The American media used to be seen as the guardian of truth. Now trust is fractured and audiences choose news that confirms their worldview. From your perspective, when did journalism stop being a craft of verification and become a tool of identity?
Hi Richard, when we have cases of blatant lies like 60 minutes editing Kamalas answers for her benefit, and now the BBC in the uk splicing Trumps comments that were 54 mins apart to seem like one sentence - obviously to smear him- can ANY of those journalists be trusted? Ok id like to see the lot gone but i know not all can afford to just resign from the job on principles when they know its going on they have bills to pay and have to live. Do you think any of them deserve the benefit of the doubt or should it be a clean sweep of all who knew?
On your recommendation I read David Hacket Fisher's "Albions Seed" + other books he has written. Do you have any recommendations on the history of media? (Albions Seed is brilliant btw).
Is it hyperbolic to wonder whether the collapse of legacy media creates a single point of failure for democracy itself, or is this a reasonable concern and call to action to promote quality journalism?
Many media institutions are captured by one side or the other. Is this desirable or should we be aiming to have most reporting in the political middle?
Are there examples of times and places where distrust in media is as high as it is today? If so, how was that trust regained within those societies?
great question :) :) :)
The American media used to be seen as the guardian of truth. Now trust is fractured and audiences choose news that confirms their worldview. From your perspective, when did journalism stop being a craft of verification and become a tool of identity?
Hi Richard, when we have cases of blatant lies like 60 minutes editing Kamalas answers for her benefit, and now the BBC in the uk splicing Trumps comments that were 54 mins apart to seem like one sentence - obviously to smear him- can ANY of those journalists be trusted? Ok id like to see the lot gone but i know not all can afford to just resign from the job on principles when they know its going on they have bills to pay and have to live. Do you think any of them deserve the benefit of the doubt or should it be a clean sweep of all who knew?
An investigative journalist needs eyeballs if he wants to make a living as an investigative journalist.
Lots of great investigative journalism won't sell because the potential audience is too small.
Often, an investigative journalist will sensationalise his work to increase the audience, and thus make it pay.
But, sensationalising can turn investigative journalism into tabloid trash.
How does an investigative journalist tell the investigative stories that will not generate a big audience, but must nontheless be told?
On your recommendation I read David Hacket Fisher's "Albions Seed" + other books he has written. Do you have any recommendations on the history of media? (Albions Seed is brilliant btw).
What is the legacy of William Randolph Hearst to American media, and what is your view on it?
Is it hyperbolic to wonder whether the collapse of legacy media creates a single point of failure for democracy itself, or is this a reasonable concern and call to action to promote quality journalism?
Many media institutions are captured by one side or the other. Is this desirable or should we be aiming to have most reporting in the political middle?