back to article As Tesla hits speed bump after speed bump, Elon Musk loses his mind in anti-media rant

Elon Musk is having a bad week. Early reviews of the delayed Model 3 Tesla have been far from glowing; the company is dealing with a big production backlog; he has been accused of threatening workers who want to unionize; there was yet another autopilot crash; and then of course there remains the question of whether his entire …

Page:

  1. choleric

    unexpected honesty

    I was about to click through to post some snark about how journalism doesn't "work", but I think you have it covered in that set of bullet points at the end there. No further questions, your honour.

    If you're on a mission like Musk is then the empty vanity of modern media is inevitably frustrating. If you're just interested in what's new for some giggles then who cares whether it's right.

    There's much more to this than the spectacular confrontation. "The meeja" have a case to answer, as well as Musk.

    1. werdsmith Silver badge

      Re: unexpected honesty

      But Musk is right that journalists have lost the respect of the public.

      But having said that, then why does he even care what they write? I don't. There is very little in the media that I would give the time of day to, they have lied and lied and pushed agendas, generally undermined themselves, and now everything they do has to come with a pinch of salt.

      Look at two examples in the UK, Daily Mail and Guardian. Two polar opposites in view but absolutely equivalent in their gutter level. Depending to which direction a person is gullible, they support one and deride the other. When in fact both are nothing but rags.

      1. Dan 55 Silver badge

        Re: unexpected honesty

        Given the major stories each one has broken and the work that went into producing each one, the Grauniad and the Heil aren't exactly equivalent...

        You can also argue the public has lost respect of the journalists given some of opinion pieces and straight made-up bollocks that is passed off as news.

        1. wowfood

          Re: unexpected honesty

          I don't think it's entirely down to the journos anyway, I think often it's the editors above. I'm gradually seeing an increase in certain publications pushing a certain viewpoint.

          Is it news? Often yes, but the news part is covered in one paragraph hidden half way down, the rest is opinion piece and whatever the publications agenda is. Some sites are pro right wing, others pro left wing, some are pro windows, some are pro linux. And as internet advertising algorithms have grown better at finding content we like, we start getting fed more and more content of that vein of thought, leading to a kind of bubble where all the news we see conforms with our existing opinions on things.

        2. LucreLout

          Re: unexpected honesty

          Given the major stories each one has broken and the work that went into producing each one, the Grauniad and the Heil aren't exactly equivalent...

          https://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/11/27/guardian_use_me_as_a_mouthpiece/

          Oh yes they are. They're two sides of the same coin, which is why I read neither. The funny part is though, that groaners refuse to see it.

          1. Jamie Jones Silver badge
            FAIL

            Re: unexpected honesty

            You take one story (which is dubious anyway - no DRM is secure if you are handed the keys to decode the content) and use it to compare the guardian to the mail?

            There are many wishy-washy "right-on" guardian articles that you could have used to better promote your agenda, but either way, the guardian is nothing like that manipulative jingoistic bigotted and hypocritical rag.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: unexpected honesty

        "But Musk is right that journalists have lost the respect of the public."

        It's really odd, that kind of remark often comes up. Can one point me to some specific date for that mythical Golden Age when people did in fact respect journalists more than now?

        Because reading about journalism from the 20th or 19th century, I see much of exactly the same as now, no better, no worse: fake news bought by politicos to advance themselves, rich men trying to influence what's published, get-rich-quick scams in the ads, and so on. And it seems that back then, with several editions a day, the printed press was much more like the web is today..

        Human nature doesn't change that fast.

        1. MichaelGordon

          Re: unexpected honesty

          It's really odd, that kind of remark often comes up. Can one point me to some specific date for that mythical Golden Age when people did in fact respect journalists more than now?

          True - the phrase "yellow journalism" was coined in the 1890s to describe the sensationalisation of news.

          1. Lars Silver badge
            Happy

            Re: unexpected honesty

            What has changed for the worst is the concentration of ownership (influence) of the press in both the UK and the USA, but not only.

            There was an article in ElReg, that I did not read, but assume claimed that a company with a clean and decent loo probably is so too.

