Shep Smith: Journalists are not the enemy of the people

Finally the article you post gets to the point, which is that Trump is advocating to dam more water (instead of 'diverting' it into the ocean).

I agree that damming is not good. It only stimulates an already overdriven agricultural industry to waste more water and cause more drying. There is not enough reforestation of developed areas, etc. to stop the heat-island effect from drying everything out along with evaporation from agriculture.

Still, I recognize that the way the article is written utilizes uncritical emotional bias against Trump instead of analyzing his POV and discussing various POVs in an emotionally-neutral way.

Face it, readers want to take sides and use emotional tactics against people they are against, so the media caters to this desire for bias in readers. In this sense, the media are the enemy to the people by giving them what they want instead of giving them good journalism that won't sell because people find it boring.

The media gives us good information. It's easy to fact check information. If they fail to provide good information, they will go out of business because nobody can rely on their information. There's a great amount of competition for ad revenue. Bad media will lose customers quickly. Fox News is an exception; they cater to their conservative base. https://www.politicususa.com/2015/02/06/fact-checker-finds-60-fox-news-statements-false-lie.html

Is it, in your own opinion of which I don't agree at all, only the which conditions themselves to push out certain goals? Do you feel Fox News is the enemy of the people as well?

I think you are setting a rather high standard here, one that I doubt that the most esteemed works of history could meet. All the facts included ; all opinions, however well founded, explicitly labelled as such, etc. Something meeting these standards would likely be quite a tedious read, and perhaps more confusing than enlightening. This is, in major part, a consequence of the complexity of human nature and life. Human motivation and behavior is often perverse and illogical - as seen by some others. The complexity involved often defies simple explanations. Even profound insights and explanations of these things, though useful and mostly true, almost always have their limitations and exceptions.

The reader is usually left to consider these limitations applicable to any single explanation or description and, if he/she wants a more comprehensive understanding, read and consider different perspectives and analyses of the same matter. Indeed these limitations often apply to works in science and even mathematics as well.

Works that focused first and last on the conclusions the author wishes to impose in the reader, are usually easily detectable propaganda. The fact that much of our news and political reporting consists of such works is nothing new - It has been going on throughout human history.

In my experience, Fox News is not respected by mainstream people, academics, etc. So there's no aura of validity around Fox News. With most of the liberal propaganda, however, that aura is there, even for fictional programming. So a show like SNL or Stephen Colbert or Bill Maher are deemed holy by knighting them, 'quality programming,' etc. They are openly biased, but their bias is elevated in status in order to promote the liberal paradigm, the same way any other brand is promoted as being superior to other brands.

It is annoying and sad that the people are so open to brainwashing themselves into sharing popular opinions in order to be popular. They are like little children wearing a certain brand of clothing or shoes to not be shunned by their peers, only as adults the branding extends to the brand of thought-control they submit to.

To the extent people use Fox News in the same way, it is just as bad. But it is no better to ridicule Fox News uncritically, as most liberals and academics do, than it is to worship it, CNN, or any other media brand uncritically. It is useful to watch these shows to derive information and get an idea of what kind of propaganda there is, but it's bad to submit to becoming a fan/worshiper, except maybe if you are intentionally choosing to propagate something that you consider good to propagate, and in that case, just admit that you are propagating something because you believe it is good to do so and be grateful for the freedom of speech that allows it. What's bad is when people deny they're propagating ideology in order to do it more effectively and boost their credibility.

Knowing that they do so, comprehending just how pervasive it is, and not getting caught, are very different things. I have first hand experience of numerous people not knowing, and others knowing but getting caught (I will also include myself in there a number of times, before I thought better of it). In relation to the point I've been trying to make. It's not think. I know it for fact.

Explaining it to people who only partly understand it, appears to be quite difficult. Perhaps a failing of mine. Or perhaps it requires first hand experience of multiple cases, or extensive study, or something similar.

A huge problem for trust in journalism: Opinion media
November 2, 2017 01:30

By Dan Shelley, RTDNA Executive Director

I was struck this week by two inside-baseball journalism stories following Monday’s Mueller investigation bombshells that spoke, tangentially but notably, to what I have often said about a main obstacle in our industry’s ability to regain the trust of the public: The conflation in many information consumers’ minds between responsible journalism and the opinion media.

Too many people think what they see on some cable networks’ early-morning and/or prime-time lineups, what they hear on talk radio, and what they read on newspapers’ editorial pages are the facts. Period. Such content certainly contains facts, but those facts are almost always used to reinforce the purveyor’s predetermined point of view, or detract from points of view that conflict with their own.

Compounding the problem is that too many people seek information exclusively from sources that tend to reinforce their own outlooks on the body politic and the general state of affairs.

