The mainstream media's biggest mistakes during the 2010s

The mainstream media is a laughing stock, filled with propagandists rather than real journalists doing cutting edge investigative work that holds all sides to the same standard. So as we close the decade of the 2010s, what stories were some of the biggest media failures?

-Obamacare
-UVA Jackie's rape hoax
-Coverup of Obama scandals
-Lies regarding Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown shootings (e.g. "hands up! don't shoot!")
-Brexit
-Trump's 2016 election
-Trump presidency will bring economic disaster
-Mueller Report and Russia collusion
-Charlottesville lie about Trump praising Neo-Nazis
-False rape accusations against Kavanaugh
-Covington Catholic
-Jussie Smollett
-Steele Dossier and Carter Page FISA warrant
-The ahistorical 1619 project by the NY Times

-

 

Let's be honest a little bit further. Fox News doesn't even reach a fraction of the other media outlets, Fox News is perceived and understood as a very pro-republican outlet, they rarely engage in metapolitical discourse - besides from Tucker Carlson - nor do the they pretend to be this objective news media in search of a higher truth. Contrast that to the other outlets. They are perceived as objective, adhering to journalistic ethics and, at most, described as: somewhat left leaning. You are comparing apples and pears.

There is no longer a dialectic to the discourse in MSM, the thesis is never met by what is considered an orthodox antithesis, and therefore, no synthesis is reached. That is why the US has gone from legalizing same-sex marriage in 2015(!) to discussing why "mispronouncing" someone's gender/pronouns is violence or that children regardless of age should be able to have sex reassignment surgery in 2019.

 

But the word news is in the fucking name.

They need to go wwe and call it fox news entertainment at least.

Everything in society is sold out gilded scam trash. Once you lay back and accept it you'll stop being a fan that roots for one team or the other while the owners make billions, the players make millions, and the spectators pay for the privilege to talk about them at the water cooler/social media.

Aintnobodygottimeforthat:
Let's be honest a little bit further. Fox News doesn't even reach a fraction of the other media outlets, Fox News is perceived and understood as a very pro-republican outlet, they rarely engage in metapolitical discourse - besides from Tucker Carlson - nor do the they pretend to be this objective news media in search of a higher truth. Contrast that to the other outlets. They are perceived as objective, adhering to journalistic ethics and, at most, described as: somewhat left leaning. You are comparing apples and pears.

There is no longer a dialectic to the discourse in MSM, the thesis is never met by what is considered an orthodox antithesis, and therefore, no synthesis is reached. That is why the US has gone from legalizing same-sex marriage in 2015(!) to discussing why "mispronouncing" someone's gender/pronouns is violence or that children regardless of age should be able to have sex reassignment surgery.

If the glove don't fit, you must acquit!
 

OP replies to himself under anon for validation

 

The 1619 Project is full of many historical inaccuracies. Its purpose is not tell objective historical fact or bring to light new information. By it's own admission, it's objective is to reframe the entirety of American history around white-black race relations, from the perspective of black people.

That may be good for a political narrative, but it is not objective history.

"Work ethic, work ethic" - Vince Vaughn
 

While there may be inaccuracies in the 1619 Project, how can you say history can be seen through one lens? History from a white person's eyes surely will differ from a black persons who will differ from an asian person.

There are many inaccuracies in history as it has been branded and re-written to what is taught today. I mean for christ sake, high schooler's don't even know that the root of the Civil War was slavery, not states' rights. History itself has almost become subjective to this point, which is good for no one.

 

It's very easy to point a finger to the "main stream media". The lower quality of public discourse and politicians is simply the projection of our own quality as a society.

"Every nation gets the government it deserves." - Joseph de Maistre

 
thebrofessor:
how many of those impacted your life?
This
“The three most harmful addictions are heroin, carbohydrates, and a monthly salary.” - Nassim Taleb
 
thebrofessor:
is it bad I'm only aware of 3 of those naturally (obamacare, brexit, 2016 election) and one more from dave chappelle (juicy sommolier)?

maybe you need some hobbies dude, how many of those impacted your life? or do you just want a list to slam your liberal family members over the holidays

Yes and no.

The good, you don't lose your mind over fundamentally dishonest people. The bad, these dishonest people might get into power, then you might regret your ''how many of those impacted your life?''.

Never discuss with idiots, first they drag you at their level, then they beat you with experience.
 

I agree and disagree.

Agree because you're correct.

Disagree because what will you do to change it? For thousands of years those in power are or become corrupted and enact change based on the premise of their own good. Frankly I think the only change that can be made is donating to whichever lobby group you're behind and hope that gifted Merc S Class and beach house do the trick of swaying the politician towards your own view. I will be the first to admit that I'm jaded.