            I would rate news sites in a similar way, from the comments section, the Guardian is the winner there.

        2. cavac

          Re: unexpected honesty

          "It's really odd, that kind of remark often comes up. Can one point me to some specific date for that mythical Golden Age when people did in fact respect journalists more than now?"

          It ended on March 6, 1981 at the end of that days CBS Evening News.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5tdqojA26E

        3. sprograms

          Re: unexpected honesty

          Some things have actually changed dramatically. For example, the growth of NGOs and Foundations has been stunning, and these insidiously drive the politics of journalists by providing various "opportunities" and grants. The leadership of many of the largest foundations (A.W.Mellon, Ford, Carnegie, and Pew Charitable Trusts, for examples) has changed since the founders' policies....and changed in one direction, due to the nature of people who seek a career in Foundation work.

          As for journalists not forming one entity? No. But they do increasingly resemble a large school of fish being worked into a ball by a small army of sharks and dolphins.

      3. BinkyTheMagicPaperclip Silver badge

        Re: unexpected honesty

        Oh, I wouldn't say the Guardian is that bad. It's just terribly uneven.

        There's some excellent journalism on there, backed by facts, that questions things - you know, real journalism, rather than trying to sell papers.

        Unfortunately there are also opinion pieces, articles that push some of the Guardian's preferred worldviews, and forgetting that there's a world outside London and the upper middle class (a little irritating seeing as it originated in Manchester).

        To be fair I think that most of the broadsheets have articles where you can occasionally learn something, if suitably checked and filtered. The Mail, on the other hand, I have less confidence in anything other than a paper to maintain people's Daily Hate.

        1. Danny 14

          Re: unexpected honesty

          at the end of the day though he could walk away from the lot and still be a billionnaire. Its the poor saps who work in the factory that I feel sorry for (when it all implodes). They are just making a living.

          1. Jellied Eel Silver badge

            Re: unexpected honesty

            at the end of the day though he could walk away from the lot and still be a billionnaire.

            That may not be the case though. Much of Musk's wealth is on paper, ie the value of the stock in Tesla, Space-X etc. He's invested some of his own money, but also borrowed heavily against the value of that stock to the tune of $6-800m. That runs the risk of the dreaded margin call, where stock price drops below a point where the ability to repay becomes too risky. Then lenders call in the loans, and you have to find cash to repay. Which could mean being forced to sell your stake in the company, which is price affecting as well as creating a loss of control. It's risky business because although it means the person has a lot of skin in the game, there may be a temptation to pump the stock to avoid personal bankruptcy. Or worse, as WorldCom investors and employees discovered. And because Musk has diversified himself into other ventures, those could end up at risk as well.

            Its the poor saps who work in the factory that I feel sorry for (when it all implodes). They are just making a living.

            Yup. But it's not just the direct employees. When companies like this implode, there's always a ripple effect. So after a slow burn, Tesla's stock price followed a Falcon trajectory. Large and small investors piled in as a growth stock. If it crashes and burns, they lose money. And they may be banks, but also pension funds and individuals. Then there's the bonds, which are usually institutional investments, but there are a lot of those trading well below par. And there's the people who've put down deposits, expecting a Model 3. Those may not be secured creditors. Or just people who've got a Tesla, and won't get warranty or charging.

            So when large companies fail, there tends to be a ripple effect that's often not pretty. So when the .Com bubble burst, it took down venerable companies like Nortel.

            And the media plays a part. Yes, there's a lot of criticism. Some justified, some perhaps not. Musk has been a great showman and used the media to promote Tesla, but isn't good at taking criticism. I don't always agree with Kieran's posts, but I do agree with his points on journalism. I expect journalists to be as impartial as they can be, and understand subjective vs objective reporting. Questioning cash burn rates is ojective, saying the new Roadster's a pretty car is subjective. But one of Musk's tweets pointed out Tesla doesn't advertise. While the media runs lots of positive stories, it doesn't need to.. But if the media's not impartial, it becomes an extension of Tesla's marketing. And companies will use this against journalists, ie say nice things about us or you won't get access to our PR machine. Hello, Apple?

