I'm writing this post in response to a friend who wrote the following:
I think that part of the problem is that we are not on the same page about major institutions that provide enlightened investigative reporting and editorial positions. For me the New York Times and the Washington Post and similar newspapers have top notch reporters who have specialized skill sets that allow for in-depth analysis of important issues. This is overseen by an editorial crew who assure that high levels of journalistic integrity are maintained. I myself have less confidence in blogs because there is a lack of careful attention, and there certainly is no editorial review. So--we are ending up getting our news from different sources. And, this could have the effect of taking us in different directions.
My feeling is that The New York Times and Washington Post and similar newspapers have deeply compromised reporters that follow the editorial imperatives of their elite sponsors. They do not practice journalistic integrity, but rather have risen to positions of prominence because they are willing to spout the company line. Ultimately, the bulk of the media money goes to large organizations that support the United States led global empire against perceived enemies such as Russia, China, Iran, and socialists at home and abroad. Honest reporters have to work elsewhere, and there are many alternative outlets which provide more balanced and factual reporting and analysis.
My opinion is not based upon inherent distrust of the establishment. I have gone back and forth throughout my life as to the degree that I trust establishment media outlets. Generally, I have been trusting. But I've noticed that the major media outlets have been broadcasting information from unspecified "intelligence sources" and that this information has been proven faulty in many instances, leading to horrible mistakes both at home and abroad.
Here are some of my previous writings on the subject, along with some analyses from other sources:
- The NY Times is a Propaganda Outlet for the
White SupremacistChauvinist U.S. Empire
(my blog, 9/5/2020) - Media, Military Intelligence Complex, and Other Ramblings (my blog, 2/22/2020)
- Masks, Hydroxychloroquine, and a Reason to Vote Green (my blog, 8/4/2020)
- The Post-Objectivity Era (Matt Taibbi, 9/19/2020)
- Fake News on Russia and Other Official Enemies, The New York Times, 1917–2017 (Edward Herman in "Monthly Review", 7/1/2017)
- Politics is an American Industry (Steve Randy Waldman, 9/17/2020)
- The World: What is Really Happening (Craig Murray, 5/25/2019)
- Our Press Sucks (my blog, 6/10/2019)
- The Intelligence Community Tells Us What's Happening (my blog, 5/19/2019)
- The Terrifying Rise of the Zombie State Narrative (Crain Murray, 1/2/2020)
This is certainly an important topic. Our country is horribly polarized due largely to a polarized media landscape. From Matt Taibbi
We live in a time of incredible political division. Many of us have had the experience of talking to someone whose idea of reality seems to be completely alien to our own. It’s become difficult to have an argument in the traditional sense. People with differing opinions no longer seem to be working from commonly-accepted sets of facts. It’s a problem that has a lot to do with changes in how we receive and digest information, especially through the news media...
Fundamentally, this means the press has gone from selling a vision of reality they perceive to be acceptable to a broad mean, to selling division. For technological, commercial, and political reasons this instinct has become more exaggerated with time, snowballing toward the dysfunctional state we’re in today...
Audiences are completely siloed. A Pew study that just came out showed that of the people who say Fox is their primary news source, 93% describe themselves as Republicans. For MSNBC, the number is 95% Democrats. The New York Times is 91% Democrats. Even NPR is now 87% Democrats:
So one channel is talking almost exclusively to one group of people, while other channels are talking almost exclusively to another group of people.
So it's understandable