Present day media is -- excuse my French -- fucked in the head.

Popularist, biased, sensationalist, irrational, unresearched, lacking in nuance = the current benchmark. Straight from the bowels of the limbic system with scant use of logic. VICE is just as bad as FOX.

Case and point: Louis C.K.

In its simplest term the role of the media would be to inform people about the world they’re living in. Alongside the news stories there might be the editors opinion piece; a personal or long view of some event or issue. That’s the readers experience.

The other role is that of the owners or investors. There were owners who had genuine beliefs in the role of their newspaper. They hired editors and let them run the newspaper on the basis of the reason they hired them. To a large degree there was integrity involved on all sides.

Some were powerful and biased in their views and what they supported. The Hearst empire for instance. But newspapers like The New York Times we’re respected in traditional terms of owner, editors and journalism,

Putting aside companies like the Hearst organisation I think it was probably television that marked the first change. Advertising revenue for one, and competing with video and then live stories. In time family ownership went and the accountants took precedence. So long integrity, so long real journalism,

Unfortunately “Freedom of the Press” is something we still regard as vital to a healthy society. But the media no longer operates in ways that served that purpose. They’re like a prostitute that goes around in virgin white.

The important question to me is how do we remove them without hurting ourselves and how do we replace them?

Best not to confuse media and news. Even though Fox calls itself news.

Maybe it depends on what the people call news.

There's never a complete accounting for what some people will do or say. Even Aristotle acknowledged as much. But the rest of us can distinguish - or so I hope. But I notice the honest news-people over these three-plus years have got battle fatigue. And I understand that. I am unable to listen to Trump for more than ten seconds.

Best not to confuse media and news. Even though Fox calls itself news. — tim wood

Good point. The OP is pretty clearly specifying 'news media', however.

The OP is pretty clearly specifying 'news media', however. — dex

Not in the OP. Even if he had, "news media" is a piece of word-salad that needs to be very well-defined indeed, or it's non-sense.

Isn’t it perfectly clear? It’s about media that delivers the news. What we can argue over is what is and what isn’t news.

Not sure. Probably to present to the viewer the horrors and miseries of the world just enough so they can forget about their own for a while, while still showing some positivity so it doesn't seem like we're all in some kind of hell. That's how we did it in my day at least.

Nah man. Gotta turn it into a 9 page discussion about semantics drenched in profanity and emotion all while eluding the point. Haven't you learned anything?

I offer the word via as a substitute for media. My point being that media is the way, news is the content. And in addition, news is a very particular kind of content. Media, being the via or road or conduit, carries many things besides news. And of course some of the content that calls itself news is not.

We can wrestle with defining news, but do we really have to? The OP has

felt conflicted about what the news should be and then how to ensure that media outlets are rewarded for doing whats in our best interests as opposed to that being different to what's best in theirs. — Judaka

But in this he merely makes clear that he really has no idea what news is.

Thank god. I thought I was losing it.

We can wrestle with defining news, but do we really have to? T — tim wood

No we don’t have to. We can just agree that we’re talking about what the news media delivers and consequently what role it has or should have in a democracy.

I'm a primitive - or Joe Friday - when it comes to news. Just the facts. Editorials are good - if they're good. And good news and as well good editorials give us informed citizens. It's that simple and that important, and when you get to the nub of it, people who f*** with it are committing a form of treason, and should be treated accordingly.

The news is essentially a wing of academia socially — they are public educators, in function.

The question of how to ensure that students get an unbiased education is thus a broader version of the more specific question of how to ensure news readers get unbiased information.

That entire problem is in turn analogous to the question of how to ensure fairness in governance. Avoiding bias in public institutes is the most general issue here.

Separation and balance of powers is one factor in that general solution. Applied to academia, that means separation of research, testing, and teaching: students should be tested by one party taught to them by another party from informational resources compiled by another party still.

That research then need to be peer-reviewed from a broad base. Rather than relying on primary sources directly, secondary sources like journals need to evaluate the quality and significance of those primary sources, and then tertiary sources like encyclopedias and textbooks need to compile the consensus opinion of those secondary sources.

The teachers then need to teach from those tertiary sources. Teachers need to be free to choose their sources to teach from, and students need to be free to choose their teachers.

When it comes to news, this fleshes out to a network of independent on-the-ground reporters submitting their primary research, an array of various secondary sources evaluating those reports, and then lastly some tertiary bodies compiling all those evaluations. It is those tertiary compilations of the evaluations of the primary reports that the news should be passing on to readers.

The money then needs to flow the other direction, from reader (even if via ad impressions; or perhaps even some kind of government news subsidy?) to newspaper to tertiary source to secondary source to primary reporter.

What we basically have right now is the equivalent of primary researchers teaching their “latest findings“ as though it was already settled science directly to undergrads. The whole filter of sanity checking and consensus building is missing.

Not in the OP. Even if he had, "news media" is a piece of word-salad that needs to be very well-defined indeed, or it's non-sense. — tim wood

News is mentioned enough to make it more specific I thought, but, yeah, kind of misleading to conflate it with 'communication mediums'.

How is 'news media' a BS term? It's defining media used by news outlets, and is apparently synonymous with saying 'news industry' -- sounds obvious enough. It's even got its own Wikipedia page.

Lately, I've felt conflicted about what the news should be and then how to ensure that media outlets are rewarded for doing whats in our best interests as opposed to that being different to what's best in theirs.