      4. LucreLout

        Re: unexpected honesty

        But Musk is right that journalists have lost the respect of the public.

        Yes, he is. The Millie Dowler debacle finished any possible claim to being a respectable or serious profession that journalism may once have held. Journalists rank somewhere between MPs and Lawyers in terms of respect or trust, and the only thing lower than those is Estate Agent.

        1. Paul Floyd

          Re: unexpected honesty

          What about bankers?

      5. Milton

        Re: unexpected honesty

        "Look at two examples in the UK, Daily Mail and Guardian. Two polar opposites in view but absolutely equivalent in their gutter level."

        The tiny difference between the Mail and the Guardian—and before you panic, no, I don't actually expect you to understand this complex concept—is that the former publishes a great many provable lies and wild exaggerations, which are regularly, frequently and routinely fact-checked and debunked. The latter occasionally makes mistakes, which it publcily corrects. It does not, like the Mail, tell obvious, silly, childish lies to a mouth-breathing audience.

        The other noticeable difference, which again you shouldn't trouble yourself considering, is that the Mail encourages hatred, racism, misogyny, intolerance and blame; whereas the Guardian speaks for inclusivity, freedom, equality, openness and understanding.

        Those two insignificant details aside, you're right, they're just the same.

        To an imbecile.

        1. Cederic Silver badge
          FAIL

          Re: unexpected honesty

          the Mail encourages hatred, racism, misogyny, intolerance and blame; whereas the Guardian speaks for inclusivity, freedom, equality, openness and understanding

          I've read far too many anti-white and anti-male articles on the Guardian's website to believe that one for a moment.

          1. perlcat

            Re: unexpected honesty

            Frankly, they're both journalistic train wrecks, with idiotic sensationalism, opinion masquerading as fact, and carefully selected outrage at carefully selected and maintained targets. The main reason to read either is to go to the comment pages and emit/observe snark. Sadly, they're still better than the garbage we have in the States.

      6. a_yank_lurker

        Re: unexpected honesty

        @werdsmith - Actually only some journalists and news outlets have lost the trust of the public. Many have tired to report stories as accurately and fairly as possible. Most people are smart enough to differentiate between the those that are actually doing journalism and those who are shilling for whomever.

    2. Charlie Clark Silver badge

      Re: unexpected honesty

      It's worth pointing out how much Musk's businesses benefit from the largely free and glowing PR he gets. Both Tesla and Space X are doing great things but so are a lot of other companies in their area. I for one would like to hear more about the Rutherford engines.

      The old saying is never get into bed with the press. It was as important in the days of Beaverbrook, Hearst, Twain and others as it is now.

      That Tesla is in financial trouble is no secret – the deal with SolarCity should never have gone ahead – and not the media's fault.

  2. FlippingGerman

    Taking it personally?

    It seems the author may be doing just so.

    That said, the article is a good one, and makes a point that too many seem to forget: "the media" is seen as some shadowy group of people who conspire to do evil.

    Also, Twitter is not a good place to hang out for peace of mind. Alfie wouldn't approve. Those who regularly use it seem to think that those they encounter there reflect the broader population, which to me does not seem to be the case, for both the left who encounter the right, and vice versa, along with those who dislike being labelled as either.

    Much as I admire Musk, he has an alarming tendency to get annoyed about things and then start a new company to fix the problem. I'm not sure this is a good idea.

    1. Don MacVittie

      Re: Taking it personally?

      As long as things like Listserv are kept firmly in mind when claims of the media not being a shadowy group out to do evil, I pretty much agree.

      But this publication's inane perpetual ramblings about both Trump and Brexit - whether relevant to the article or not - show that at least to some extent the hive mind is real, so previous cabal attempts must be held firmly in sight.

      1. sabroni Silver badge
        Boffin

        Re: inane perpetual ramblings about both Trump and Brexit

        When sensible people see stupidity it's their duty to point it out.

        1. 2Nick3

          Re: inane perpetual ramblings about both Trump and Brexit

          "When sensible people see stupidity it's their duty to point it out."

