isn't generated by the platform itself, but by the users and participants.

NYT, Fox, WaPo, et al, are publishers - meaning their main content IS generated by the platform and is representative of their views and opinions.

Prior to the CDA having a TOS and moderators made you a publisher. But now you can't hold Surly responsible for content posted by the assholes here (there are some exceptions for illegal content and copyrighted material). Further, "good faith" moderation is protected by law against discriination suits. 

Where it gets dicey is that YouTube plays both sides.  They claim to need a publisher's editorial judgement in determining the monetization of videos, but want their content to be free from the liabilities of a publisher.

The core question is if/how you legally function when you are both publisher and platform at the same time.

Edited by JBJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JBJ

JBJ 3598

Posted
Posted (edited)
26 minutes ago, elfenix said:

can you explain this a little more and how it interacts with section 230

YouTube wants the section 230 protections even when acting as a publisher because they publish within a platform.  Does that make sense?

 

Think of it this way: the NYT pays its authors to post articles on a general message board.  These articles aren't published otherwise, suppose they didn't make the editorial cut.  Is NYTimes publishing these articles, or is this content to be treated just posted like any other random poster on the otherwise open platform?

Now say they own that platform and "bump down" rival articles from The NewYorker authors.  Should Section 203 protect this as a function of moderation?

Edited by JBJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captainant

Captainant 26927

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, JBJ said:

Where it gets dicey is that YouTube plays both sides.  They claim to need a publisher's editorial judgement in determining the monetization of videos, but want their content to be free from the liabilities of a publisher.

But the key difference is that YT very rarely outright removes video, they more typically they opt to remove monetization from videos but leave them up for viewing, free of charge to the uploader. The only instances of them removing content is when it is a genuine violation of law or their platform rules such as extreme gore, CP, vile shit like that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JBJ

JBJ 3598

Posted
Posted
22 minutes ago, Captainant said:

But the key difference is that YT very rarely outright removes video, they more typically they opt to remove monetization from videos but leave them up for viewing, free of charge to the uploader. The only instances of them removing content is when it is a genuine violation of law or their platform rules such as extreme gore, CP, vile shit like that. 

Monetization is the problem.  If they weren't selective with monetization only filtering, they are clearly a platform.  If monetization was a hard filter, they are a publisher.

YouTube occupies a space between.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captainant

Captainant 26927

Posted
Posted
Just now, JBJ said:

Monetization is the problem.  If they weren't selective with monetization only filtering, they are clearly a platform.  If monetization was a hard filter, they are a publisher.

YouTube occupies a space between.

What do you mean by that? Youtube spends money on each and every video it hosts on its platform. They don't restrict uploads in any meaningful way (banned people can easily just make a new account), and the monetization is a value-add (not a guarantee) to the content producers. There's no rules or policy to stop those content producers from selling ads themselves and embedding them into their own videos rather than using their ad service, which is a trend we've been seeing more since youtube has gotten more fucky about their monetization.

Youtube is a platform in my view, and they haven't been acting as a publisher aside from their specifically individually produced content, which is clearly marked as a "youtube original" 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
elfenix

elfenix 34127

Posted
Posted
YouTube wants the section 230 protections even when acting as a publisher because they publish within a platform.  Does that make sense?
 
Think of it this way: the NYT pays its authors to post articles on a general message board.  These articles aren't published otherwise, suppose they didn't make the editorial cut.  Is NYTimes publishing these articles, or is this content to be treated just posted like any other random poster on the otherwise open platform?
Now say they own that platform and "bump down" rival articles from The NewYorker authors.  Should Section 203 protect this as a function of moderation?
Do you have a filing where YouTube claims to need the discretion of a publisher?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JBJ

JBJ 3598

Posted
Posted
22 minutes ago, elfenix said:

Do you have a filing where YouTube claims to need the discretion of a publisher?

Couldn't find the original motion to dismiss, but in the reply to support:

In the summary: "YouTube is a private publishing service...its editorial decisions are protected by the First Amendment." 

