From: boron_elgar@hotmail.com   
      
   On Wed, 24 Nov 2021 18:29:50 -0000 (UTC), Howard    
   wrote:   
      
   >Boron Elgar  wrote   
   >   
   >> Lot of economic facts out there and it'd be nice if they were reported   
   >> honestly and logically, instead of Fox News type chyrons.   
   >   
   >A huge amount of it is local news producers following the lead of what they   
   >see on CNN or read in the NY Times, who then send out a crew to the local   
   >big box or grocery store with instructions to get ten quotes on camera from   
   >shoppers that can be turned into a three minute scare segment.   
      
   Nothing counts but the click-throughs. It doesn't matter how   
   outrageous or illogical the claim.   
   >   
   >It's always sad to me how unimaginative and pack driven so many producers   
   >are -- they could just as easily just send the crew out to get shots of   
   >cute kids, or people buying sports memorabilia, or superhero fans returning   
   >to comic book stores.   
      
   The nature of reporting has changed radically, especially as local   
   reporting outlets have vanished, although I must say,  the large   
   outlets put out unverifiable garbage, too. And it gets worse year by   
   year.   
      
   >And it's really sad how dumb a lot of the big national reporters who drive   
   >the local coverage are about this stuff. There are plenty of experts who   
   >will talk to major outlets and provide a meaningful counternarrative about   
   >food prices, or caution about gas prices, but their coverage leans   
   >ridiculously heavily toward industry group flacks.   
      
   This is why I used the ABC/Martha Radditz article as an example that   
   is becoming more common rather than odd stand-out.. ABC is a high end   
   news outlet and Radditz is a high end reporter. It was as if there   
   were no editing or logic applied to any of it.   
      
   I think the lack of editorial output is part of it. Assigning these   
   angles and then making no effort to use nothing other than wildly   
   stated, anecdotal nonsense with no effort to verify or even try to   
   make sense of what makes it into a piece.   
      
   >I saw a credulous report repeating talking points from the American Farm   
   >Bureau, and I wondered why the reporter wouldn't spend the half hour needed   
   >to debunk it and come up with a much more interesting story about the   
   >propaganda effort of a group known for decades of misinformation. It's a   
   >much more engaging story -- why prioritize boring repetition over a   
   >truthful and different take?   
      
   Even professional groups seem more prone to releasing publicity info   
   that tends toward glorification and the drive for exposure.   
      
   I cannot say that all of this is new, but the exposure with MSM is   
   more intense.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)