          But in an article about how Win10 won't update if you have a certain model of Intel or Toshiba SSD in the machine? It's not relevant to the topic, adds nothing to the information being conveyed by the piece, and can be alienating to ~50% of the population (in this case US votes for Trump and UK votes for Brexit). And if you alienate people often enough they leave, which does impact your add revenues.

          I think there needs to be a corollary to Godwin's Law (as commonly understood, at least) that bringing Trump or Brexit unnecessarily into a discussion means it is over and your position is void.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Taking it personally?

        How do you work your way from 'some journalists who write for a particular publication don't like Trump' to 'hive mind'? I mean, seriously: how?

    2. MyffyW Silver badge

      Re: Taking it personally?

      Alfie wouldn't approve.

      "Seems to me if they ain't got you one way they got you another. So what's the answer? That's what I keep asking myself. What's it all about?"

  3. Shadow Systems

    "learn when to put your head down and shut the fuck up."

    *Spit take laughing jag*

    You owe me a new keyboard! Thumbs up for a brilliant line I shall find reasons to quote!

    Cheers & enjoy a pint! =-D

  4. ratfox
    Headmaster

    Technically, the media is plural

    The singular is medium. Look, if people can annoy me by saying that "data" is plural, I see no reason to hold back myself.

    1. Geoffrey W
      Headmaster

      Re: Technically, the media is plural

      Correct. So, how is the word media being used incorrectly in this article? Is there anything that implies the media is a single thing?

      1. Trilkhai

        Re: Technically, the media is plural

        @Geoffrey W — It's from this line about halfway through the article:

        And then they start imagining that because "the media" is a singular term that it somehow holds and works together as a coherent whole.

        1. Geoffrey W

          Re: Technically, the media is plural

          But surely the point being made by that article quote is the same as the point made by the commentard I responded too - That people critical of the media tend to talk about it as if it were a singular well organised entity, whereas its a multi faceted collection of entities and not at all organised as a singular entity.

          The OP implied that the article said the media was a singular entity, but the opposite of that is true.

          Kieren McCarthy seems to attract a lot of knee jerk responses; unfairly I feel.

          1. Brewster's Angle Grinder Silver badge

            Re: Technically, the media is plural

            Let me FTFY:

            "Kieren McCarthy seems to attract a lot of knee jerk[s] responses"

          2. Nugry Horace

            Re: Technically, the media is plural

            The point, I think, is that if people (like the author of the article) write 'media is' that reinforces the impression of the media as a single homogeneous entity. If they were to write the technically correct 'media are' that would give the opposite impression.

      2. SuccessCase

        Re: Technically, the media is plural

        @Geoffrey W. You, kind of, answered your own question in your second sentence, seemingly without noticing!

        “Is there anything that implies the media is a single thing?”

        Ratfox is, it seems, a grammar pedant while you, it seems, are not. I’ll leave it up to you two to decide which it is best to be.

    2. a pressbutton

      Re: The future...

      Clearly ratfox does not work for a newspaper

      Esp the grauniad

    3. PNGuinn
      Trollface

      Re: Technically, the media is plural

      Look, if people can annoy me by saying that "data" is plural, I can annoy them by suggesting that data are plural.

  5. quxinot

    Can't have it both ways, guys.

    You can't say "[all] journalists do [x,y,z]" and follow that with "the media is not a coherent whole".

    More importantly, real journalism is being crowded out by movements (directed or undirected) found on various social media. Which means that non-journalists are having more say that winds up in the media--the media is not just what journalists write/say anymore.

    Seems like most of the time, the proper media winds up just reporting on the actions of people online, anymore. For example, this article.

    1. Martin Gregorie

      Re: Can't have it both ways, guys.

      ...but don't forget that there are, and have been since I was old enough to notice, news outlets that simply take stories off newswire services like Reuters, Associated Press, UPI, etc, and print them.

      Back in the late '70s that was where almost all the foreign news on BBC radio came from: at that time their test of whether a story was true was "has it been reported by more than one newswire". I have no idea whether this is still the case.

    2. diodesign (Written by Reg staff) Silver badge

      Re: Can't have it both ways, guys.