From Section I: "...[PragerU claims that YouTube] by holding itself out at as a neutral platform, a publisher would thereby lose its right to make editorial judgements.... That YouTube has a general commitment to promoting user expression (and disclaims legal responsibility for its users' content) does not change that.  YouTube's support for free speech....cannot strip YouTube of its First Amendment protection for those editorial judgements."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captainant

Captainant 26927

Posted
Posted
24 minutes ago, JBJ said:

Couldn't find the original motion to dismiss, but in the reply to support:

In the summary: "YouTube is a private publishing service...its editorial decisions are protected by the First Amendment." 

From Section I: "...[PragerU claims that YouTube] by holding itself out at as a neutral platform, a publisher would thereby lose its right to make editorial judgements.... That YouTube has a general commitment to promoting user expression (and disclaims legal responsibility for its users' content) does not change that.  YouTube's support for free speech....cannot strip YouTube of its First Amendment protection for those editorial judgements."

Is that PragerU, the plaintiff against youtube, claiming that youtube is a publisher? Or is that YT claiming that they're a publisher? It's not super clear without the original source lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JBJ

JBJ 3598

Posted
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Is that PragerU, the plaintiff against youtube, claiming that youtube is a publisher? Or is that YT claiming that they're a publisher? It's not super clear without the original source lol

They both argue that YouTube is both. 

Prager argues that YouTube can't be both.

YouTube argues that they can be both.

 

Legally, I think YouTube is mostly correct, but that they should lose Section 230 protection for videos that they monetize.  However, for platforms that broadly monetize (I think Twitch works this way), they would keep Section 230 status.

Edited by JBJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites
elfenix

elfenix 34127

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 minute ago, JBJ said:

They both argue that YouTube is both. 

Prager argues that YouTube can't be both.

YouTube argues that they can be both.

 

Legally, I think YouTube is mostly correct, but that they should lose Section 230 protection for videos that they monetize.

i haven't read them so i don't know if this analysis is correct, but youtube cites a couple cases that disagree with that:

Quote

YouTube’s choices about whether to classify videos as “mature” or otherwise sensitive, and whether ads should be displayed alongside a given video, all fall squarely within the functions protected under Section 230. See Zeran, 129 F.3d at 330; Batzel, 333 F.3d at 1028-29. Plaintiff’s effort to hold YouTube liable for making those decisions is categorically forbidden by Section 230(c)(1).

(note the trial court did not cite either of those cases in its decision)

Edited by elfenix
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13022

Posted
Posted (edited)

The media has become gossip, clickbait and punditry. This threatens democracy. - Bernie Sanders

Quote

One reason we do not have enough real journalism in America right now is because many outlets are being gutted by the same forces of greed that are pillaging our economy.

For example, two Silicon Valley corporations—Facebook and Google—control 60 percent of the entire digital advertising market. They have used monopolistic control to siphon off advertising revenues from news organizations. A recent study by the News Media Alliance, a trade organization, found that in 2018, as newspaper revenues declined, Google made $4.7 billion off reporting that Google did not pay for.

He goes on to outline his administration's policy goals for restoring the Fourth Estate.

- Actively oppose massive media mergers
- Require disclosure of potential layoffs in mergers
- Employees given the opportunity to purchase media outlets
- Progressive FCC leadership
- Boost unionization efforts in media
- Taxing targeted ads (one of the way Google basically steals revenue from journalists)

Edited by bad_teammate
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chult86

Chult86 299

Posted
Posted (edited)

So you post an image with an image so pixelated that I'm having flashbacks to the late 90s. Then you also give a link to the story, where one would presumably assume said image is discussed. However, the link provides zero new context or information about the issue, nor does it provide even a link to the image that I can find.

2/10 post, would not read again

Edited by Chult86
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Longhornfan1024

Longhornfan1024 1707

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, EMAWesome said:

To be fair if the media have not figured out they are discredited the first 2,000 times they have fallen for this since 2017 why would they start now?  MSNBC=Most Stuff Not Basically Confirmed (or Most Stuff Not Believably Credible take your pick)

To be fair, you're a moron if you think that post is true.  

