Interesting timing of this interview, because I just had a conversation with a journalism prof friend of mine yesterday about the public’s lack of trust in traditional news media.
My vantage point is that too many traditional news media outlets no longer abide by journalistic ethics and standards. Journalists often insert their opinions into news articles (intentionally or not), and they too often cherry pick facts to support their narrative, while ignoring facts that contradict. I would like to think the public is smart enough to see when that’s happening, at least sometimes. You can tell the truth 1000 times. But one lie can erode all the trust.
Imo, news outlets need to stop chasing social media and influencers. Instead, build their reputations around trust. Deliver all the relevant facts in a fair, unbiased fashion. One way to build trust would be for independent third-party evaluation of both individual journalists and news outlets themselves. The ratings could be included in an article’s byline. Media consumers would then be able to assess the integrity of the journalist and their employer before reading.
The public yearns for the truth. It’s too hard to get right now because news delivery is the Wild Wild West.
Mike, I agree with what you say here, and I'd add this: When I was in school it was standard practice in both English and Social Studies classes to teach that a journalist was trained always to ask (at least silently, to himself) "Who? What? When? Where? How? Why?" Somewhere along the line, that seems to have gotten lost.
I am aware that journalists themselves noticed this and began blaming it on the demands of "the 24 hour news cycle" all the way back when CNN was new and revolutionary. The demands of the pace of the internet has only made it worse, of course. At present, the majority of news items in "legacy" news outlets amount to little more than re-phrasing of press releases (complete with quotes from them!), and the responses to those by opponents of the person or entity issuing the press release. We did go through a phase where it was pretty standard for a journalist to write about the questions he or she asked that went (at least, as of press time) unanswered by the newsmaker(s), but even that has largely fallen by the wayside.
So now I find myself reading a news item and saying to myself "But what about <fill in the blank>? How could it have not even occurred to the reporter to ASK the OBVIOUS question that everyone will have?"
Just one example: Next time you read about a Mpls City Council vote, note that the report will likely identify the issue with the "progressives" or the "moderates". Then they'll report the vote, which, if it was that kind of ideology-soaked issue, will be 6-7 or 7-6 or 8-5 or 9-4. And then note whether the reporter has even provided WHO was on the two sides. Easily available info, and yet, frequently not reported.
Contemporary reporters seem just not to WONDER about the subject matter of their stories. It's kind of sad, really.
"Too often, we judge other groups by their worst examples – while judging ourselves by our best intentions."
I hate to quote George W. Bush on anything, but he was spot on here. In the battle of public opinion around the ICE crackdown, the people of Mpls ultimately won. But actions of some activists like Nekima Levy Armstrong did not help. I’d be willing to bet the majority of Americans—including impressionable people in the center—were turned off by the PR ambush of Cities Church. Peaceful protest is great. You cross the line when you torment the families of politicians or disrupt places of worship. Fortunately(??) for us, actions of the Trump administration were quite a bit more abhorrent.
Good insight from this interview, Terry. I have another thought on a separate discussion point, so I’ll share in a separate comment.
Seems like we argue from different realities, with a disturbing trend of attaching political significance to where we shop, the music we like, the viewpoint we hold, etc. Some people identify more with their political party than with being an american, with a blind allegiance that convinces them the other side is stupid, lies most the time, and most certainly will ruin the country. The number of clicks determines success of message, not truth. Influencers are very aware that setting the narrative in a specific way is an effective stategy that drives people into information silos. Basically, as consumers of media information.......let the buyer beware.
I would add that politics today often feels more pervasive than religion in daily life. It can divide more than it unites, and the trust deficit among different factions seems to keep widening. We’re all navigating an overwhelming amount of information, and even where we choose to focus our attention can signal something about our identity or values.
The rise of influencers adds another layer to this dynamic. They can shape the views of millions, sometimes without transparency about incentives or motivations. In many ways, it reminds me of self-checkout: we’ve been handed powerful tools in the form of smartphones and social media platforms, but very little guidance on how to use them responsibly.
