General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhat Does "The Media" Cover and Not Cover, and When? More Than You Think.
From time to time, someone makes a post here claiming that "the media" doesn't cover some story or another. Then, if I go to Google News and search for that story, I find coverage all over the place. Apparently, "the media" does cover the story, but the person complaining may not have been watching the media when that coverage aired or was printed. That must be the case, because I can click on links on Google News and see the coverage myself.
It's important to understand that the cable "News" networks offer very little actual coverage of news as it happens. Instead, networks like CNN and MSNBC broadcast analysis and commentary programming almost all of the time. They don't actual report news all that much, but focus on specific issues, mainly political issues, in most of their programming. I will not mention Fox News Network, because it is not a news network at all, but a propaganda outlet for the Right.
If you want straight news on television media, your best bet is to watch the regular news programs on the major broadcast TV networks, ABC, CBS, and NBC. They have national and local news programming on every morning, around the dinner hour, and later in the evening. Even Fox TV News programming generally does straight reporting in its regular news programs. Typically, you'll see coverage of the days events on those broadcast networks, both national, international, and local on your local network affiliate station. Viewership of any of those broadcast networks is far, far higher than viewership of any or all of the cable news outlets.
You can also visit major newspaper outlets, along with the TV networks online, at any time of day. Google News will let you search for stories and events that interest you, as well, letting you pick the outlets you want to view for yourself. Just about anything that happens will have coverage you can access via Google News.
Twitter is not a news media outlet. People tweet things about the news, sometimes linking to a story, but Twitter is hit and miss. Facebook is decidedly not a news outlet. It is a social media venue. What you see there depends on what you've looked at in the past and your typical behavior on that site. If you want news, go to news venues for it, not social media.
Just about every story that someone claims was not covered by "The Media" was actually covered. You might have missed it if you're not always watching that media, but the coverage is there, and you can search for it at any time of day or night. It is almost never true that there was "no media coverage" of any major news story or event. You can always find that coverage, whether you watch news on TV or not. It's there and available for you whenever you feel like looking for it.
empedocles
(15,751 posts)tremendous - and continually getting more extensive.
MineralMan
(146,288 posts)None of us can watch every media news outlet all the time. Now, I have MSNBC on all the time on the TV in my living room, mostly as background noise. If something huge is breaking, I can go up there and see what's going on.
In the morning, over coffee, and in the late afternoon, I have the local CBS affiliate on to watch straight news coverage for an hour or two at a time. That's where I get my recap of the day's stories.
Also in the morning, I read the Minneapolis Star Tribune, cover to cover. Mostly, it's news I've already seen on TV, but more in depth, generally. I skip the editorial pages, though. I make up my own mind about my opinions of the news.
Still, at any time, I can search for news on my phone or my desktop computer, where I sit most of the day. Then there's DU, where I see most stories shortly after they happen.
It's almost always untrue when someone says that "nobody covered it," with regard to news stories. People who say that just aren't seeing the coverage. It's there, but maybe not where you are looking at the moment. Google News makes it clear that such statements are simply not correct.
mahatmakanejeeves
(57,436 posts)Every newspaper I can think of has a Twitter account. Some have a few.
https://twitter.com/washingtonpost
https://twitter.com/postobits
https://twitter.com/PostOpinions
https://twitter.com/hiattf
https://twitter.com/WashPostPR
and of course
https://twitter.com/capitalweather
Just about every newspaper writer has a Twitter account. Writers for the Washington Post include the addresses of their Twitter accounts at the end of the articles they've written. Writers for The Wall Street Journal. include the addresses of their Twitter accounts at the beginning of their articles. I include those addresses in my posts in LBN.
Not only that, but breaking stories often show up at those reporters' Twitter accounts before they appear at the websites of the newspapers for which they write.
If there's a big decision from the Supreme Court, you'll read about it at Robert Barnes's Twitter account before the story shows up at the Washington Post website. Amy Howe will have it at her Twitter account too.
https://twitter.com/scotusreporter
https://twitter.com/AHoweBlogger
Trump's financial shenanigans will show up in David Farenthold's account.
https://twitter.com/Fahrenthold
This is sort of a problem, as Twitter is not considered a sufficient source for stories in LBN. I have to use the tweet as the placeholder for a source until the story shows up in the newspaper.
Other than that, I agree. People have their minds made up that there was no coverage, when the reality is that they didn't want to go looking for that coverage.