  • Like 1
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
EMAWesome

EMAWesome 101

Posted
Posted

The point isn't even about that post.  The point is about O'Donnell running with the story to begin with.  He wouldn't have ran it without getting the blessing of MSNBC management. They are the gatekeepers to everything they put on the air.  I'm pretty sure the reason O'Donnell didn't " go through the rigorous verification and standards process here at MSNBC before repeating what I heard from my source" was because he didn't know MSNBC had any rigorous verification and standards process to begin with.  By the way if you listen to the "apology" what O'Donnell is saying is "Some guy who hasn't seen the actual documents told me this and even though we can not confirm this you can't prove it didn't happen either."  A dishonest press is just as bad as dishonest politicians.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TDunk

TDunk 590

Posted
Posted
26 minutes ago, EMAWesome said:

The point isn't even about that post.  The point is about O'Donnell running with the story to begin with.  He wouldn't have ran it without getting the blessing of MSNBC management. They are the gatekeepers to everything they put on the air.  I'm pretty sure the reason O'Donnell didn't " go through the rigorous verification and standards process here at MSNBC before repeating what I heard from my source" was because he didn't know MSNBC had any rigorous verification and standards process to begin with.  By the way if you listen to the "apology" what O'Donnell is saying is "Some guy who hasn't seen the actual documents told me this and even though we can not confirm this you can't prove it didn't happen either."  A dishonest press is just as bad as dishonest politicians.

 

How does the "apology" compare to any of Trumps' or from Fox "news"?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SmokeyTheBear

SmokeyTheBear 5555

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, EMAWesome said:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/august_2019/voters_don_t_trust_political_news_say_most_reporters_want_to_stop_trump

 

54% do not trust the political news they are getting.  51% believe the media is attempting to block Trump from carrying out his political agenda instead of reporting news.

But rasmussen is biased

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/which-pollsters-to-trust-in-2018/

https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/405965-pollster-rasmussen-research-has-a-pro-gop-bias

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13022

Posted
Posted

NYT columnist Bret Stephens tried to get a professor fired because the professor called him a bedbug

He got owned online so hard that he quit Twitter.

Then he wrote an article about how being called a "bedbug" basically makes him like the Holocaust victim.

Now a sitting US Senator from Hawaii is mocking him

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 17804

Posted
Posted
43 minutes ago, EMAWesome said:

Constitutional scholar Chris Hayes--"The Electoral College would be unconstitutional ‘if it wasn’t specifically in the Constitution’."

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/msnbc-host-electoral-college-would-be-unconstitutional-if-it-wasnt-specifically-in-the-constitution

The right should be familiar with stuff like this. See: birthright citizenship.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mrs Whiggins

Mrs Whiggins 13049

Posted
Posted
On 8/29/2019 at 7:46 PM, EMAWesome said:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/august_2019/voters_don_t_trust_political_news_say_most_reporters_want_to_stop_trump

 

54% do not trust the political news they are getting.  51% believe the media is attempting to block Trump from carrying out his political agenda instead of reporting news.

100% shouldn't trust anything the Administration is saying and doing since they are the least transparent of all.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
F250

F250 28543

Posted
Posted
On 9/1/2019 at 9:59 AM, EMAWesome said:

Constitutional scholar Chris Hayes--"The Electoral College would be unconstitutional ‘if it wasn’t specifically in the Constitution’."

 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/msnbc-host-electoral-college-would-be-unconstitutional-if-it-wasnt-specifically-in-the-constitution

How is this a news bias?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 17804

Posted
Posted
On 8/29/2019 at 7:46 PM, EMAWesome said:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/august_2019/voters_don_t_trust_political_news_say_most_reporters_want_to_stop_trump

 

54% do not trust the political news they are getting.  51% believe the media is attempting to block Trump from carrying out his political agenda instead of reporting news.

Blaming the media for his failure is very Trumpy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jack Straw

Jack Straw 2953

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Blaming the media for his failure is very Trumpy.

certainly helps explain Trump’s 96% approval rating among Republicans (and the other 4% will still vote for him, so 100% in reality) - blaming others for one’s own failures and a complete lack of accountability is very, very Republican.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom

Tom 2959

Posted
Posted
58 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

Fantstic Shapiro rant. Didn't know the dude was a comedian.

 

 

I made it about 53 seconds until I couldn't listen to his nasally prepubescent voice any longer. 

