How much do you trust/distrust journalism?

How much do you trust journalism?

  • Without question

    Votes: 1 0.6%
  • With strong optimism

    Votes: 2 1.2%
  • With healthy skepticism

    Votes: 6 3.5%
  • With uncertain ambivalence

    Votes: 2 1.2%
  • With dissecting scrutiny

    Votes: 19 11.2%
  • With strong pessimism

    Votes: 45 26.5%
  • Without trust

    Votes: 95 55.9%

  • Total voters
    170
Journos have always been full of shit, they're just not into pretending otherwise any more.

They've learned well that we don't do anything when they lie, why even bother with 'believable' anymore?
That and they have gotten less skilled at pushing their bullshit. Vox and Atlantic are practically NE style tabloids now.
 
There is no reason not to generally trust journalism, here is why:

These days everyone can be a fact checker; what with the little computer we call a cell phone and the recording equipment it comes with. You can publish your stories on different platforms and others can see them.

Any journalist who would like to pull off a big lie would need to be able to defend himself against scores of people who have evidence to the contrary.
 
The fairness doctrine kept things in line better. The fact that 3 men own nearly all mass media makes it untrustworthy on principle. Independent media which cites source or shows the work is often more reliable. News about any country should be obtained from other countries' journalists, neutral nations preferred.

That's for politics, local and other news, happenings. Scientifically speaking-

Peer-reviewed studies conducted by unaffiliated scientists are trustworthy to a degree- by unaffiliated I mean go read the assertion, see who's funding it. Government and university funding is usually fine, those grants are easy to maintain even if your research shows the place should be burnt to the ground. There's inertia built into that money, a grantee will likely continue to be paid as long as they're producing anything worthy of publication.

Being funded by any political group or corporate interest, that can be cut off the moment you suggest their desired conclusion is wrong, or future research can be buried and left purposely unpublished. Unreliable in comparison.
 
Three Things about Journalism which everyone should know.
  1. Manufacturing consent and forming an apparent majority is everything in democracies, except originally in Athens where it was Slavery freeing the demos to educate themselves on the current issues. However, without slaves, its just the manufacturing consent of the uninformed governed by pretending to be the source of all information. The media are just never going to be allowed to be neutral to authority again after Vietnam. Republicans may try to take the moral position on this by not selling access for favorable coverage, but all that does is just make the Democrats the party of the media instead. News Anchors literally say 'we' from time to time when talking about democrats during elections.
  2. Standards lower after ideological purity tests, and our society is in the middle of a giant one that is shit-testing us on the notions of who really is our citizenry because by the Hart-Cellar Act we gave out citizenship to the point it was meaningless so every single indirect method of equity, inclusivity, or representation is zealously sought after instead. The mass media influence other sectors of society, including politics, business, culture, entertainment, sport, religion, education, etc. so they've become the first and constant victim of these purges.
  3. Cost-cutting backward vertical disintegration where CNN fired its regional investigation teams because why should you get information from the ground when reading twitter will do? Arab Spring was the first online-researched by majority story, as far as I know, and it proved the model over at CNN. Whatever the horizontal integration by buying local news stations gets them in local coverage, the vertical disintegration robs them in quality standards and fact-checking.
 
Last edited:
I don't trust journalists or media at all. It's hit rock bottom since they started pushing people to trust the "fact checkers" (whose bias is apparent if you follow the money trail on their funding).

That and how stuff is memory holed I'd worrisome. I've seen stuff happen with my own eyes and then it's vanished and people will pretend it never happened. It's the whole "there are 4 lights! Not 5!!!" Thing.
 
Strong pessimism bordering on blatant distrust. When you realize that many news corporations are owned by the same conglomerates, you begin to see how easy it is for them to manipulate you into certain viewpoints even with supposedly neutral journalism.