“The three most harmful addictions are heroin, carbohydrates, and a monthly salary.” - Nassim Taleb
 
thebrofessor:
is it bad I'm only aware of 3 of those naturally (obamacare, brexit, 2016 election) and one more from dave chappelle (juicy sommolier)?

maybe you need some hobbies dude, how many of those impacted your life? or do you just want a list to slam your liberal family members over the holidays

As an American, I have a vested interest in seeing an objective high-quality media. This is something that we should all want, regardless of partisanship or political ideology. Just because something does not impact me directly, does not mean that I should not care about it. That's a weak argument.

 

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the media does, which is entirely unsurprising, given the soapbox you seem determined to stand on.

The media doesn't have to be "right". That isn't the point. They are there to tell stories as they happen (or as close to that as possible). So, for example, when you list "Obamacare" as a "failure"... what exactly do you mean? The Affordable Care Act exists. From that standpoint, reporting on it is a fixture, not a bug, regardless of how you feel about it. I get the feeling you don't think it's good policy, which is your prerogative... but that means that even neutral reporting on it will come across as "biased" to you.

Or the Mueller Report. What did you object to? The fact that most news outlets refused to parrot whatever Mr Trump claimed? Most reporting I saw came to the same conclusion - the Mueller Report did not exonerate Mr Trump and led to the conviction of several people associated with him. What have you been watching/reading?

Or Charlottesville. I heard what Mr Trump said regarding Neo-Nazi's, that they were comparable in their ethical positions with the people protesting them. That is pretty explicitly an endorsement of white nationalism, bigotry, and prejudice. What exactly did the "mainstream media" get wrong?

Long story short, if you position yourself a couple of standard deviations to the right or the left of the middle, most of what you read or hear will seem biased.

 
Ozymandia:
You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the media does, which is entirely unsurprising, given the soapbox you seem determined to stand on.

The media doesn't have to be "right". That isn't the point. They are there to tell stories as they happen (or as close to that as possible). So, for example, when you list "Obamacare" as a "failure"... what exactly do you mean? The Affordable Care Act exists. From that standpoint, reporting on it is a fixture, not a bug, regardless of how you feel about it. I get the feeling you don't think it's good policy, which is your prerogative... but that means that even neutral reporting on it will come across as "biased" to you.

Or the Mueller Report. What did you object to? The fact that most news outlets refused to parrot whatever Mr Trump claimed? Most reporting I saw came to the same conclusion - the Mueller Report did not exonerate Mr Trump and led to the conviction of several people associated with him. What have you been watching/reading?

Or Charlottesville. I heard what Mr Trump said regarding Neo-Nazi's, that they were comparable in their ethical positions with the people protesting them. That is pretty explicitly an endorsement of white nationalism, bigotry, and prejudice. What exactly did the "mainstream media" get wrong?

Long story short, if you position yourself a couple of standard deviations to the right or the left of the middle, most of what you read or hear will seem biased.

Read the Charlotesville press conference transcript. Trump explicitly denounced Neo-Nazis and white supremacists and said that his comments don't apply to them. The media, in its desperate attempt to portray Trump as a white supremacist, lied about Charlottesville.

 
<span class=keyword_link><a href=/resources/skills/valuation/free-cash-flow-to-equity-fcfe>FCFE</a></span>:
Read the Charlotesville press conference transcript. Trump explicitly denounced Neo-Nazis and white supremacists and said that his comments don't apply to them. The media, in its desperate attempt to portray Trump as a white supremacist, lied about Charlottesville.

This is such a laughably poor attempt to excuse Mr Trump's comments that I'm almost inclined to let is pass, and let others judge it on its own merits, or rather the lack thereof.

Mr Trump does not identify who the white nationalists are. Or who the neo-Nazi's are. Which means he's giving cover to every person in that mob to claim they were a great person, and everyone else a "bad hombre," to borrow a phrase. He merely says those people are bad, and many other people in that part of the crowd are fine people. Bullshit. When you stand next to a Nazi in solidarity, you are representing the same hateful views, lending your voice to the same cause. A woman died, was murdered, because of bunch of fascists got worked up into a frothy rage. Even a slight attempt to justify that, or to cast blame on both sides, is wrong. It is no different than saying that many of the camp guards at Auschwitz were very fine people, and many of the Jews that they extirpated were bad people. It's more than possible that they killed some murderers and pedophiles and other horrible people fully by accident, and it's also true that maybe one of those executioners gave generously to charity. But that doesn't matter, because as a group the guards represented the forces of bigotry and prejudice and violence and genocide, and the Jews (and gypsies and political prisoners, etc) represented the victims of that kind of meaningless hatred. One of those deserves unstinting and rancorous condemnation, and one deserves pity. In Charlottesville, one group was there to protect the "legacy" of a traitor and a slave-owner, and they did so in active and open alliance with Nazi's and white nationalists, even if they as individuals might not have self-identified as such.