Yeah, sorry, Ben, nobody is calling people Nazis and white supremacists because they disagree with Nancy Pelosi's tax policy.  I think it has something to do with kids being separated from their parents, ,thrown in cages, not given water or flu shots, and sent home to die while most on the right shrug their shoulders.  It MIGHT have something to do with the fact that you all lost your collective fucking minds for 8 years when the president had the wrong color skin.  And you don't all agree that "Nazis are bad", because when a group of white people marched chanting "Jews will not replace us" and ran over a counter protester, or when a white guy went into a Walmart in El Paso to shoot up a bunch of Mexican families, you all shrugged your shoulders and said "good people on both sides" or "must have been the video games, not the president's rhetoric."   

I'm sure the rest of the video was filled with equally disingenuous bullshit and Shapiro's trademarked victim complex, but I don't have the patience.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SmokeyTheBear

SmokeyTheBear 5555

Posted
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Thetexashammer said:

Indeed. I was so "triggered" by 9/11 and the deaths of 3,000 of my fellow Americans that I joined the Army. Any more 9/11 jokes you want to share with the audience?

Was what I said a joke? You are triggered by a description of events from a paper. Were you triggered by Trump wanting to invite the Taliban to Camp David, and if so, can you show where you posted your anger about it because I would assume Trumps actions are far more egregious. 

Edited by SmokeyTheBear
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
Captainant

Captainant 26927

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
14 hours ago, Thetexashammer said:

Indeed. I was so "triggered" by 9/11 and the deaths of 3,000 of my fellow Americans that I joined the Army. Any more 9/11 jokes you want to share with the audience?

Ok, here's some 9/11 jokes brought to you by our president's actions and record regarding 9/11:

1) On 9/11 itself Trump was on the phone with a TV station hours after the buildings collapsed to bragging about how his building was now the tallest.

"40 Wall street actually was the second-tallest building in downtown Manhattan, and it was actually before the World Trade Center the tallest, and and then when they built the World Trade Center it became known as the second-tallest, and now it’s the tallest"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ASRlzeLg0U

2) Trump promised to donate $10,000 to the 9/11 victims. (A paltry amount for a New Yorker who claimed to be a billionaire and one of the richest men in the country) But he never donated the money....though he took public credit for donating it.

"In the weeks after the brutal attacks, Trump pledged $10,000 to the Twin Towers Fund as part of an effort Howard Stern was pushing. A report said Trump promised the donation in late September 2001, and the Daily News obtained audio of Stern's Oct. 10, 2001, interview with Trump where both he and co-host Robin Quivers thanked him for that donation."

https://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/donald-trump-lied-donating-9-11-charities-article-1.2829908

NYC Official: No Evidence Trump Gave $10K to 9/11 Fund New York City’s comptroller has found no evidence that Donald Trump gave $10,000 to a fund for 9/11 victims after the terror attack, and concluded that the GOP nominee “may have lied” about making a donation.

“Contrary to Donald Trump’s claims, the Comptroller’s Office found no evidence of a donation by Mr. Trump in the year following the attacks,” according to an “Information Sheet on 9/11 Donation Review” provided to NBC News on Friday that summarizes the office’s findings.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/nyc-official-no-evidence-trump-gave-10k-9-11-fund-n666631

3) Trump lied and claimed he had hundreds of his men working in the 9/11 rescue effort when he didn't have any.

Trump: I have hundreds of men inside working right now and we’re bringing down another 125 in a little while. And they’ve never done work like this before. And they’re hard-working people but they’ve never seen anything like it. And they’ve never done work like this before, it’s terrible.

Richard Alles, a retired deputy chief with the New York City Fire Department (FDNY), who now serves as director of 9/11 community affairs for the law firm Barasch McGarry Salzman and Penson, told us that in all the hours, days and months he spent at Ground Zero as an FDNY battalion chief starting 20 minutes after the buildings collapsed, he never witnessed a large group of workers hired by Trump at the site helping with search and rescue. “This is the first I’m hearing of it,” Alles told us by phone. “There would have been no need for that. Between police, fire and the construction crews, we had it all covered.”

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-searching-911-survivors/

4) Trump lied and claimed that he helped in the 9/11 clean-up personally.

“Everyone who helped clear the rubble — and I was there, and I watched, and I helped a little bit — but I want to tell you: Those people were amazing,” Trump said. “Clearing the rubble. Trying to find additional lives. You didn’t know what was going to come down on all of us — and they handled it.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2018/09/11/trumps-long-history-of-lying-about-9-11-and-exploiting-it-for-personal-gain/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.d56875ed2bf9

All Trump did was show up and get himself interviewed on TV at the site. He didn't get his hands dirty.

