You must log in or register to comment.
Ssshhhh… No more observation, only sleep.
When CNN was bought a couple years ago one of the biggest investors in WB (obviously a right wing billionaire) flat out said the goal was to make CNN more like Faux News…
And people are still shocked CNN acts like Faux News now.
The mainstream media will always want to drag both parties as far to the right as possible, because you don’t become rich enough to own mainstream media if you value literally anything over money.
Edit:
We’re fifty fifth out of 180
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Press_Freedom_Index
Well behind every other first world country
And as an alternative people migrate towards social media that’s owned by even less, even larger companies and filled with false, emotional clickbait and algorithms that want you to stay within your dedicated filter bubble.
Could we crowd source some press? How much money should a journalist who isn’t biased be making? What kind of operation costs are there?
I’m pretty sure the goal of public radio and television is basically this. Maybe see how you can help your local stations.
Always intended, I’m guessing. As soon as Ben Franklin realized the power to sway public opinion he must have known.
He wasn’t a stupid person.
six? wow it’s more diverse than I thought!
oh wait they all have the same values.
As George Carlin said, they don’t need to have a conspiracy to know what’s in their best interest.
Brought to you by Pfizer
Free to be overrun with capitalist interests.
Freedom^TM brought to you by The Panopticon Corporation. Do what you like, we’re just watching!
Also in partnership with Justice Industries. Come watch the latest Tribute to Justice as well punish the guilty LIVE! ON! AIR! If you love people getting what’s coming to them, you won’t want to miss T2J!
“Would you like to know more?”
If you don’t pay to get your news, someone else does, and that someone might not have the same interests as you do.
Support media initiatives that are funded exclusively by the people, not by the state or the oligarchs.
you think you would get anything else if you do pay? honest question. what incentive is there for “individually funded media” to report anything better? In fact, why would they NOT sensationalize stuff? it leads to better sales and a stronger reader retention.
it’s not the solution you think it is, your best bet is to go to news aggregators like ground news and even that isn’t a 100% solution.
You might be missing the point of the OP, your news aggregators is an aggregation of a story you’re being told.
you do realize that there are other news sources like DW or AZ who do publish counter to the big cooperate news outlets as well?
Cool. Which one of those has the information about politics and laws and other news in my state that I should be paying attention to?
Because right now, as far as I can tell, it’s either state public media or one of the corporations.
they both have reporters around the world in unlikely places, go check them out yourself
They don’t have them in Indiana. And they certainly don’t have any reporting regularly on state issues.
did you actually look? or are you just assuming? because they both have an India branch
DW or AZ
You might want to spell those out. I follow a lot of indie journalists and I have no idea what these stand for.
If I pay the right media, yes. The incentive of these media is justice, the right of the people to know the truth and how they are being robbed by the upper class, their passion for journalism and the trust they build with their community.
They don’t sensationalise stuff because their income doesn’t depend on clicks in the Google feed but rather on the people who fund them. They don’t depend on clicks, because they don’t depend on ads to make profit. They don’t want to make excess profit, they want to cover their running costs and salaries which is achieved by monthly subscriptions. Readers who are willing to pay for a newspaper, are not persuaded to do so by thumbnails and clicks, but rather by the value of the content. The sensationalism and clickbaits and ads are mainstream, rich-people-owned media job in fact, the exact opposite of what you claimed. This is because these media seek profit and the only way to get it is by making you watch ads and click on articles. Let alone the fact that they have contradicting interests with the people, so their covering of the news will be skewed accordingly.
Why do you think I’m imagining this or that I’m thinking about something unrealistic lol? I have years of experience with grassroots non-profit media, I’m following lots of them and I get my news from them. I am talking from experience, not imagination.
That is a lot of wish thinking there my friend. do you know why sensationalism works with the Google feed? because it works at getting people to consume your media. any business that relies on people consuming media wants as many people consuming said media as possible, incentivizing them to sensationalize.
You on the other hand made the moral argument in capitalism, something that should be so obviously wrong that unrealistic is an understatement. And look at you, it worked, by sensationalizing the issue of news, you now mainly consume their media.
You are so clueless and excessively confident I don’t know why I keep on replying to you.
Can you distinguish in your mind media whose revenue depend on your clicks, through ads and engagement and media that don’t depend on your clicks because they are funded by readers subscriptions? Can you, or is it too hard?
Any rich person/oligarch owned media is run with profit incentive, it needs to increase its revenue, because otherwise it’s an unprofitable investment. It’s in their direct interest to make you click on their articles.
Non profit, people-funded media on the other hand depend on their subscribers confidence that they will deliver valuable and accurate journalism. That’s why people would subscribe. And that’s why they aren’t touched by your stupid repetitive arguments, they are not businesses, they don’t run on profit, they are detached from it. Not every single one is good, but they are the only ones that have the prerequisites to be good
As for the last part I don’t even know what to say honestly. You don’t even use the word sensationalism correct. Does sensationalism mean having a positive opinion for any reason about any media? Where are those assumptions coming from?
You’re obviously not worth discussing with. You are spewing words without any cohesion. You didn’t even answer any of my statements, you started speaking as if I didn’t answer you, saying the same thing with your previous comment and explaining to me something I’ve already addressed.
That’s why uncensored social media like Mastodon, Lemmy and the wider Fediverse is so valuable, as we can get direct reports from the people around, without being filtered or censored by anyone.
uncensored social media like
Facebook!
Yeah, it cuts both ways.
Facebook isn’t uncensored
true, 4-Chan!
much better news source!