The first story came from CNN senior media reporter Oliver Darcy, who wrote about the growing frustration of Fox News Channel legitimate journalists and the prime-time hosts, to whom many have ascribed the less-than-flattering description, “talking heads.” Such hosts spew their sometimes-venomous opinions to shape the day’s news narrative so it aligns with their personal views. In the case of Fox, those personal views tend to support President Trump and deflect attention to other “scandals” they view from their often-grassy knoll perspectives.

“’I’m watching now and screaming,’ one Fox News personality said in a text message to CNN as the person watched their network’s coverage [of the Mueller developments]. ‘I want to quit,’” Darcy reported.

“’It’s another blow to journalists at Fox who come in every day wanting to cover the news in a fair and objective way,’ one senior Fox News employee told CNN of their outlet’s coverage.”

This may come as a shock to some of you, but I can personally attest that there are, indeed, journalists who work at Fox News and have no preconceived agenda other than to fulfill their Constitutionally-guaranteed duty to seek and report the truth.

I know a few of them personally. I have met others. I have visited the Fox News Washington bureau, across the street from the U.S. Capitol, where I saw some of those journalists in action. For what it’s worth, I noted during my visit that there were no pictures on the wall honoring Fox News Channel’s “Fox & Friends” cast, or Tucker Carlson, or Sean Hannity.

One Fox News Washington bureau staff member pointed to a blank spot on the wall with pride and explained that he couldn’t wait to take down the picture of Roger Ailes that once was displayed there, the moment Ailes left the network he had founded amid allegations of sexual misconduct.

I would also note that Fox News’ Chris Wallace, the 2013 recipient of RTDNA’s highest honor, the Paul White Award, was quoted last month criticizing his network’s opinion hosts.

“If they want to say they like Trump, or that they’re upset with the Democrats, that’s fine. That’s opinion. That’s what they do for a living,” Wallace told the Associated Press. “I don’t like them bashing the media, because oftentimes what they're bashing is stuff that we on the news side are doing. I don’t think they recognize that they have a role at Fox News and we have a role at Fox News. I don’t know what’s in their head. It’s just bad form.”

This week’s second inside-baseball journalism story that caught my attention was a piece by Vanity Fair media reporter Joe Pompeo, which quoted a number of former and current Wall Street Journal editors and reporters as being highly critical of how, as they view it, the paper’s editorial page is undermining the responsible journalism the newsroom is committing on a daily basis.

“The editorial page has been doing crazy sh-- for a long time,” one former Journal editor told Pompeo. His story also reported:

“People are always mad about our editorials undermining our reporting,’ a Journal reporter told me. … “It’s frustrating to have to contend with this, even if smart people recognize the separation between the editorial side and news.” As another reporter told me, “We could disprove half the stuff” the opinion writers “are saying if they just read our own reporting. It’s like living in some alternate universe.”

The tension between the Journal’s reporting staff and editorial page has existed for decades. It seems to be exacerbated in the current ideological climate, which has become significantly more volatile because of the general increase in political polarization and erosion of civil discourse.

This Saturday, November 4, would have been Walter Cronkite’s 101st birthday. Shortly after his death in 2009, I was honored to be part of a small delegation representing RTDNA at his memorial service in New York.

Those wishing to honor Cronkite and his legacy filled Lincoln Center’s large Avery Fisher Hall to capacity. The service attracted a long list of political, journalism and entertainment superstars, not the least of whom were not one, but two, U.S. Presidents: then-President Barack Obama and former President Bill Clinton.

Walter Cronkite, the anchor of the “CBS Evening News” from 1962 to 1981, was once voted “the most trusted man in America” in a public opinion survey.

His right-down-the-middle, capital-J journalism chronicled many of the most consequential events of the 20th Century, including the JFK assassination, the Vietnam War, the moon landings, Watergate, and the Egyptian-Israeli peace accord, which he himself helped broker by bringing the two nations’ leaders together on one of his evening newscasts and eliciting commitments that they would meet each other face to face for the first time.

I invoke the spirit of Cronkite in this context to make some points that I believe are critical in our current time.

First, we have a responsibility as journalists, as we face more obstruction, threats, harassment, arrests and even physical assaults, to answer our misguided critics – by that I mean those acting out harshly against responsible journalism, egged on by the bullhorn of some powerful bully pulpits, merely because they don’t like or understand responsible journalism – by doing more and better journalism.

Second, as frustrated as the Fox News, Wall Street Journal and, clearly, other responsible journalists are, merely criticizing the opinion media isn’t enough. We must help the public better understand why the countless flagrant acts of responsible journalism being committed every day across the country are essential to their daily lives.