5) Trump lied repeatedly about 9/11 claiming to have seen thousands of Muslims cheering in New Jersey when the Towers fell....something that never happened.

“I watched when the World Trade Center came tumbling down, and I watched in Jersey City, New Jersey where thousands and thousands of people were cheering as that building was coming down.”

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-bizarre-quotes-911-attacks-tallest-building-higher-ratings-muslims-cheering-george-w-a8530571.html

In an interview on ABC’s This Week days later, he told George Stephanopoulos, “It did happen. I saw it. It was on television, I saw it. George, it did happen. There were people who were cheering on the other side of New Jersey where you have large Arab populations. They were cheering as the World Trade Center came down. I know it might be not politically correct for you to talk about it.” He reiterated the point on NBC’s Meet the Press: “I saw it. So many people saw it. And, so, why would I take it back? I’m not going to take it back.”

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/09/trump-hasnt-retracted-claim-about-muslims-cheering-9-11.html

6) Trump lied and said he watched people jump from the windows on 9/11

"I have a window in my apartment that specifically was aimed at the World Trade Center because of the beauty of the whole downtown Manhattan and I watched as people jumped. And I watched the second plane come in. Many people jumped and I witnessed it, I watched that."

Trump Tower is four miles from the site of the World Trade Center. He could not possibly have seen people jump from the buildings during the attacks.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2018/09/11/trumps-long-history-of-lying-about-9-11-and-exploiting-it-for-personal-gain/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.d56875ed2bf9

7) Trump lied and said he lost hundreds of friends in the 9/11 attack. But he can't name a single one. You lost someone in that attack, you remember their names.

“I lost hundreds of friends in 9/11.”

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-wont-name-any-of-the-hundreds-of-friends-he-says-died-on-918

😎 Trump did make money off 9/11 though he lied repeatedly about the reason why he was given that money. The billionaire, one of the richest men in America, applied for and got a small business grant of $150,000. (15 times more than he was willing to pledge [but not pay] to the victims' fund.)

Trump lied and said the money was reimbursement for helping out after the attacks, it wasn't.

The Republican said several times during the presidential campaign trail that he was awarded the sum for helping others after terrorists took down the Twin Towers in Manhattan.

Mr Trump told TIME magazine in April that the money was “probably a reimbursement” for allowing people to stay in his skyscraper at 40 Wall Street for several months and to store items in the building. He did not specify who these people were.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/911-anniversary-donald-trump-lied-150000-small-businesses-skyscraper-clean-up-repair-costs-a7236766.html

Though the billionaire presidential candidate has repeatedly suggested he got that money for helping others out after the attacks, documents obtained by the Daily News show that Trump's account was just a huge lie.

Records from the Empire State Development Corp., which administered the recovery program, show that Trump's company asked for those funds for "rent loss," "cleanup" and "repair" — not to recuperate money lost in helping people.

https://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/exclusive-trump-didn-post-9-11-funds-helping-people-article-1.2786879

9) Finally, in 2016, 15 years after 9/11 happened and in the middle of his presidential campaign, Trump finally does something for 9/11 (that isn't being a lying, greedy, piece of shit). He has his Trump Foundation donate $100,000 to the 9/11 Museum Memorial --- days before the New York primary.

But understand, that wasn't Trump's own money. He hadn't given a dime to his Foundation in years. So Trump donated $100,000 of other people's money to the 9/11 Museum to help his campaign.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/trump-charity-donations/

To date, Trump hasn't given a penny of his own money for the 9/11 victims, despite taking vociferous credit for doing so. That's a fucking joke.

  • Like 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites
EMAWesome

EMAWesome 101

Posted
Posted

https://bospar.com/resources/bospar-study-nearly-all-americans-are-troubled-by-the-current-state-of-the-media/

Bospar Study: Nearly All Americans Are Troubled by the Current State of the Media

Americans believe ethics in journalism will be worse during the 2020 presidential campaign

SAN FRANCISCO – SEPTEMBER 9, 2019 – Bospar, the boutique PR firm that puts tech companies on the map, has released the results of its Ethics in Media survey. The new data comes as Bospar hosts its Ethics in Media panel with the San Francisco Chapter of the Public Relations Society of America and the San Francisco Press Club on Sept. 19 at 6 p.m. The event will take place at Werqwise on 149 New Montgomery St. in San Francisco. 