It would be interesting to see an interview (or a written piece) on the narratives created here in the twin cities.
Who decided we were under an "occupation"?
How did the terms like "kidnapping" and "abduction" become the agreed upon way to refer to detainment?
"Protecting our neighbors" More code speak for activists as far as I'm concerned.
It seems like "Abolish ICE" and "Ice Out" and other catch phrases are the only acceptable views now, how did that come about?
And what made the local media soooo one sided?
So much shared terminology and so much propaganda. It might be mostly organic in nature. But it's also pretty surreal to see Chavez and Wonsley and Payne and all those folks using all the same language. As well as friends and neighbors.
It would be interesting to better understand where these talking points originate, as many of the statements seem closely aligned. In today’s media environment, public relations and communications strategy are more sophisticated than ever. The ability to distribute messaging quickly and broadly certainly plays a role.
He said it in the beginning, his studies are based on his beliefs. Any results are tainted because there is an end goal rather than unbiased set of statistics to be interpretedand reinterpreted. He sounds like a well educated agitator paid to persuade rather than heal the divide. I think his ideology is actually dangerous because it incourages and rewards a righteous civil unrest and disobedience. Add to that a dislike dislike of capitalism, tear if down, recreate it into something else. What is wrong with improving what we have, it's desireable enough for people from around the world to want to be here. Not all Republicans are bad and not all Progressive Democrats are good, it's the balance between the two that make us better.
The Democratic part needs to learn that if Trump fails, we all fail, if he wins we all win. It's the same for any president. It's time to try and stop making the world try to see how horrible he is because it just makes us look stupid.
You are right that he is not trying to heal the divide. His focus appears to be on research to help Democrats win elections. There are times when civil disobedience is appropriate, especially if the government asks people to carry out actions they believe are unjust or illegal. The U.S. Attorneys who recently resigned did so because they felt morally opposed to what they were being asked to do. When it comes to Trump falling short, most of the responsibility rests with him because his actions often force people to take sides. For example, talk of taking control of Greenland raised serious concerns about judgment and foreign policy. If a president calls on Americans to support an aggressive action, it puts citizens in a difficult position, especially if they believe it may be unlawful. Many critics argue that some ICE enforcement tactics, including detaining individuals simply because of their skin color and requiring them to prove citizenship, cross legal or ethical lines. People may disagree about how the public should respond, and those tactics can be debated, but many believe the deeper problem lies in what they see as overly harsh immigration enforcement.
Yes, much of what Trump does resembles the proverbial bull in the China shop but it's not difficult to see if there is likely a 2nd explanation. Europe has a much larger open border problem than we do, they are spending so much on social services that they are on the cusp of not being able to protect their own borders like Ukraine. I suspect Greenland was next on Russia's list of desirable targets or even parts of Canada. With our now mostly closed border we had to come up with a tactic to dispell "sanctuary", which was not an easy thing to do. Many of the people headed here have a huge language barrier and limited formal education, so he spoke to them with simplified messages. You could end up in a place worse than you are in now, a forien prison, a different less desirable country, even on a different continent. Even the ICE surge can be seen as part of the visual message, you will be hunted down, we will fight our own citizens to find you if you come. That word "sanctuary" was very powerful, much more than people realize so it probably took everything to break the spell. The thing is no one has actually seen those prisoners in forien prisons since they were sent so how do we know if they are still there? Perhaps the less violent are just finishing up a short sentence, then released with a warning to not tell so the next round can be released as well. The thing is we don't really know because no cameras were allowed. I might be too lenient but maybe I am not. What I believe is that what was necessary was the threat, not the follow through.
What I have learned is that much of politics is not what is seen, it seems there is always a hidden agenda or perhaps a surprise goal. We as citizens are not entitled to know all and often have to wait many years if ever to hear the real story. We are watching a chess game with secret rules and hidden moves.
Interesting timing of this interview, because I just had a conversation with a journalism prof friend of mine yesterday about the public’s lack of trust in traditional news media.
