Covid shortening the difference between corporate and independent opinion news

[Chew Toy McCoy]

Just an observation and realization I just made. As I bounce between independent opinion news on YouTube I've been following for years and corporate "I'm broadcasting from my house now!" opinion news there's pretty much zero difference in content and quality. As a lefty I'm undecided if the corporate side is still fighting the good fight or just collecting a paycheck while there is still one to be collected. Honestly, if the hosts were doing it for integrity, the only difference between 4 million broadcast viewers and 1 million YouTube subscribers is the size of the paycheck.

 

[Alli]

Can you give an example? My problem is that I’ve gotten lazy. I can turn on MSNBC with the touch of a button and multi-task with the TV on in the background, rather than single-task and look for content on my iPad.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Just an observation and realization I just made. As I bounce between independent opinion news on YouTube I've been following for years and corporate "I'm broadcasting from my house now!" opinion news there's pretty much zero difference in content and quality. As a lefty I'm undecided if the corporate side is still fighting the good fight or just collecting a paycheck while there is still one to be collected. Honestly, if the hosts were doing it for integrity, the only difference between 4 million broadcast viewers and 1 million YouTube subscribers is the size of the paycheck.

Perhaps, but I don't think that the issue is the pay check, as much as the costs (ad cost savings).

Opinion pieces are both cheaper (and easier and more entertaining, when done properly) to produce than fact based, carefully researched, accurate news stories. They are also faster - in that they can respond more rapidly to the demands of a 24 hours news cycle.

Much of the print media (and TV news) have done away with boring (but costly) staff, such as sub-editors, researchers, area specialists, and frequently rely on opinion pieces instead to generate both content and viewer/audience/reader traffic.

 

[User.45]

Perhaps, but I don't think that the issue is the pay check, as much as the costs (ad cost savings).

Opinion pieces are both cheaper (and easier and more entertaining, when done properly) to produce than fact based, carefully researched, accurate news stories. They are also faster - in that they can respond more rapidly to the demands of a 24 hours news cycle.

Much of the print media (and TV news) have done away with boring (but costly) staff, such as sub-editors, researchers, area specialists, and frequently rely on opinion pieces instead to generate both content and viewer/audience/reader traffic.

Just an observation and realization I just made. As I bounce between independent opinion news on YouTube I've been following for years and corporate "I'm broadcasting from my house now!" opinion news there's pretty much zero difference in content and quality. As a lefty I'm undecided if the corporate side is still fighting the good fight or just collecting a paycheck while there is still one to be collected. Honestly, if the hosts were doing it for integrity, the only difference between 4 million broadcast viewers and 1 million YouTube subscribers is the size of the paycheck.

I agree with @Chew Toy McCoy is some respects: there is WAY TOO MUCH opinion shit going on. Even if I agree with let's say 40-50% of the opinion pieces of a medium, I'd rather just make up my own based on the data presented. This is why I generally prefer Reuters though the corporate owners did phone down there too when WSB was messing up the stock market.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

I agree with @Chew Toy McCoy is some respects: there is WAY TOO MUCH opinion shit going on. Even if I agree with let's say 40-50% of the opinion pieces of a medium, I'd rather just make up my own based on the data presented. This is why I generally prefer Reuters though the corporate owners did phone down there too when WSB was messing up the stock market.

Oh, agreed.

But, the fact that much media has removed the old fact based articles (because they cost too much to produce, and yield less by way of audience traffic) has contributed to the proliferation of media that are "heavy" on offering "opinion", but light on facts, news, and hard data.

 

[SuperMatt]

Seeking out opinions that agree with our own gives us more confidence in them. It is also mentally easier than reading facts and making up our own minds. It is extremely difficult to change somebody’s mind just by presenting facts to them. This is why a figure like Trump who puts forth constant lies and conspiracy theories that fit a certain worldview is so dangerous.

“Mexicans are stealing our jobs, affirmative action let a minority get a job I deserved, Democrats are socialists, Muslims just want to destroy America...” These are things people might partially believe or want to believe if disgruntled. It would be nice if the GOP had more people like John McCain who shot down such ideas right away. Instead, somebody like Trump sees these gripes and says it’s all true.

I also like this forum which often confirms MY opinions. I often find myself clicking the opinion pieces when I open The NY Times or Washington Post website.

One thing I liked from a forum of more varied opinions (like PRSI) was that I found myself reading more non-opinion news because I needed sources to rebut false information. From time to time I actually learned something, or that I had an inaccurate pre-conceived notion.

It’s a shame that the mods over there turned it into something toxic by declaring war on facts. If that sounds crazy, I could explain how but it’s been covered before...

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Seeking out opinions that agree with our own gives us more confidence in them. It is also mentally easier than reading facts and making up our own minds. It is extremely difficult to change somebody’s mind just by presenting facts to them. This is why a figure like Trump who puts forth constant lies and conspiracy theories that fit a certain worldview is so dangerous.

“Mexicans are stealing our jobs, affirmative action let a minority get a job I deserved, Democrats are socialists, Muslims just want to destroy America...” These are things people might partially believe or want to believe if disgruntled. If the GOP had more people like John McCain who shot down such ideas right away. Instead, somebody like Trump sees these gripes and says it’s all true.

I also like this forum which often confirms MY opinions. I often find myself clicking the opinion pieces when I open The NY Times or Washington Post website.

One thing I liked from a forum of more varied opinions (like PRSI) was that I found myself reading more non-opinion news because I needed sources to rebut false information. From time to time I actually learned something, or that I had an inaccurate pre-conceived notion.

It’s a shame that the mods over there turned it into something toxic by declaring war on facts. If that sounds crazy, I could explain how but it’s been covered before...

That - the need to challenge myself by reading (intelligent, informed) material that differs from, disagrees with, or is outside of, my own (marked) political preferences - is one of the main reasons I have subscribed to the Economist and FT in the past, and is why I still read them.

Re mods declaring war on facts, I think that is well worth a separate thread in the "MR Refugees" section of the forum, as it is something I would love to see discussed & explored further.

 

[User.45]

One thing I liked from a forum of more varied opinions (like PRSI) was that I found myself reading more non-opinion news because I needed sources to rebut false information. From time to time I actually learned something, or that I had an inaccurate pre-conceived notion.

Agree, but such come at one cost: time. It takes much more time and effort to find those sources. The thing about my arguments on these forums is I prefer to argue about things I have very good understanding of and I learn very little from the people who were holding very adamant opposing stances on issues. Like Seddy. I've learnt nothing from him, just that any time I looked into his claims I found bullshit. My unnamed frenemy similar. I think about some of his statements and notions, but anytime I test them from a different angle they fall apart (see the very arbitrary interpretation of federalism). One of the basic issues is that a lot of people in the USA live in alternate realities.

 

[thekev]

I think about some of his statements and notions, but anytime I test them from a different angle they fall apart (see the very arbitrary interpretation of federalism). One of the basic issues is that a lot of people in the USA live in alternate realities.

Some people are deeply invested in ideological stances, and it's probably difficult to overcome them after a lot of years. Usually I just consider whether I they could be sincere, and a lot of statements don't pass that test. Sometimes it's just a statement picking up on tertiary details of someone's appearance or social interactions. Sometimes it's widening an argument to the point where it can fit one of their ideological talking points. I used to see the latter from the resident constitutional scholars, effectively arguing that Congress and state governments lacked the authority to regulate commerce, usually with something of the sort "Who is __ to tell me how to run my business?".