ABC Veteran anchor Cheryl Jennings will moderate the discussion. Panelists include former Wall Street Journal reporter and Message Lab CEO Ben Worthen and former KRON Executive Producer and Bospar Principal Curtis Sparrer.

Bospar and Propeller Insights surveyed 1,010 American adults and discovered that more than 95% are troubled by the current state of media. The reasons for their concern include the following:

  1. Reports on fake news – 53%
  2. Reporting gossip – 49%
  3. Lying spokespeople – 48%
  4. Celebrity opinions – 36%
  5. Left-wing agendas – 34%
  6. Gotcha journalism – 33%
  7. Right-wing agendas – 32%
  8. Puff pieces in exchange for access to other important interviews – 31%
  9. Blind items being reported in the news – 30%
  10. Hit pieces – 21%
  11. Rise of independent contributors versus on-staff media – 14%

And an overwhelming majority (67%) believe ethics in journalism will be worse during the 2020 presidential campaign. When asked about the impact unethical journalism has on the country, Americans cited four chief problems:

  • 64%: It creates division and partisanship
  • 63%: It fuels inaccuracies
  • 60%: It incites hate
  • 57%: It creates fear

“If ever there was a time for an in-depth discussion about ethics in the media, it’s now,” said James Ennis Kirkland, president of the San Francisco Press Club.

The survey group considered local print and online journalists as the most ethical (40%), followed by local TV reporters and anchors (23%) and national print and online journalists (22%). Only 15% of Americans said national TV anchors and reporters were the most ethical.

“When you look at perceptions of ethics in journalism, based on political affiliation, those aligned with the Democratic Party are significantly more likely to consider national journalists/anchors/reporters ethical, when compared to those aligned with the Republican Party or other minor parties,” said Gabrielle Ayala, Principal of Propeller Insights. “This is no surprise, given the current battles being waged by all groups in politics and the media to control the narrative and position themselves as the bearers of truth.”

When it came to ranking PR and marketing people by ethics, individuals in those roles in health services came on top (23%), followed by technology (17%), professional services (16%), food and beverage (9%), consumer/retail (6%), and entertainment (6%).

Interestingly, Americans’ ethical expectations of journalism mirrored their expectations of PR and marketing. Slightly more than 43% said journalism is less ethical than in the past, while 37% said ethics hasn’t changed recently, and 20% said it’s more ethical than in the past. When asked about PR and marketing, the percentages were nearly the same: 42% said that the current state of ethics in PR and marketing is less ethical than in the past, while 39% said ethics hasn’t changed recently, and 19% said it’s more ethical than in the past.

“I think the reason Americans have similar ethical viewpoints of journalism and PR is that they are increasingly seeing them intertwined,” said Sparrer. “However, an overwhelming percentage of Americans–86%–expect PR and marketing people to be ethical. Americans expect PR and marketing professionals to be open and honest with the media and clients.”

John McCartney, president of the PRSA San Francisco Bay Area Chapter, added, “Obviously, the media plays an important role in our country. However, the media continues to be scrutinized by those in government and by almost everyone else. We look forward to a spirited discussion on the current state of ethics in media. We also thank Bospar and Werqwise for their involvement with this program.”

About Propeller Insights

Propeller Insights is a full-service market research firm based in Los Angeles. Using quantitative and qualitative methodologies to measure and analyze marketplace and consumer opinions, they work extensively across industries such as travel, brand intelligence, entertainment/media, retail, and consumer packaged goods.

About Bospar

Bospar is a boutique tech PR firm featuring a team of highly seasoned professionals who exist to put tech companies on the map. Bospar’s principals include a long-time PR and tech industry guru, a former broadcast TV producer and award-winning media maven, a standout PR agency manager from the corporate side of a leading global law firm, and an experienced executive with both large agency and public company credentials. Bospar’s larger team includes experts in both social and traditional media, as well as financial and analyst relations and public affairs.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...