My vantage point is that too many traditional news media outlets no longer abide by journalistic ethics and standards. Journalists often insert their opinions into news articles (intentionally or not), and they too often cherry pick facts to support their narrative, while ignoring facts that contradict. I would like to think the public is smart enough to see when that’s happening, at least sometimes. You can tell the truth 1000 times. But one lie can erode all the trust.
Imo, news outlets need to stop chasing social media and influencers. Instead, build their reputations around trust. Deliver all the relevant facts in a fair, unbiased fashion. One way to build trust would be for independent third-party evaluation of both individual journalists and news outlets themselves. The ratings could be included in an article’s byline. Media consumers would then be able to assess the integrity of the journalist and their employer before reading.
The public yearns for the truth. It’s too hard to get right now because news delivery is the Wild Wild West.
Mike, I agree with what you say here, and I'd add this: When I was in school it was standard practice in both English and Social Studies classes to teach that a journalist was trained always to ask (at least silently, to himself) "Who? What? When? Where? How? Why?" Somewhere along the line, that seems to have gotten lost.
I am aware that journalists themselves noticed this and began blaming it on the demands of "the 24 hour news cycle" all the way back when CNN was new and revolutionary. The demands of the pace of the internet has only made it worse, of course. At present, the majority of news items in "legacy" news outlets amount to little more than re-phrasing of press releases (complete with quotes from them!), and the responses to those by opponents of the person or entity issuing the press release. We did go through a phase where it was pretty standard for a journalist to write about the questions he or she asked that went (at least, as of press time) unanswered by the newsmaker(s), but even that has largely fallen by the wayside.
So now I find myself reading a news item and saying to myself "But what about <fill in the blank>? How could it have not even occurred to the reporter to ASK the OBVIOUS question that everyone will have?"
Just one example: Next time you read about a Mpls City Council vote, note that the report will likely identify the issue with the "progressives" or the "moderates". Then they'll report the vote, which, if it was that kind of ideology-soaked issue, will be 6-7 or 7-6 or 8-5 or 9-4. And then note whether the reporter has even provided WHO was on the two sides. Easily available info, and yet, frequently not reported.
Contemporary reporters seem just not to WONDER about the subject matter of their stories. It's kind of sad, really.
"Too often, we judge other groups by their worst examples – while judging ourselves by our best intentions."
I hate to quote George W. Bush on anything, but he was spot on here. In the battle of public opinion around the ICE crackdown, the people of Mpls ultimately won. But actions of some activists like Nekima Levy Armstrong did not help. I’d be willing to bet the majority of Americans—including impressionable people in the center—were turned off by the PR ambush of Cities Church. Peaceful protest is great. You cross the line when you torment the families of politicians or disrupt places of worship. Fortunately(??) for us, actions of the Trump administration were quite a bit more abhorrent.
Good insight from this interview, Terry. I have another thought on a separate discussion point, so I’ll share in a separate comment.
Seems like we argue from different realities, with a disturbing trend of attaching political significance to where we shop, the music we like, the viewpoint we hold, etc. Some people identify more with their political party than with being an american, with a blind allegiance that convinces them the other side is stupid, lies most the time, and most certainly will ruin the country. The number of clicks determines success of message, not truth. Influencers are very aware that setting the narrative in a specific way is an effective stategy that drives people into information silos. Basically, as consumers of media information.......let the buyer beware.
Hi Laura,
I would add that politics today often feels more pervasive than religion in daily life. It can divide more than it unites, and the trust deficit among different factions seems to keep widening. We’re all navigating an overwhelming amount of information, and even where we choose to focus our attention can signal something about our identity or values.
The rise of influencers adds another layer to this dynamic. They can shape the views of millions, sometimes without transparency about incentives or motivations. In many ways, it reminds me of self-checkout: we’ve been handed powerful tools in the form of smartphones and social media platforms, but very little guidance on how to use them responsibly.