Google is their friend.
Have a great weekend.
MineralMan
(146,288 posts)I wouldn't have any time at all, and my Twitter feed would be jammed with news. You're right, of course, but you do have to follow the outlets to get those stories. I don't spend a lot of time on Twitter, frankly. I get my news elsewhere.
Unless you follow news sources on Twitter, you won't see the news. I don't have time to read through Twitter posts, frankly.
cadoman
(792 posts)...for permission to use their images, videos, firsthand reports, and commentary in their "news broadcasts".
People have to learn to engage their brain when they read a source like Twitter, but let's not act like your brain shouldn't be engaged when you consume any information.
I totally hear you on how frustrating it is to wait for content to be "verified" (as if their staff never make mistakes or have to issue corrections?). We also forget there is/was systemic racism in old corporate media, and when I'm creating BIPOC content on Wikipedia it's damned near impossible to find "verified sources" on said subjects. Why? Because they've been ignored by the "verified sources" for as long as we've been alive.
KentuckyWoman
(6,679 posts)If they can hit the outrage button and get you to turn off the TV and hit social media or their website then that's a big win. The news itself doesn't matter. The engagement matters.
Earlier in the day you'll see them throw pretty much everything out there to see what sticks. By around lunch they know what is getting picked up on social media or clicked in their website. That gets expanded.
Even DU takes the bait. Any given day you see multiple posts on the same basic subject and tomorrow poof, it's gone. In the middle of that are the subjects DU does well on a perennial basis regardless of the new hit of the day. They all have a place here and I am glad.
You are right. Some stories didn't blow up on social media so it is easy for people who spend most of their time there to think it wasn't covered.
MineralMan
(146,288 posts)I don't use social media as one of those sources. I do watch DU all day, but always visit links when a story is breaking.
gab13by13
(21,333 posts)the MSM is right wing, on TV. There are some progressive places on the internet and in print, but everything on TV is right wing.
MineralMan
(146,288 posts)Opinion is not news.
I make up my own mind about information. I'm not looking for "progressive" or "right wing" news. I'm looking for information. I'm pretty good at picking the actual information out from any news programming I see.
I recommend looking for information and forming your own opinion about that information and doing your own analysis of the information.
Paladin
(28,255 posts)News isn't just information for the trumpistas---it's a lethal weapon. There's evidence of that, every single day. Just as there's daily evidence of liberal failure to effectively deal with it...
MineralMan
(146,288 posts)No, thanks. I will think for myself, and encourage others to do the same. In 2020, we threw Trump out of office. In 2022, I'm hopeful we show the door to some other sitting Republicans. That's my goal, and is what I'm working toward.
We needn't follow the lead of the Trumpers. We can decide for ourselves, I think, and help others recognize why we are deciding.
That is not the point of this thread. That point is that the news is out there if you want it. It all gets covered. If someone doesn't get the news, that's on them. We should be doing better than the Trumpers, it seems to me, with regard to gathering of information. We can do better. I hope we do.
Shermann
(7,413 posts)This is a common trope on the rightwing media. It's their go-to support for assertions that the MSM is biased to the left. This one is useful because it is largely subjective. It's much more difficult to demonstrate that a news story contains factual errors. That requires journalistic effort. No, it is much easier to fabricate a low-grade conspiracy theory regarding story suppression.
CNN does squander their time a bit repeating content with low news value. But I believe this is just how it is with the for-profit 24-hour news cycle. It's not a conspiracy. Or...maybe that's just what they want you to think.
This is also a way for news leftover sources like OANN to pump up that hash they are serving.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)The mister and I have been cable-news-free for about six months now. We cut the cable and life is better. Reading one's news is measurably better than relying on "cable news" and trying to consume their pre-digested garbage.
Has anyone ever analyzed at what grade-level (or reading-level) the cable news networks report their news. I'd guess somewhere between 7th and 9th-grade.
MineralMan
(146,288 posts)viewer intelligence and reading (hearing) ability. That's true with almost everything.
I tend to use Google News to find stories, then sort out the facts from the opinions for myself. There are very, very few editorial commentators I trust to interpret the news. I like MSNBC, but it's not news, for the most part. All commentary.
pwb
(11,261 posts)Without war they have nothing for 23 hours a day. Same Same people, opinions, contributors etc. They are done in my house. Nightly news and here is all I need.