What do you think the role of the media should be within a democracy and are you satisfied or dissatisfied with how things are now. — Judaka

This is part of the problem, just whose interests? So much diversity, so many tribes, who should they serve? Does it end up with the media only serving a target audience which in effect is an echo chamber.

The role of the media in a democracy; is it to serve democracy, to reinforce those values, to have opinions that support it? Or is it’s role to question and enquire whatever the outcome, or in a democracy is it allowed to be whatever it wants?

There's a growing cultural awareness about the way manipulative media outlets which portray themselves as being impartial and fact-based are carefully arranging their presentations in order to further political aims. The news also seeks to entertain and interest, motivated by increasing viewership, ad revenue and ratings. Some of these motivations go against common ideals. — Judaka

True, but not limited to the so-called mainstream media. There's biased media all the way from Democracy Now! to CNN. Also from Infowars to Fox news. All media is biased.

I think the role of the media should be to continue growing. Keep the means to reach an audience open to anyone. That’s why I would say censorship is the most pressing issue growing forward. Suppression is absolute, and we’re letting the means of mass communication be controlled and regulated by vast companies and governments. The gates of information have been opened but some still cling to their power.

At any rate, I suspect that we are dealing with this new world of accessible information in our own way.

As for the news, I think the turn from objectivity to advocacy journalism has had deleterious effects to the entire enterprise.

How it happened I don’t know, maybe it’s not new, but it seems to me that we all generally take our news from a source that fits our narrative, or reject that that doesn’t. That can happen because there’s so many news sources out there of all persuasions and all sizes.

The news services are the only way we have of monitoring and revealing the truth about politicians and politics, or business and bent products. But that faith we can have in any single source is slipping, because logically I should treat all sources with suspicion. If I’m going to chose to distrust certain sources based on my existing understanding of things then I should apply that to all sources, I should approach all stories with scepticism, even the ones that I agree with. So the worm is in there, now I can’t be sure that the truth is out there, that it even exists. I don’t have time to do fact checking, that’s why I went to the news source in the first place.

What happens after that? Just faith?

All media is biased. — Wheatley

Why would people watch something they didn't enjoy, tolerate, or that otherwise doesn't oppose their own complacency and ingrained sense of what is and what isn't. Most people here are a bit more refined- I'd imagine. It comes down to a sense of apparent ease presiding over both longterm assessment of logic or perhaps even chance.

People are biased. You have a child and say you know there's another next door. Assuming the law is not an issue, both are hungry and you only have enough to feed one.. after feeding yourself of course. Who do you feed? It's pretty much on par with biological necessity like oxygen.

It's very typical for humans to blame our problems on others. I have a suggestion, instead of placing all the blame on the media market, we could play a part, holding the media accountable improving our critical reasoning skills. Perhaps the media is this way because many of us are naive and are willing to consume whatever authority figures tell us.

instead of placing all the blame on the media market, we could play a part, holding the media accountable improving our critical reasoning skills. — Wheatley

And then what? It still comes down to what you chose to read and then make a decision that yes, that sounds true, or yes, I trust that journalist. And why should I doubt my critical reasoning skills as they are?

And then what? It still comes down to what you chose to read and then make a decision that yes, that sounds true, or yes, I trust that journalist. — Brett

It shouldn't be different than shopping for clothes.

And why should I doubt my critical reasoning skills as they are? — Brett

There's always room for improvement.

Do we want the news media to have a role in democracy when it is in effect a corporation having a role in democracy?

It shouldn't be different than shopping for clothes. — Wheatley

That’s my point. Clothes are chosen based on fashion leanings, practical reasons or just frivolous, but they’re all desires to maintain your subjective narrative.

There's always room for improvement. — Wheatley

Determined by my comprehension of a news story?

What exactly is the problem? I choose media based reputation.

Determined by my comprehension of a news story? — Brett

Determined by your ability to argue about the news with others.

What exactly is the problem? I choose media based reputation. — Wheatley

I’m not sure what you mean there. But my feeling is that we are not to be held responsible for standards of the media. Those standards have been set by business interests.

You can say that particular news sources should be rejected by people, or that they should be better at analysing what they’re reading, but people chose a source they feel comfortable with. You might have leanings to the right and consequently reject news sources from what you regard as the left and feel they’re unreliable. Does that mean the stories from the left are sub standard, or that you’ve failed to read them carefully enough?

Determined by my comprehension of a news story?
— Brett
Determined by your ability to argue about the news with others. — Wheatley

What I mean there is that just because I reject a news source or story doesn’t mean my critical reasoning is poor.

I’m not sure what you mean there. But my feeling is that we are not to be held responsible for standards of the media. Those standards have been set by business interests. — Brett

That doesn't mean we can't do anything about it. If a media source has a reputation of deceiving its viewers, it is up to the viewers to stop watching it. Putting the blame on the media source is convenient, but only solves one half of the problem. The other problem is the demand for bad media, and is totally on us.

You can say that particular news sources should be rejected by people, or that they should be better at analysing what they’re reading, but people chose a source they feel comfortable with. You might have leanings to the right and consequently reject news sources from what you regard as the left and feel they’re unreliable. Does that mean the stories from the left are sub standard, or that you’ve failed to read them carefully enough? — Brett

Bad media comes from both isles of the political spectrum. Your political point of view shouldn't be an obstacle for you to avoid low quality journalism.