News Sources: "Alarmist" vs. "Placating"

[icehorse]

One recurring theme on RF is - rightfully - questioning each other's news sources. It seems that most of us would agree that some sources are frequently "alarmist" in nature, and in debate, that categorization is often meant to undercut the credibility of the source.

I want to suggest that most MSM sources fall into an opposite category that is often just as far from reality as the so-called "alarmist" sources. I want to call these MSM sources "placating", or "placatist" (which apparently isn't a word). "pacifist" doesn't seem quite right. So I want to argue that a news source that placates that which oughtn't be swept under the rug is as problematic as a news source that is falsely alarmist.

IMO almost all western MSM sources fall into the placating category. They tend to cover what's popular, not what's important. They tend to shy away from the true problems. They are mostly owned by oligarchs who definitely have an agenda, and the oligarch's agenda is not to faithfully serve the population.

So I propose that to get at the truth you have to look at both the placaters and the alarmists and triangulate to the more honest middle ground.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Immature reply: MSM is a long standing acronym for men who have sex with men, giving me the giggles every time I see it used as 'mainstream media.'

Mature reply: Bias matters more in different contexts. In scientific context, it matters less because biases easily show up in the methodology of the study. So instead of pointing to the biases you can point to the improper foundation for the conclusion. With news, you can't really do that because citations work differently and you will never have access to rigorous documentation to support or argue against the news claims.

So the reason mainstream media is popular is precisely because it has more eyes on it. Errors of reporting, inaccurate sources or false conclusions are more likely to be called out than independent and smaller news sources, even if their biases are much the same. This doesn't mean the overall accuracy of mainstream news sources are higher, but you're more likely to have errors brought to your attention by a group of people doing due diligence and oversight. So smaller media tend to not gain readership through accuracy (since people trust larger media sources for reasons above), so instead they tend to make their name on opinion pieces. And today, the more vitriolic the better. And I'm just not interested in that much opinion based media with little to no pressure on reliability. So I look for reputable sources instead of alarmist sources, because I don't feel like alarmist sources are going to give me a 'rounded view.' Except if I'm just looking for a rounded view on opinions.

 

[icehorse]

So I look for reputable sources instead of alarmist sources

Sincere question, who's reputable? I gotta say my list shrinks every day.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Sincere question, who's reputable? I gotta say my list shrinks every day.

Like I said, 'reputable' to me isn't talking about the accuracy of the news itself per say, but a known reputation and a large group of people handling oversight (both within and without the organization.) That said I read just about everything you probably would consider mainstream. From FOX to CNN, from NYT to NYP, Huffpo to WSJ. BBC, the Hill. Etc.
But I leave out (generally, unless I'm specifically looking for varied opinion) Salon, BB, Jez, etc. I'd rather have variability of large news organizations than variability of main stream and small, extreme partisan.

 

[Augustus]

So I propose that to get at the truth you have to look at both the placaters and the alarmists and triangulate to the more honest middle ground.

This is a bit like arguing to wrongs make a right.

One of the major problems with the MSM is that, aside from any bias, it is frequently full of inaccuracies. If you read stories about a topic that you are very well versed in you will often notice mistake after mistake. We then tend to forget this when we read stories that we are not knowledgeable about otherwise we wouldn't have any confidence in their veracity.

The more inaccurate sources you read, the more misinformed you become. If you want to understand something you need to be informed and not misinformed.

We assume we are 'rational' and can easily scrub inaccuracies from our memory, but this is not the case. Everything we read affects us, and many incorrect beliefs continue to exert influence.

To understand something you need to ignore the MSM and any frequently updated news source as this is the only way to limit the amount of misinformation we are exposed to.

 

[icehorse]

From FOX to CNN, from NYT to NYP, Huffpo to WSJ. BBC, the Hill. Etc.

What I like about this list is that these sources have biases that conflict with each other.

 

[icehorse]

To understand something you need to ignore the MSM and any frequently updated news source as this is the only way to limit the amount of misinformation we are exposed to.

For the sake of discussion, let's say that your approach is the "ideal" approach. We often don't have that sort of time luxury, then what?

 

[icehorse]

That said I read just about everything you probably would consider mainstream. From FOX to CNN, from NYT to NYP, Huffpo to WSJ. BBC, the Hill. Etc.

An additional thought - for my money ALL of these sources fall into the "placater" category.

IMO the important stories of the day are climate change, oligarchy, human rights abuses, incursions into our liberties, bad infrastructure, ecological concerns, poor education and so on.

These stories are a small percentage of what's reported on, and when they are reported on, we get watered down reporting.

 

[Augustus]

For the sake of discussion, let's say that your approach is the "ideal" approach. We often don't have that sort of time luxury, then what?

Use the time you would have spent consuming MSM.

 

[Notanumber]

This journalist seems determined to report the facts from Sweden.

Whistle blowers are not permitted in Sweden, but how many other western countries are the same?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

An additional thought - for my money ALL of these sources fall into the "placater" category.

IMO the important stories of the day are climate change, oligarchy, human rights abuses, incursions into our liberties, bad infrastructure, ecological concerns, poor education and so on.

These stories are a small percentage of what's reported on, and when they are reported on, we get watered down reporting.

Assuming we all agree on the correct ratio of hot button issues to others, let alone which h9t button issues are most important, how would an 'alarmist' news outlet help with this if their own reporting is 'watered down' in the sense that they're only reporting on what fits their narrative, with no oversight to determine when you're hearing misinformation?

Further, placating is a term I'd use for a lot of alarmist sites, they're just placating a hardliners demographic with extreme and tunnel visioned outlooks on a smaller topic range. Creating an echo chamber to placate the desire for it among their readers. That's why I don't think getting a variety of 'alarmist' sources is better than getting a variety of mainstream ones.

 

[pearl]

A greater problem is the number of people whose only news source is Facebook!

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

So I propose that to get at the truth you have to look at both the placaters and the alarmists and triangulate to the more honest middle ground.

Very often though, there is a false dichotomy. Both sources are in cahoots, trying to get you
to take sides. Like the CNN vs Trump nonsense. It was CNN that made the Trump presidency
by being against him, which means that they're working together.

If find it best to mostly avoid the news, and stick to pure logical morality.
For the most part, 'the news' is just a marketing campaign for suits, ties and motor-cars.

 

[SomeRandom]

Even reputable news organizations have fallen into this alarmist trap. More or less sensationalizing one aspect of a story or even going so far as to commit slander. Right now there is debate as to whether or not a certain YouTube "celebrity" should sue the Wall Street Journal of all things for libel. And even though I do not like this person's content, I'm in the "yes they should sue!" camp.

 

[icehorse]

Even reputable news organizations have fallen into this alarmist trap. More or less sensationalizing one aspect of a story or even going so far as to commit slander. Right now there is debate as to whether or not a certain YouTube "celebrity" should sue the Wall Street Journal of all things for libel. And even though I do not like this person's content, I'm in the "yes they should sue!" camp.

This is a great example!

My claim is that if you zoom out and look at this sort of story, this is actually a placating strategy by the media moguls. It keeps us distracted with trivia so that we won't see that we're being robbed and pillaged on a grander scale.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

It's all a part of the modern, fashionable illusion of being informed. I wouldn't sweat the details about which info-tainment outlet(s) you get your narratives from. Choose one which matches your eyes and go with it.

 

[Falvlun]

News has largely become just another form of entertainment. Alarmism sells because it's entertaining and entertainment placates us so we don't go looking for trouble.

It's all part of the same loop.