A major part of that effort must be to point out that information people consume from the opinion media is just that, opinion. Responsible journalism, conversely, is hard work done by professionals who have dedicated their lives to serving their communities by shining a light on issues that otherwise would have gone unnoticed.

The result of responsible journalism is very often positive change, in local cities and towns, at the state level, and across the United States.

I’d like to believe that if Walter Cronkite were alive today, he’d be a champion of that message.

You have interesting thoughts but, I don't buy your argument nor do I think you proved it. Yes, news will try to make their news a little more exciting than merely reading a report, however, if they are telling the truth and it is verified which most of the time it is, it's not propaganda. Propaganda is twisting facts to mean something other than what it is for an agenda and CNN and the rest of them do not do that nor have you proved it. What I mean to say is (I am not as elequent as you and many others here) that I don't think there is some kind of weird conspiracy with mainstream news to distort facts for a particular liberal agenda. In my opinion the only liberal station I know which is comparable to Fox News is MSNBC; not CNN.

Fox News host Sean Hannity caught in a blatant LIE

Fox News host Sean Hannity gets caught red handed in deceptive omission

The thing is, Hannity ISN'T a journalist. He's a mouth piece of opinion. What sets him apart is his large audience, not journalistic integrity. He doesn't have to abide by any set rules of interpretation, he can say whatever he wants because it;s called opinion. He detracts from the profession and makes a mockery of how responsible reporting is supposed to be.

On the other hand there's Tucker Carlson. Although he has a degree in History, he has certainly paid dues to the journalism profession, even having a stint on MSNBC until he get kicked off due to low ratings. Although I don't agree with his conservative opinions most of the time, I have to give him credit as a journalist.

So, are you saying that Fox News Commentator Sean Hannity gets a free pass
to deliberately and intentionally LIE on a cable NEWS network?
How convenient. Sorry, that load of crap doesn't fly.

Let's be clear that the Lies are deliberate and intentional.

No, that's not what I said.

Lying is always wrong. But "opinion" is different than journalism.

I rather agree with Livinglava here...but it's not some weird conspiracy...it's simply a matter of human nature.

People across the western world have shown, if the rewards are right, they will pursue particular courses of action. Relevant to this topic is the bosses of media organisations.

People have shown that they are comfortable with particular ideas, and will defend those ideas, while they are uncomfortable with other ideas, and will ignore or attack those ideas. Relevant to this topic is both the bosses of media organisations, and the general public.

You don't need a conspiracy to drive systems in a general direction - just reward systems, men seeking power....and in relation to media...people with prejudices/paradigms/ignorance/etc to prey on.

It doesn't change anything. There are many conservatives that get their NEWS from people like Fox New's Sean Hannity. One person who gets his news from Fox News Sean Hannity is Donald Trump. Trump sees Hannity as REAL news. Sean Hannity utters intentional lies often. Trump adores Hannity because Hannity lies supports Trump. That's why Trump call any news who reports the TRUTH to be fake news. But, he will call the lies and bullshit that comes out Fox News Sean Hannity as being the Real News.
As long as conservatives believe what Fox News Hannity says to be true, that is why it doesn't matter whether or not he's a journalist or a commentator. Conservatives and Trump see Hannity as a journalist.

Fox News host Sean Hannity is a proven bold face LIAR.
Donald Trump is a proven bold face LIAR.

People are allowed to receive and believe any news source as they see fit, including the president. I believe Hannity is a loud mouth asshole but, as you say many people watch him like gospel.

Trump calling certain new organizations the enemy of the people is problematic is the fact it's a direct attack on the 1st Amendment.

I wish the people who fight so gallantly about keeping their weapons had the same tenacity about keeping a free press.

You have made my point!!!
By the way, the world's biggest liar Trump watches that loud mouth lying asshole for his news source.
One bull shitter gets his news from another bull shitter.
If it weren't so serious and dangerous, it might have been funny.

So, what's your answer? Throw him off the air? Censorship of opinion?

Isn't that what trump's trying to do and you agree with that?

I would never support censorship. Sean Hannity and the Fox News network has the right to do and say all the bull **** they want. Trump also has the right to watch that bull ****. To answer your question "What's your answer".
My answer is simple. When you see or hear bull ****, do your part and expose that bull ****. When Trump utters bull ****, expose that bull ****. When Sean Hannity or Fox News utters bull ****, expose that bull ****. That is what I am doing. That is my answer to your question.

I repeat. I would NEVER support censorship.
I believe in freedom of the press.
I believe in freedom of speech.

And I'm hearing you. And agree.

There's a lot of in-fighting at the Fox network. As trump's comments intensifies, real journalists will be exiting and Fox will be nothing but loud mouth, opinion only, spewing nothing but junk, network.