Hey Terry.
Good interview.
It would be interesting to see an interview (or a written piece) on the narratives created here in the twin cities.
Who decided we were under an "occupation"?
How did the terms like "kidnapping" and "abduction" become the agreed upon way to refer to detainment?
"Protecting our neighbors" More code speak for activists as far as I'm concerned.
It seems like "Abolish ICE" and "Ice Out" and other catch phrases are the only acceptable views now, how did that come about?
And what made the local media soooo one sided?
So much shared terminology and so much propaganda. It might be mostly organic in nature. But it's also pretty surreal to see Chavez and Wonsley and Payne and all those folks using all the same language. As well as friends and neighbors.
Paul
P.S. How did the Rebel Loon logo take off 😉
It would be interesting to better understand where these talking points originate, as many of the statements seem closely aligned. In today’s media environment, public relations and communications strategy are more sophisticated than ever. The ability to distribute messaging quickly and broadly certainly plays a role.
He said it in the beginning, his studies are based on his beliefs. Any results are tainted because there is an end goal rather than unbiased set of statistics to be interpretedand reinterpreted. He sounds like a well educated agitator paid to persuade rather than heal the divide. I think his ideology is actually dangerous because it incourages and rewards a righteous civil unrest and disobedience. Add to that a dislike dislike of capitalism, tear if down, recreate it into something else. What is wrong with improving what we have, it's desireable enough for people from around the world to want to be here. Not all Republicans are bad and not all Progressive Democrats are good, it's the balance between the two that make us better.
The Democratic part needs to learn that if Trump fails, we all fail, if he wins we all win. It's the same for any president. It's time to try and stop making the world try to see how horrible he is because it just makes us look stupid.
Hi Linda,
You are right that he is not trying to heal the divide. His focus appears to be on research to help Democrats win elections. There are times when civil disobedience is appropriate, especially if the government asks people to carry out actions they believe are unjust or illegal. The U.S. Attorneys who recently resigned did so because they felt morally opposed to what they were being asked to do. When it comes to Trump falling short, most of the responsibility rests with him because his actions often force people to take sides. For example, talk of taking control of Greenland raised serious concerns about judgment and foreign policy. If a president calls on Americans to support an aggressive action, it puts citizens in a difficult position, especially if they believe it may be unlawful. Many critics argue that some ICE enforcement tactics, including detaining individuals simply because of their skin color and requiring them to prove citizenship, cross legal or ethical lines. People may disagree about how the public should respond, and those tactics can be debated, but many believe the deeper problem lies in what they see as overly harsh immigration enforcement.
Yes, much of what Trump does resembles the proverbial bull in the China shop but it's not difficult to see if there is likely a 2nd explanation. Europe has a much larger open border problem than we do, they are spending so much on social services that they are on the cusp of not being able to protect their own borders like Ukraine. I suspect Greenland was next on Russia's list of desirable targets or even parts of Canada. With our now mostly closed border we had to come up with a tactic to dispell "sanctuary", which was not an easy thing to do. Many of the people headed here have a huge language barrier and limited formal education, so he spoke to them with simplified messages. You could end up in a place worse than you are in now, a forien prison, a different less desirable country, even on a different continent. Even the ICE surge can be seen as part of the visual message, you will be hunted down, we will fight our own citizens to find you if you come. That word "sanctuary" was very powerful, much more than people realize so it probably took everything to break the spell. The thing is no one has actually seen those prisoners in forien prisons since they were sent so how do we know if they are still there? Perhaps the less violent are just finishing up a short sentence, then released with a warning to not tell so the next round can be released as well. The thing is we don't really know because no cameras were allowed. I might be too lenient but maybe I am not. What I believe is that what was necessary was the threat, not the follow through.
What I have learned is that much of politics is not what is seen, it seems there is always a hidden agenda or perhaps a surprise goal. We as citizens are not entitled to know all and often have to wait many years if ever to hear the real story. We are watching a chess game with secret rules and hidden moves.