• zcd@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    108
    ·
    3 months ago

    When you realize all the news outlets are owned by billionaires it kind of makes sense

    • pelespirit@sh.itjust.worksM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      3 months ago

      They really are, I went through a lot of them to find out who owns them. I maybe stopped too early, but it was getting depressing. Reuters? Owned by a billionaire Canadian family. NYT? A huge portion controlled by the same family since the 1800’s even though it’s publicly traded. Our news needs to be sanitized and brought back to old timey journalism.

      https://sh.itjust.works/post/20890256

      • Dave.@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        3 months ago

        “Old timey journalism” was usually when someone with a political axe to grind started a local newspaper to try and counter the other guy who had started a newspaper. That’s when you get editorialism and a particular slant on your news.

        You probably want something like large public-funded-but-relatively-neutral news agencies, who have the resources, time, and budget to allow proper investigative journalism to take it’s full course, and are large enough that they don’t have to pander to the politicians of the day or big business.

        So we’re talking at this point about BBC, ABC (Australia), Al-Jazeera, Deutsche Welle, and other similar organisations.

        None are without bias - it’s very difficult to actually be bias-free, most will have a home country bias, for example. But they’re better than the billionaire’s media circus.

        • HakFoo@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          3 months ago

          The appeal of state media is that the bias is obvious.

          We know who’s paying the bills at the CBC or Xinhua, but it’s gonna be a lot more subtle for the local broadcaster who mysteriously drops their investigative series right after the target buys a premium ad package.

          It also means you can triangulate. If the BBC and TASS both report the same details on a story, those are probably legit.

        • pelespirit@sh.itjust.worksM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          3 months ago

          You’re absolutely correct, we need a form of the fairness doctrine back and a break up of all media conglomerates.

  • DoucheBagMcSwag@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    This has a Ryan George (Pitch Meeting) written all over it

    News: here are STARTLING MORTALITY RATES that you definitely did NOT ask for while you wait for the weather that we definitely promise is coming! But first a word from our sponsor

    User: you’re right I really didn’t ask for th—

    Ad: “HI HELLO THERE I’m the pharma ad – THIS COULD (possibly) KILL YOU!”

    User: oh god why would I want that? –

    Ad: So you won’t be depressed ya silly goose!"

    User: [Gestures to “News”] these people give you… Money?..-

    News: Yeeah yeeah yeah yeah!

    News: enjoy watching it every break until you actually feel depressed! *ARE YOU SAD YET??

    User: when are you going to get to that segment that you keep teasing over and over which is very effectively keeping me in engaged on your platform?

    News: heyshutup HERE’S THE SAME AD AGAIN!

  • Awkwardly_Frank@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    3 months ago

    There are certainly problems with the state of journalism, but anyone who tries to “view the news as a person” will be as woefully uninformed as those who try to “run government like a business.”

    • Optional@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      3 months ago

      The “state of journalism” is that it’s many miles down the mineshaft of capitalism and the only way out is to try to monetize crowdfunding.

      BBC is (was) the opposite and have their own issues, but in general I think we can agree they’re ahead of the US journalism framework.

  • YungOnions@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Negative news has a greater impact on people than positive: https://assets.csom.umn.edu/assets/71516.pdf

    Media sites know this, and use it to drive engagement:

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-023-01538-4

    https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/social-media-facebook-twitter-politics-b1870628.html

    And so, negative headlines are getting worse: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0276367

    But negative news is addictive and psychologically damaging: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/why-we-worry/202009/the-psychological-impact-negative-news

    So it’s important to try and stay positive:

    https://www.goodgoodgood.co/articles/benefits-of-good-news

    If you want a break from the constant negativity, here are some sites that report specifically on positive news:

    Remember, realistic optimism is important and, unlike what some might have you believe, is not the same as blissful ignorance or ‘burying your head in the sand’: https://www.learning-mind.com/realistic-optimism-blind-positivity/

    https://www.centreforoptimism.com/realisticoptimism

    And doesn’t mean you must stay uninformed on current affairs: https://www.goodgoodgood.co/articles/how-to-stop-doom-scrolling

    https://goodable.co/blog/tips-for-balancing-positive-and-negative-news/

  • orca@orcas.enjoying.yachts
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    3 months ago

    Capitalists flip flop between motivating with fear, and scaring the working class into paralysis with fear as well. Fear of losing your job; fear of your neighbor; fear of other countries; it’s all just fear. Bad news also draws people in and gets clicks and views.

  • taiyang@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    3 months ago

    Again, kind of a point for NPR given at least they do have an expert talk for like, 3 to 15 (or longer for some specially podcasts) and never angry. Less or no ads, although they still have sponsors. Plus if it’s really grim, they give a content warning (although it’s not like they show snuff videos like cable news does).

    Also local news affiliates, they fill time with silly fluff like how a bake off is going or local pet adoptions. But that still has the ads.

    • Optional@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      Not so - let’s pretend Anthropology 101 is a person.

      It . . . it sounds like a teacher.

      Okay, let’s pretend a grassroots advocacy group is a person

      It sounds like someone really concerned about [homelessness, food insecurity, etc.]

      Only news is so untouchable and overwhelmingly depressive.

  • callouscomic@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    3 months ago

    There’s plenty of news out there that is rational and factual. It’s boring however and you refuse to go find it. So keep only taking in the major mainstream outlets and complaining about it.

    • Melatonin@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      3 months ago

      Please, let me know where? I am a terrible googler and I need the help. Please help me find the rational, factual news.

      This question is direct to op. Of course, if you have suggestions, okay, but I am specifically interested in which ones op meant.

      • callouscomic@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        There is no one. I always find it when I read stories and notice there’s no added commentary or fluff. Usually it comes from news sources based in other countries that I think don’t have a horse in the race of the country being reported. Other times going straight to things like PBS or AP bypasses the added flair or missing context more mainstream sources would push.

        If nothing else, The Onion is pretty damn good.

        /s

  • lud@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    3 months ago

    I absolutely agree with the “news” person until half way.

    Reporting what has happened isn’t toxic it’s news. That’s their entire job.

    Getting stuck on repeat about the same thing, might be toxic though. Since it’s no longer news.

    • ProgrammingSocks@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      3 months ago

      Another thing is the “experts on both sides”. This is a poison of the mind, to believe that right and left wing politics are both equally valid and correct. Most of the time the science agrees with the left.

  • dubious@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    3 months ago

    yeah, people think that feeding into our reactionary side for views is something new, but television has been corrupting us since long before the internet.

    i remember these stickers in the 90’s… they used to be everywhere, especially in the subcultures like the punk/rave/hippie/skater scene:

    “KILL YOUR TV”

    i’m glad someone was looking out for me. killing that thing definitely made me a better person.

    • Queue
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      The BBC tries to both sides of human rights issues.

      “Do trans people deserve to use the bathtoom in peace? We’ve invited a trans woman from an NGO that has one several awards for human rights, and your racist Uncle from Facebook who no one invites to Thanksgiving willingly.”

      The BBC can be good, but man do they hate any form of minorities that aren’t included in a status quo.