      The point is journos do X, Y, Z, but they don't function as one coherent centrally managed mass. I do not get my daily orders from some overarching media overlord who oversees hundreds of titles.

      In the same way that, say, processor chip designers do X, Y, Z, but work for different bosses and companies with different goals and projects and products.

      C.

      1. JLV

        Re: Can't have it both ways, guys.

        Quite true, but claiming that journos are never influenced by ad revenue aspects stretches my credulity quite a bit.

        Witness Fox News and their squirming over cancelled ad campaigns when some of their presenters wander off reservation more than usual.

        That said, Musk might do well to ponder on not imitating the orange buffoon's Twitter use.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Can't have it both ways, guys.

          Quite true, but claiming that journos are never influenced by ad revenue aspects stretches my credulity quite a bit.

          I'm on pair with this. We are fortunate that El Reg journos, writers and editors are not under constant pressure to get max clicks. But

          You could never guess what happen NEXT!

          The photos they DIDN'T want you to see!

          Nanny demands the DEATH PENALTY for the killers!

          It doesn't take half a sec to stare at dailymail.co.uk and the likes with misleading words and fake information just to get one extra viewer to click on the article for the ads. It has a name called click-bait.

          If they are not pressured to increase ads click, then there is no point in putting misleading and fake information just like a simple malware research Backdoors in D-Link’s backyard, simple and detailed with information.

          But those ads supported website are driven by it, so at least a number of journos/writers/editors out there are directly or indirectly pressuring themselves to increase ads clicks.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Can't have it both ways, guys.

        You don't need to literally be reporting to the same boss to end up functioning as one coherent mass. You exist in the same culture as the rest of the journalists and hold most of the same preconceived notions. You probably even read the same books and live in the same type of coastal cities as most of the people in your industry.

        You *naturally* adopt the same opinions as the rest of the corporate media class.

        1. diodesign (Written by Reg staff) Silver badge

          Re: anonymous coward

          "You *naturally* adopt the same opinions as the rest of the corporate media class."

          Well, you're kinda going off road here because this is The Register, and we certainly aren't corporate media. We're fiercely independent still.

          I, for one, read PDF manuals of computer architecture. If anything, I should be reading more normal books, no wonder I'm struggling to be articulate recently. I live in a US coastal city, but then again, roughly 47% of Americans live in a county with a coastal shoreline - and 8 in 10 live in a city - so banging on about coastal cities as if it makes you some kind of 1% elite is a bit weird.

          Your comment makes me sad, sad to see how warped a view people have of journalists on the whole. As if there is a strange cult or sinister plot to manipulate the masses, when in reality quite a few journalists are incapable of organizing themselves and fail to possess the ability to be managed.

          Of course, there are the Murdochs and the Fox Newses and the Daily Mails of the world, and titles on the left can be rather ridiculous, too, but they are not the only outlets available for consumption. There are thousands of writers, editors, producers, directors, and, er, talent, as they call it on telly and radio, who just want to share the truth and shut down lies.

          How badly has the media industry fucked up to sow this level of distrust, I do wonder. Have we dropped the ball too many times, or are people looking for something to blame, or a combination of both, or something else. I don't know. I certainly know that journos get things wrong, like all humans, too many titles rely on access (cough, cough, Wired) - I'm not trying to paint us, as an industry, as perfect. Just perhaps not quite as malevolent as some assume.

          Above all, I implore you to read Kieren's bulletpoint list. It's a pretty honest description of how normal journos - esp those here - operate.

          C.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: anonymous coward

            Diodesign - "How badly has the media industry fucked up to sow this level of distrust, I do wonder". I suspect that the problem, as is so often the case, Facebook.

            Most people don't read newspapers anymore. they receive single-serving articles that reflect their own beliefs and hence can be unchallenged and biased in the extreme. Ignoring the issue of this creating a demand for such material, people then share it friends and family, not all of who share that bias.

            I think we have all seen the effect - we've had a shared article from that slightly racist uncle or that naively utopian niece that is shockingly biased against our own expectations, and conclude that there is media out there that is corrosive and wrong (even as we happily consume equally biased media that fits out own beliefs).