I’d say the whole free software culture is about breaking free from the confines of large companies and whoever owns the communication platforms. They usually aren’t motivated by freedom and what their “users” want/need. Free software has been around since the 80s? The Fediverse is available for us, too. I’d say people who like freedom have some opportunities to enjoy it.
It doesn’t really replace proper journalism, though. For example all of the local news about my city and area sadly aren’t shared on any free platform. But it works alright for some other topics like IT news.
“It doesn’t really replace proper journalism though”
Yeah, that’s an even bigger problem that doesn’t really have much of a solution. Things like Fediverse might allow for the distribution of news outside the control of corporations but it doesn’t help in actually getting access to unbiased journalism.
I’m glad the Fediverse doesn’t have any “algorithm”. But still, it’s a filter bubble. And very biased. And it has the same issues as every other place on the internet. People like to spread emotional stuff, like to complain and mainly post negative stuff, because they’re more motivated to write something when they’re agitated. And less so in other cases… I don’t think there is a solution to this.
My current way is to (occasionally) put away my phone and talk to my neighbors and friends. See what they’re up to. But in turn that doesn’t inform me about world politics (or tech news) 😉 And to read some random forums and blogs where people write longer, and well reasoned articles. Yeah and I also consume social media (Lemmy) and regular media. And lots of Youtube. I still feel like I’m super biased. But I’m stopping myself from reading too much news anyways. I don’t think it’s been healthy for me.
It’s still extremely censored
Individual instances are, but the beauty is that you can still find one that isn’t, and interact with most other instances.
I really wish someone would develop multi-instance front-end where you could seamlessly view posts across multiple instances, even if they de-federated from each-other, without needing to switch between accounts.
Else, the account switching does create a bit of a barrier.
I hope world (where I am) doesn’t federated from ml. Because while there are some tankies on ml, I’d rather be exposed to all of it if I wish to be, without needing to jump between accounts to view multiple feeds.
Just my two cents, and obvious begging, since I can’t make these wonderful free apps and websites we’ve been blessed with. The option of switching is wonderful, which is why I am here.
All fediverse needs now is a solid, fully end-to-end encrypted, Facebook replacement (retro Facebook, where you just got posts from your friends, in order).
friends run a site with an rss feed, posts are pgp encrypted
Sounds neato, is this federated / easily signed up for by non-programmers? Or just a personal project for them and their friends?
intent was like a personal project
does not exist, yet ;)
I’d rather be exposed to all of it if I wish to be
This is why I switched from .world - they defederated from Hexbear and piracy comms. I’d rather choose what I want and don’t want to see.
All fediverse needs now is a solid, fully end-to-end encrypted, Facebook replacement (retro Facebook, where you just got posts from your friends, in order
Sounds like you’re describing Friendica. I made an account forever ago, realized I didn’t actually know anybody because I was a shut in who never left the computer chair and haven’t really thought about it in like a decade
Yes, though (it seems) minus the end-to-end encryption :/
This is why it’s so important to support independent news outlets. E.g. Kyiv Independent in Ukraine or Zetland in Denmark. I’m fine paying for independent journalism that’s really well made. But not for copy-pasted propaganda.
xiph.org ftw
Six perspectives is a bit better than one. And that’s only counting mainstream media, there’s plenty of good independent journalism.
Is it six different perspectives or is it one perspective by six conglomerates that are colluding?
The latter. Six billionaires’ opinions are not diverse enough.
Is it really those 6 billionaires opinions in every one of the stories their media presents every day? Seems like a stretch. I could see them imprinting their biases and blocking stories that they don’t want out, but colluding to control the narrative gives them too much credit I think. I’m lucky enough to have some decent independent journalism in my area, but I would love if there was more!
imprinting their biases and blocking stories that they don’t want out
That’s it. That’s all they need to do to influence a country or population at the scale that billionaires operate at. They all have very similar opinions and preferences (otherwise they wouldn’t be billionaires).
That so e people think that a publicly funded editorially independent press is somehow worse that this is maddening.
It’s also not a zero sum game. We can have both, yet somehow some people think it’s one or the other.
I hear you. And I agree, I would love more independently edited press out there. PBS and NPR seem under attack regularly by the right, but they do a pretty good job of being unbiased overall.
No, its called free and open because you can blog about damned near anything without getting thrown out of a window. Some small time blogs get big views so no, your premise has no merit.
Hard disagree my friend.
A small time blog is hardly journalism. You won’t see Joe’s blog as a reference for the news at 11.
There’s a shitload of blogs out there, and even if they’re trying to be the “news”, it’s 99% opinion based “reporting” on blogs.
It’s hard to compare someone’s personally owned blog with someone like Fox News, which has publications (websites, and blog-like content) as well as TV channels and webcast videos, both audio and video content available in every location where people consume news.
Unless it’s the largest blog to ever exist, it likely won’t hold a candle to the media giants that run most news organizations.
I get what you’re saying here friend, but no.
Propublica is a great nonprofit investigative journalism site that could use your support! They often partner with local news agencies to help give them interesting content and further the impact.
Their stories hold powerful entities accountable for pollution and corruption and have a really good track record of initiating legal or regulatory consequences.
Also there’s never a paywall
There should be a post about all the non-profit, grassroots, funded exclusively by the people journalist sites and media that people know of.
We need to share and learn about all the media we should be supporting and getting our news from. It’s one of the foundations for an actual democracy and a better society.
Wow, this seems like something I could donate to (once I unbroke myself)
I also like AllSides, which I believe is part news agragator and part unbiased reporting.
It give you unbiased headlines, then links to the L/C/R articles that they come from:
And also articles like “Why CBS and Fox Selectively Editing Interviews Is Bad for Voters” that cut out the bias.
