As the political pundits keep reminding us, this might be called the “hate” election. Both major parties’ presumptive nominees, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, have historically high net unfavorable ratings – so high that voters are said to be casting their ballots against a candidate rather than in favor of one. The question seems to be: Whom do you hate less?
I think media consolidation resulted in an untrustworthy media. First they pared down the newsrooms and the investigative reporters disappeared. They standardized the news feeds so that homogeneity became the watchword of corporate owned media. What resulted was a media who followed the herd. A tradition of a free press literally became instead a business standard of an owned press. If you want a job you followed orders and if you wanted to do otherwise you went to work somewhere else ...but there was no place else to work anymore after media consolidation.
We are increasingly a self censored society but one with an oligarchy above us calling the shots and exerting control and influence.
This article is correct except that it left out the media consolidation factor that is what started the decline of our free press and has by now defanged it for the most part. The rigged game was perpetrated by an owned press and even by a publicly owned press with conservative editorial controls who exerted influence.
The standards of a free and open press are memories enshrined in homages to Cronkite and Murrow. The Internet is where that sense of the news survives. Progressive news sites have offered a venue for investigative news and a voice for truth tellers from around the world and we are thankful for it.
Imagine how blind we would be were it not for the Internet in this age of media consolidation?
The MSM has dug its own grave because of its canards, plethora of lies, and being cheerleaders for endless wars for so long that it has lost all credibility. Corporate news is not news but should be called what it is: News that supports the 1% and is pejorative to the 99%.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
If Mr. Gabler isn't one of those journalists installed by the Deep State to use glib disinformation to set a narrative, I can't conjure a better example of "the dark art."
One of the embedded messages in this well-crafted essay is that the contest is set between ONLY Hillary and Trump.
And while sounding like a critic of elites, the Republicans, and white males, what Gabler is ultimately setting up is a covert rationale for why it is that people SHOULD believe the media.
Someone here often posts about Occam's Razor... this idea of setting up an argument that is logical on its face, but hides the far more glaring flaws.
Should the media be trusted?
The same media that made the false case for war against Iraq?
The same media that pushed the narrative that low-income home purchasers were responsible for the 2008 stock market crash (rather than the deregulated pipeline between big banks and Wall Street)?
The same media that insists (and has, way before any contests got underway) that Hillary was the "presumptive" nominee.
The same media that gives so many egregious persons in power a free pass.
The same media that insists that concerning Ukraine, Putin was the aggressor.
The same media that published The Official Story for 911 and never any critiques of it.
The same media that insists that unemployment numbers have vastly gone down and that the economy is recovering.
No. The corporate media should NOT be trusted. I find it interesting that Republicans trust it less; but I'd attribute that to the shock jocks of Hate Radio, and the alternative Right media including voices like Alex Jones.
To those who may have glossed right by my argument, what I'm essentially saying is that Gabler sets up his own narrow narrative and makes a case for it. However, within that case are quite a few embedded memes and THESE are intended to normalize presumptions. To me that poses a greater danger than what he does expose.
The F.U. in this case is on THOSE who think a completely self-centered egotistic billionaire with a child's understanding of global events is going to play the role of deliverer... to them!
The people that do not trust the Media did not have to be lead down that path by the Republicans. This is a crock as trust in the Media plummets in every country on this Earth. Mr Gabler just can not bring himself to see anything outside of an American perspective.
Distrust in the media happens the world over because the people begin to realize that the media IS the 1 percent and is a mouthpiece of that 1 percent. The Media is owned by the Corporations and the goal of the Corporation is to generate profits for their shareholders and nothing more.
In Greece the people distrust the media more than they do Politicians. How can this be because of Republicans ? The working people of Greece are not much different than the working people of the USA. They "get it" just as Americans are "getting it".
"none of the candidates has had particularly high favorability ratings" - sanders has net favorability of 9-10% - it's that pretty good? Compared to Cruz who had -23, with everyone else in the negatives, except Kasich at the time.
Bravo, andoarike! You said it for me and you said it best. OMG: 55% of Democrats trust the MSM? Un-frigging believable.
This video is one that displays the State of Journalism in the US. I doubt the mainstream carried the responses to any of the one reporters queries and questions made to the Senator. The Senator confirms in her response that the US Government armed and funded ISIS and ISIL .
Other reporters interject with their own questions NONE of which pick up on what should be a seen as a very important revelation. The US Government armed and supported ISIS and ISIL. Instead they ask "what was the best line in Hilarys debate tonight" and "Did you notice Hilary pointed you out in her debate"?
Back in the days of Cronkite and Morrow the media had a much better reputation because TV news was not expected to generate a profit. It was more a public service. The major networks used to make great documentaries as well as presenting the news based on high standards of journalism. All that changed when news departments had to make profits. Networks began to worry that certain stories would drive away viewers. News you could use became popular. Now often see weather stories being the lead story with particular emphasis on how it will affect airline travel. We even see weather reports on the national evening news. Ratings are everything. On both sides there seem to conspiracy theories that the media favors the other side. With so many voters believing conspiracy theories nowadays attacking the press as being biased can be a winning strategy. Conspiracy theories are not good for democracy but they seem to be growing in popularity.
This is inane but makes sense coming from you.
Democracy is based on diversity, not one size fits all.
Conspiracy theories--many of which reflect absolute truths, the very ones that are not welcome into the Establishment set by the 1% and its corporate puppet, the MSM--represent a diversity of opinions.
It's amazing how this lack of conformity bothers natural born authoritarians. To them, anyone who doesn't march lockstep somehow challenges not Democracy, but the Inverted Totalitarian System attempting to pass itself off as thus. And people like YOU shill for that diabolical denouement.
The MSM has not dug its own grave! The talking heads on the networks (and I mean ALL of them, even the liberal darling Rachael Maddow and the conservative blowhard Rush Limbaugh) do not need graves, since they are VAMPIRES! We the People must drives stakes through their hearts - which of course means, ultimately, that we must make their "business model" unprofitable. I wish I knew how THAT could be done!
Six of the 10 highest-paid CEOs last year worked in the media industry, according to a study carried out by executive compensation data firm Equilar and The Associated Press.
If you wonder why the Corporate Media favor the 1% - they are RUN by the 1%!!
Am I really reading an article from the hated media that dares to suggest that the coronation of Hillary is in doubt because of the corporate interests she embodies? Give that byline a crystal ball award, literally nobody else is saying that, when integrity and trustworthiness are more precious than platinum, our most likely choices for POTUS are both doubtlessly bankrupt.