            Anyway, the drip-feed experience is to assume that the world is full of scurrilous reporters feeding poison to everyone else except you.

            Things were different when it was just papers, because people understood that the small set of different papers occupied different positions overall on the political spectrum. Now there are so many outlets accessible to you (whether you know it or not) that you may only ever discover their existence through some repugnant opinion piece that lands in your news feed, never to be seen again.

            Mud sticks, and there's a lot being scattered about.

          2. Jellied Eel Silver badge

            Re: anonymous coward

            I, for one, read PDF manuals of computer architecture. If anything, I should be reading more normal books, no wonder I'm struggling to be articulate recently.

            No, please carry on reading the technical stuff, so I don't have to. Which is why I love the Register. So as Kieran says..

            Journalism is about what is happening now. As in today. If something happened literally yesterday, a news editor will question whether it is worth a story. This creates a distorted sense of what is real

            Which I guess is an especial challenge for tech reporting when combined with the 'velocity of news'. Case in point being Meltdown/Spectre. I'm no processor architecture guru, but do like chips. So I want to understand the implications and risks.. Which is a non-trivial task to translate something very complex into something a simple fibre guy can understand.. And the MSM have even less chance of understanding seeing as most of them don't really have tech/science reporters with the industry knowledge.. Which means they may rely on picking up the phone to the affected company's PR people and getting the official denial, not the kind of reporting we get here.

            And I thank you for that. Plus my fellow travellers who can educated and entertain in the comments as well!

            1. PNGuinn
              Unhappy

              @ Kieran and Jellied Eel

              "So as Kieran says..

              Journalism is about what is happening now. As in today. If something happened literally yesterday, a news editor will question whether it is worth a story. This creates a distorted sense of what is real"

              Which is a large part of the problem. More and more we want our drip feed of sensation, and we want it now. We're not really interested, don't want to think and are easily bored. We get the "journalism" we want. Shallow, ill thought out puff pieces. Don't think, move along now, nothing to see here.

              Sometimes a story "gets legs" and the press go on and on ... and tell us very little. When that Malaysian airliner disappeared it was headline news for days, to very little newsworthy effect.

              El Reg kept sthum for a couple of weeks, then produced a well researched piece on the subject. That provoked a flurry of commentardery - I had no idea how many pilots were on here - and a very illuminating discussion.

              I'm afraid that just wouldn't happen today in the mass media.

              I'm in the uk. The Hawaiian volcano made the news briefly. Old news. No followup, If I want to know, I've got to search myself. Sad.

              If Journalism and the press don't take a lead to raise standards, who will? Who will pay?

          3. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: anonymous coward

            @diodesign

            "Have we dropped the ball too many times"

            Everytime you author a clickbait headline you have fucked up.

          4. Alistair
            Windows

            Re: anonymous coward

            I'm one to bash Keiran on one or two points, mostly because I see the disparity between the corporatism, populism, and libertarian-ism that is flying about these days, and I personally suspect that Keiran is willing to give the proponents of the whole lot of these 'religions' far too much credit

            I'm willing to agree that *real* journalists do want to follow the list that Kieran has laid out, and likely most do. There are unfortunately more than just the journalists on the front lines involved, and there are political filters at the corporate level, as well as very clearly biased entities out there. Sadly the largest and most widespread media entities that exist are polarized. I find that it is more often the smaller, tighter media organizations that are likely to have a broader, more open view of the situation and a tendency to stand more solidly on the facts than on opinions or political perspective.

            El Reg and its pitbulls are as far as I can tell, and happily in my view, unfettered by bias at the management level.

            Musk's rant has a place in (a) modern view of the 'infotainment' world. We *do* have clickbait websites out there who are *solely* in the business for the ad revenue they can generate, and who *do* use aggressive and attention grabbing headlines to suck in the clicks, frequently exaggerating one end of the issue over the facts. And yes, sadly, some of the larger international corporate media *own* these sites, and I believe are happy to use them to both bolster their ad revenue and to bolster the particular 'bent' to which they subscribe.

