Importance of a Free Press

[VTexan]

...but it's little match for an electorate which willingly cedes its critical thinking and seeks not to be informed, but to have its misconceptions verified.

[mattbn73]

Originally Posted by imwjl

I'll agree that popular media has a lot to be desired but argue it's not completely broken.

I work at my WSJ and NYT accounts daily skipping opinion pages and when possible taking them in via reader mode - just the text. I see both papers considered conservative and liberal reporting news and doing a good job of it. I catch all sorts of news that's very important and neither Republican or Democrat.

Maybe what's broken is people being lazy. It's different to peck at getting through the reading than sitting in front of the TV. Honestly, the good news consumption is a bit like my discipline with eating and exercise where I think the real problem is a whole lot of people don't make an effort or have discipline. There I go again - fat shaming.

The lack of confidence most have in media here is disturbing. More disturbing is the amount of influence that thoughtless one-sentence Facebook memes apparently carry. Somewhere, along the way, the media lost its credibility as an independent voice, providing true balance checks against government and corporate.

[Dirk Hofman]

Originally Posted by HodgdonExtreme

The key reason I find it troubling is RSF chooses the questions, and the "experts" that get to answer them.

Who said that thing about the only thing mattering is who counts the votes? Stalin, I think...

Except in this example, RSF gets to choose whats on the ballot, who gets to vote, and which votes count.

I'm curious how else an organization would conduct such a review other than creating the questions and choosing experts. Is there some reason to doubt the experts they chose? I didn't see a list. Is there some issue with the specific questions? I did post the questionnaire.

I am unmoved by blanket condemnations of expertise or criticism of the questions without specific problems with either being called out. That's just bashing and strikes me as the kind of thing most would complain about if done by a member of the free press.

Stalin? Wow.

[Dirk Hofman]

Originally Posted by mattbn73

The lack of confidence most have in media here is disturbing. More disturbing is the amount of influence that thoughtless one-sentence Facebook memes apparently carry. Somewhere, along the way, the media lost its credibility as an independent voice, providing true balance checks against government and corporate.

The lack of confidence is actively being fostered and promoted by actors both inside and outside the country. It is a concerted attempt to degrade faith in our institutions and promote chaos for reasons we can't discuss here. It is indeed disturbing that it is working so well.

[BrunoBlack]

Originally Posted by VTexan

...but it's little match for an electorate which willingly cedes its critical thinking and seeks not to be informed, but to have its misconceptions verified.

This is important IMO^^^^^^^. A free press allows factual reporting as well as opinion and commentary. The source & context should be understood and the reader is responsible how each is consumed. I find when presentations are clearly understood as opinions, and are not opinions dressed up as fact, diverse viewpoints are helpful to understand complicated issues. It may be difficult to digest communication done in bad taste and it may be a challenge to sort out fiction from truth, but it seems like this might be the price we pay for the free exchange ideas. Hopefully (as someone previously mentioned) the legal system and court of publc opinion provides a backstop. Critical thinking is required.

[HodgdonExtreme]

Originally Posted by Dirk Hofman

I'm curious how else an organization would conduct such a review other than creating the questions and choosing experts. Is there some reason to doubt the experts they chose? I didn't see a list. Is there some issue with the specific questions? I did post the questionnaire.

I am unmoved by blanket condemnations of expertise or criticism of the questions without specific problems with either being called out. That's just bashing and strikes me as the kind of thing most would complain about if done by a member of the free press.

Stalin? Wow.

I don't have a suggestion on how to improve the quality of an assessment such as this. However, there is huge reason to doubt.

As indicated on their homepage, RSF prides itself as having global clout and influence (me paraphrasing) - so they likely have an agenda.

Any time a person or organization has an agenda, there is excellent reason to be suspicious of their intentions and doubt the legitimacy of their conclusions.

I didn't carefully review the entire questionnaire, though I did a decent skim of it. Every question I saw was 100% qualitative, and open to the the opinion and interpretation of the so-called experts chosen to answer. If RSF does indeed have an agenda, I think it's extremely likely they would choose "experts" that align nicely with that agenda.

RSF could be cleaner than freshly fallen snow. If they're not, however, my Stalin reference is apt.

I think it is likely that North Korea does indeed exhibit the least journalistic freedom on Earth. I also think that journalism and media in the USA isn't as free as it could/should be. However, I do not accept this report as some kind of factual reference. It is a thoroughly executed opinion piece.

[Dirk Hofman]

Originally Posted by HodgdonExtreme

I don't have a suggestion on how to improve the quality of an assessment such as this. However, there is huge reason to doubt.

As indicated on their homepage, RSF prides itself as having global clout and influence (me paraphrasing) - so they likely have an agenda.

Any time a person or organization has an agenda, there is excellent reason to be suspicious of their intentions and doubt the legitimacy of their conclusions.

I didn't carefully review the entire questionnaire, though I did a decent skim of it. Every question I saw was 100% qualitative, and open to the the opinion and interpretation of the so-called experts chosen to answer. If RSF does indeed have an agenda, I think it's extremely likely they would choose "experts" that align nicely with that agenda.

I could be wrong; RSF could be cleaner than freshly fallen snow. If they're not, however, my Stalin reference is apt.

I think it is likely that North Korea does indeed exhibit the least journalistic freedom on Earth. I also think that journalism and media in the USA isn't as free as it could/should be. However, I do not accept this report as some kind of factual reference. It is a thoroughly executed opinion piece.

Thanks, I took a look at the site. The agenda seems clear, to expose threats to a free press. The characters who they list as people actively threatening press seem uncontroversial.