President Trump is not a private citizen, and his words should be measured with the understanding that they will be taken as representative of the country as a whole, by both contemporaries and posterity. In that light, his comments are inexcusable and should absolutely be interpreted as a defense of the white nationalists who so vehemently support him. Mind you, his governing, both before and after, lends credence to the idea that he's out to help the people who voted for him and punish those who didn't, which tracks with who he defended in this instance. If he was the father of one of people protesting with the Nazi's, he could be forgiven for claiming his son/daughter was a decent person. As President, he has no business defending Nazi sympathizers, especially not Nazi sympathizers who just murdered someone. He cannot be parsing words in this situation, and the fact that he did was accurately seen by both the media and the country as cover for the motives of a murderer. The fact that many people who don't follow the "mainstream media" condemned Trump for his words merely backs this up.

 
Funniest

FOX NEWS is the only unbiased media source, especially TUCKER CARLSON.

MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN and MERRY CHRISTMAS

that’s what the LIBTARDS in the PEOPLES REPUBLIC OF CALIFORNIA don’t want you to hear

DONALD TRUMP 2020

 

Ex veniam dolores eius sit necessitatibus cum accusamus. Voluptatem quisquam sunt qui sunt ex dolorum.

Vitae dolor repellat atque reiciendis tempora aut qui debitis. Ea reiciendis reprehenderit quo quaerat provident fuga.

Est eos velit est qui sit. Atque ut cupiditate quibusdam sed. Maiores autem quod unde eos voluptates sit minima at. Unde saepe suscipit autem vel ut molestias amet. Non natus harum consequatur et autem.

 

Aut corrupti adipisci dolorem accusamus laborum libero animi. Modi eveniet tempore sit ut eveniet omnis rerum eum. Iusto in modi rem nihil molestias velit eius. Iure dolorem aut aut corrupti in aliquid voluptatem. Dolor quod iste molestias. Iure facilis molestiae dignissimos quis.

Velit ratione sed consequatur qui ut. Est cupiditate est corrupti voluptas sequi corporis. Cupiditate dolor repellat eveniet. Quisquam non reprehenderit sit repellat totam dolore. Sint rerum magni quidem id ratione quae. Autem alias non blanditiis odit.

Quaerat quos laborum omnis hic id numquam nihil. Quidem dolores est corporis deserunt qui. Ut similique non voluptatibus cum nobis est.

Recusandae tempore laborum sit nulla amet aut. Eaque vel neque aperiam necessitatibus sit consequuntur voluptatum.

Array

Career Advancement Opportunities

April 2024 Investment Banking

  • Jefferies & Company 02 99.4%
  • Goldman Sachs 19 98.8%
  • Harris Williams & Co. New 98.3%
  • Lazard Freres 02 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 03 97.1%

Overall Employee Satisfaction

April 2024 Investment Banking

  • Harris Williams & Co. 18 99.4%
  • JPMorgan Chase 10 98.8%
  • Lazard Freres 05 98.3%
  • Morgan Stanley 07 97.7%
  • William Blair 03 97.1%

Professional Growth Opportunities

April 2024 Investment Banking

  • Lazard Freres 01 99.4%
  • Jefferies & Company 02 98.8%
  • Goldman Sachs 17 98.3%
  • Moelis & Company 07 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 05 97.1%

Total Avg Compensation

April 2024 Investment Banking

  • Director/MD (5) $648
  • Vice President (19) $385
  • Associates (87) $260
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (14) $181
  • Intern/Summer Associate (33) $170
  • 2nd Year Analyst (66) $168
  • 1st Year Analyst (205) $159
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (146) $101
notes
16 IB Interviews Notes

“... there’s no excuse to not take advantage of the resources out there available to you. Best value for your $ are the...”

Leaderboard

1
redever's picture
redever
99.2
2
BankonBanking's picture
BankonBanking
99.0
3
Secyh62's picture
Secyh62
99.0
4
Betsy Massar's picture
Betsy Massar
99.0
5
GameTheory's picture
GameTheory
98.9
6
dosk17's picture
dosk17
98.9
7
kanon's picture
kanon
98.9
8
CompBanker's picture
CompBanker
98.9
9
Kenny_Powers_CFA's picture
Kenny_Powers_CFA
98.8
10
numi's picture
numi
98.8
success
From 10 rejections to 1 dream investment banking internship

“... I believe it was the single biggest reason why I ended up with an offer...”