            The *speed* of information is also partly to blame, with any 'event' the time taken to research facts versus initial impressions or off the cuff, or top of head assessments is now seen to impinge upon revenue generation, and thus is less effectively done, as in a couple of cases I can recall, venerable new outlets grabbing tidbits off wikipedia that were later found to be less than accurate.

            My concern is of course that rational thinking, that is the ability to *discern* where the news is being *managed* to cater to a specific perspective or political spectrum, appears to be less and less prevalent in the overall population, and this is resulting in the situation that ended up with Trump and Hillary being the candidates in the last election in the United states. And the raging *mess* that we have here in my province coming up in June. The literal polarization of the population(s) being reported to appears to be the grander goal of these over large international corporate news media.

            Still, I will read many sources. I will try to strip down to raw facts what I read, and I will compare reporting from sources with opposing views and *try* to discern truth. It is far from a simple job to be truly informed these days. The internet, sadly, has made it *harder* in some cases to see real truth when there is so much room for spin.

            1. perlcat

              Re: anonymous coward

              I think that I can answer the question "how badly have we fucked up". I have a sibling that went through journalism school in the 80's. At the time, there were three main TV news networks in the US, and their reports were basically viewed as gospel. I won't go into why that was, but the journos I knew at the time were all about the ethics of journalism, how they stood up to the powerful for Truth and Justice, with a capital 'T' and 'J'. I found that absurd even then, as Juvenal's phrase "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" has remained relevant for a long time. They could be forgiven, as the young are often guilty of enthusiasm.

              Even into Desert Storm with CNN, there was a lot of faith in journalism that was as unwarranted as that in the Big Three networks' product. There has always been bias in news -- the only real barrier to setting up a news outlet was cash. It doesn't even have to be a conscious bias -- for example, a journalist may put a lot more effort into digging up dirt on political adversaries than they will for their friends. This reinforces itself until all credibility is as lost as that on a product trial that says Microsoft is the best in an independent study that is hosted on a MS--owned domain.

              People tend to believe things in print simply because they were in print. Now that we live in a communication age, where the barrier to publishing your bastard brainchildren is an opinion and the motivation to post it, there are a lot more competing sources for information. Not only that, there are enough relatively (say that with a straight face...) respected opinions/sources that this bias, conscious or unconscious, is exposed.

              There has been numerous examples of academic journalism fraud, where the lower barrier has meant that garbage has made it into the pages of formerly respected publications. Remember cold fusion? In fact, editors are human, too. They want to see their employer succeed, and may make questionable decisions to favor the sensational, especially if they think that they need to act in a hurry to be on top of things.

              People see this, and then when they go to a publication and find their political ox has been gored, assume that means a prejudice against their politics. They may even do some investigation, but it's investigation on the flawed premise called confirmation bias. A truly fair publication will wind up goring everybody's ox from time to time, but they'll lose readership in so doing.

              We live in a different age now. Journalists have been exposed as human beings with opinions and biases of their own. The only thing I find shameful about that is that they are not open about it. There's a lot to be said for listening to other people's opinions, and as long as you understand the source, you can make useful assumptions about their content. I see a lot of people bagging on purportedly liberal and conservative outlets like the Guardian and Daily Mail; however, I don't think that either of them is as monolithic in their politics as believed.

              In the DM's situation, I see it more of a tendency towards sensationalism than solid fact-mongering, and coupled with a hilariously poor editing and quality control (honestly, they must be paid by the word to go through the clickbait so we don't have to), provides more of an entertainment product than what used to be referred to as "hard hitting" journalism. When the article veers left, the cons complain, and when the article veers right, the libs complain. Me, I'm just there to wind people up, so I consider my entertainment dollar well-spent.

              People say that Fox is bad, and others say that CNN is also bad -- I just see them as two competing mutual masturbation societies, each operating in their own little bubble of opinion. Both are laughably incompetent, and both pretend to be the last bastion of journalism, holding back the howling mobs of ignorance and prejudice. Respecting one or the other says more about your politics than it does about their competence.

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like