So we agree that a group who want to evaluate such a thing would generally do what RSF has done–formulate a set of questions and seek the counsel of those they deem to have expertise.

Many of the questions are subjective, though certainly some are not. The idea of freedom is a subjective one and the questions they've used to determine press freedom strike me as entirely reasonable for the subject matter. Certainly getting the view of many local experts from around the world and asking them a set of pertinent and thoughtful questions strikes me as an entirely reasonable way of getting a pulse on the situation around the world.

It is essentially a survey, with all the inherent strengths and weaknesses of that methodology. The questions asked make me this this is a fairly well done survey. It is meant as a gauge of what's happening, and I would think would be most interesting to see how it changes over time. It's a snapshot.

What I find damaging in our public discourse is a knee-jerk reaction to expertise. I find it often (if not usually) emerges when the facts presented by experts come into conflict with the ideology or beliefs of the person reacting, rather than emerging from any kind of informed analysis of the information. That's how your first post struck me. I think assessing them as having an agenda and impugning the experts they consulted without direct information about who they asked is...well I'll say I find it unconvincing.

I think it's entirely healthy and reasonable to be skeptical. I think it's hugely damaging and problematic to make accusations based on only assumptions. That strikes me as rather the opposite of free and informed inquiry.

[RedJoker]

Originally Posted by HodgdonExtreme

However, I do not accept this report as some kind of factual reference. It is a thoroughly executed opinion piece.

I'd be interested is reading a factual reference. Can you provide a suggestion?

[HodgdonExtreme]

Originally Posted by Dirk Hofman

It is essentially a survey, with all the inherent strengths and weaknesses of that methodology.

I think it's entirely healthy and reasonable to be skeptical..

This captures my sentiments in a perfectly pithy way. Well done.

Originally Posted by RedJoker

I'd be interested is reading a factual reference. Can you provide a suggestion?

Wish I could! Even if they were able to make a study like this more scientific and quantitative, there'd be plenty of folks calling the legitimacy of the "facts" into question...

[Cypress Knee]

I do not trust the media anymore, left or right. All the employees appear to be busy pushing the media outlet owner's vision of the "narrative" of a political point of view, and ignoring the real news. I find it more informative to read the rants and ravings from someone on the far right and someone on the far left and see if I can figure out my own conclusions in the middle.

I am tired of the major media figures who have publicly announced that their job is to tell the consumers what they should think about the news, not what the news is.

I found it interesting during the Dakota Pipeline protests. The major news media pushed the stories based on their big-picture view of the environment, oil and gas, trains, whatever.

The fascinating news to me was in the Bismark newspapers. There were the real stories about the impact of the protests on the people who live there. The logistical impact of thousands of people arriving in an area with no infrastructure to support them was fascinating reading, if you dug that far.

My own personal analysis was that regardless of the political outcome, the protesters would leave as soon as the cold north wind bearing sleet and snow began coming out of Canada and sweeping across those Dakota plains in mid-November.

[RedJoker]

Originally Posted by HodgdonExtreme

Wish I could! Even if they were able to make a study like this more scientific and quantitative, there'd be plenty of folks calling the legitimacy of the "facts" into question...

To be honest, that was exactly what I was thinking. I'm glad you came out and said it.

[Mr. Jelly]

Critical thinking is in short supply in echo chambers.

Face it a news story that doesn't get read, watched or clicked on is a dead subject no matter how important, factual and truthful it is. That means the news people who wrote it are out of a job or the news business that issues it is out of business. That's a fact of life. So it's necessary to issue news how people like to consume it.

There is also the fact that news outlets have boards. The people on these boards are high level people from other industries. As the high level people from news outlets are on other boards. This means that say an oil industry has a major problem the story may be influenced as the people of these industries are well acquainted with each other. Now as any employee knows you must keep the boss pleased with your output. So the publishers know where to pull their punches and where they can work freely. It's all the politics of people being people.

[Song]

Originally Posted by Cypress Knee

The fascinating news to me was in the Bismark newspapers. There were the real stories about the impact of the protests on the people who live there. The logistical impact of thousands of people arriving in an area with no infrastructure to support them was fascinating reading, if you dug that far.

Protests justified by the several hundred thousand gallon leak a few months later



And if you dig a little deeper you might discover the impact of a million gallon crude oil leak from a ruptured pipeline in Marshall Michigan that polluted the Kalamazoo river and 1000s of strangely garbed clean-up workers and 100s of federal agents from the EPA, DOT, NHTSB, etcetera with no infrastructure to support them. Causing evacuations and hardship to the locals.
I was there. Here's a pic of the rupture. Enbridge (my customer) operations increased pressure when it ruptured and made the 2nd largest inland leak.



Or the pipeline rupture about a month later in Romeoville Illinois where 100s of 1000s of gallons of crude oil flowed down the street into the Des Plaines river requiring 1000s of workers and 100s of agents with no infrastructure to support them. Causing evacuations and hardship to the locals.
(That's me in the red coveralls)


One of the hats I wear is Pipeline Integrity specialist. A reasonably well informed person does not want a pipeline anywhere near.
Many of them are chock full of stress corrosion cracks, metal loss, and deformations.
Pipelines are not passive static structures. They are cylindrical steel balloons and extremely dangerous.

[Dirk Hofman]

Originally Posted by HodgdonExtreme

This captures my sentiments in a perfectly pithy way. Well done.

Pithy in terms of the ccntext editing which changes my meaning?

All the same, thanks for the discussion.

[KevWind]

Access to info is one thing, understanding it free from the prism of our own preconceptions is another matter

So Let me say this about that