Also, several incidents over the years (Taylor Lorenz and her visiting the family members of LibsOfTiktok is a highlight especially) have made it clear that many journalists and news outlets will drop all pretenses of journalistic integrity if it means they can persecute someone who goes against whatever profitable narrative they are attempting to push.
 
When hit with a news story or article headline, my immediate reaction is to look for the lie.

Every detail, every motivation, every source, every bit of history of the institution reporting it, somewhere between the lines there is a lie. I take nothing at face value anymore apart from the absolute barest inarguable truths of a story or report, and even then those can change and shift so often that I don't even consider them facts.

Someone, somewhere stands to benefit from the way something is reported. I will not give them the benefit of my trust.
 
I try to read articles from different povs, but I assume that they’re wrong, outdated, etc.
 
I'm of the opinion that the propaganda class (called "journalists" today) have always been cheerleaders for the rich and powerful throughout history. In fact, I'm pretty sure that the "normie" understanding of history is completely flawed because all the records we have are just propaganda from the winner of the time.

Did Julius Caeser really betray his country when *he* was the one stabbed in the back multiple times by furious noblemen?
Was the Boston Tea Party really protesting taxation without representation or was it just the American Tea Cartels furious that they were being undercut?

I'm sure there are many other examples, but I can't think of them at the moment. The point is - I've become skeptical of all human accounts.
 
I live in a time period where randos screaming 'tranny nigger kike faggot' on kf and /pol/ and such have a higher demand for truth than people paid 7 and 8 figures to quaff their hair and say things on camera without thinking about them. Burn the (((journalists))). They're not even recyclable into other jobs.
 
The mainstream media ( whether direct intelligence assets, True Believers or useful idiot ) is and has been for a very long time now the propaganda mouthpiece of the ruling elite and nothing more, completely subverted down to the weather report.
 
The distrust of journalism here is bordering on tinfoil hattery. Starting to see how the avg Kiwi Farmer only trusts his preconceived notions of what is true, because y’all seem to think that the news agencies all lie, your education was lies, and the only way to safeguard your freedom of speech is to back up a copy of the Christchurch shooting to the forums.

Fact-checking is an important part of journalism. It’s possible to criticize todays batch of journalists and publications as being lazy, untrained hacks on the internet without deciding news as a concept is worthless propaganda. I’m happy to post up NYT articles I find risible to A&N, but I don’t think their reporting is out and out lies.
 
The distrust of journalism here is bordering on tinfoil hattery. Starting to see how the avg Kiwi Farmer only trusts his preconceived notions of what is true, because y’all seem to think that the news agencies all lie, your education was lies, and the only way to safeguard your freedom of speech is to back up a copy of the Christchurch shooting to the forums.

Fact-checking is an important part of journalism. It’s possible to criticize todays batch of journalists and publications as being lazy, untrained hacks on the internet without deciding news as a concept is worthless propaganda. I’m happy to post up NYT articles I find risible to A&N, but I don’t think their reporting is out and out lies.
If you have any in-depth knowledge about any subject and see a journalists take on that it is inevitably wrong. Often so wrong it shouldn't be possible in the internet age.

That is without taking malicious intent into consideration like project mocking bird, the several journolists that have leaked and just plain ideological blindness.

I can only conclude you have no in-depth knowledge on any subject, have never personally read an autopsy report or case files about a much written about case and compared the reporting with your own lying eyes. How old are you?

For myself, all I know is that if all journalists/papers/channels are in agreement about something it must be wrong. The only old school journalist I somewhat trust is Glenn Greenwald
 
Outside of very fringe outlets that have an obvious bias I generally trust journalists enough that they won't straight up lie to me, not show me all the facts? Sure but if you really care thats why you get your news from a few different places across the political spectrum to ensure you have as good of an understanding on a topic as possible.
 
Journalists are full of shit, and always have been. If you really want to know what is happening, ask me. I'm 100% right all the time and no one pays me.

Also, my dms are open to payment offers.
 
Back