As IF Times

Source: Trump wants to dump the Paris climate deal, but 71 percent of Americans support it, survey finds – The Washington Post

One of the unforeseen benefits of the last election is the enormous favor conferred upon people by the outing of most of the popular media outlets. The already stretched credibility of the Washington Post, New York Times, CNN, among others, visibly snapped as their blatantly partisan reportage blew up in their faces like a prank cigar.

The great favor to which I refer is the time that will be saved by the public totally ignoring any articles with their bylines.  When you visit the most popular news aggregator, Google News, the majority of the linked articles are from the above mentioned sources. Once you bypass all of the detritus, spurious spin and manufactured hysteria concocted by these media outlets, taking in the day’s real news should only take 5 minutes.

Now that the initial shell shock of the loss by their favored candidate has subsided, their focus is now on the devastating effect that an incoming Voldemort administration will have on a naïve public.  Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

The surprising shock (to them) of  electoral defeat is mainly attributed to favorable polls, which up until decision day, were convincingly pointing to a Clinton victory.  You can imagine the outraged customers of the pollsters demanding refunds as if they were at Macy’s on the day after Christmas.

Pollsters haven’t had a good time of it over the past while, with the failure to predict the Brexit vote another recent yuuge failure.  Legitimate sampling is an effective statistical analysis tool and properly employed is the basis for many decisions in all industries.  In the case of recent political polling, I suspect that samples were taken from homogenous groups which were likely skewed towards a given response.   I also suspect that the same people were tired of the same pollsters asking the same questions.  After the 10th time, none of your damn business would be the box ticked.

It’s amusing then that in the linked story, a survey of 2000 people, from Chicago, was offered as proof that Americans ‘favored’ the Paris climate deal even as Trump was skeptical of it.

Chicago.  To ask a question of that type to that pool of respondents is like asking frat boys on their opinion of bikinis vs burkas.  The article is essentially worthless.  But rather than having to read the entire story, people can make more efficient use of their time by noticing the source of the story, which in this case is, surprise, The Washington Post.  As noted earlier, they can simply ignore the story and go directly to the football scores.

Source: Media graveyard: Daily newspapers down nearly 80%, hard news ‘in danger’ | Washington Examiner

We’ve touched on this before, “Headlines R News” and it’s timely that this topic has come up again.  Certainly it’s no surprise to those who scour news feeds on a regular basis.  Many (but not all) know that when they see a headline from certain particular news outlets,  there will most certainly be spin to the actual story.  To name the most obvious ones, The New York Times, The L.A. Times, The Washington Post, The Guardian and yes, even NPR.  We also know that the old line TV networks such as ABC, CBS and certainly NBC are also tainted when it comes to giving an objective story.  CNN is long past its halcyon days as an objective news source and has moved to insert more entertainment based programming in their schedule.

As the article states, the emergence of opinion based sites have mushroomed in the wake of the decline of hard news outlets and that success has caused much cross outlet sharing of stories so that it becomes increasingly difficult to discern fact from opinion laced skew.  It’s an easy bet that many younger people today think that The Huffington Post is a news site.  There was a disturbing revelation a while ago that many considered Jon Stewart’s The Daily Show as a news source.

It’s been my opinion that the ubiquity of smartphones has been the dynamic which has shifted the way news is consumed.  That and of course, social media.  Because screens are small and attention spans short, people do not delve into the fabric of a story, defaulting instead to scanning the headline and perhaps a few follow on sentences.  The more sensationalist the headline (or controversial) the more likely that the story gets read further. So why buy an entire newspaper when you get the gist of a story within a few headlines?  Matt Drudge is the most successful entrepreneur to exploit this technique.

Another big reason for the demise of hard news companies is…just what is hard news anymore? We’ve earlier opined that many old line companies put out biased reportage, so how does anyone determine what’s news and what’s spin?  It’s seldom that you get served the main course of a news item without a healthy side order of political bias.  Classic journalism wisdom posits that dog bites man stories don’t sell whereas man bites dog stories do.  Now, we are given myriad psycho babble reasons for why the man bit the dog, the racial undertones, the consequence to society at large and of course the possible political consequences.

My most discussed example, because it’s the most egregious, is the coverage of the ever evolving topic of Global warming.  All kinds of activities are purportedly contributors to global warming and all kinds of crazed schemes are put forth in the premise of stopping its effects.  I’m surprised no one has suggested putting up curtains or venetian blinds to block some of the sun’s rays.  Only recently are we beginning to hear some voices that offer lucid skepticism of the cartloads of claims associated with the charade.  For the most part though, news outlets treat global warming the same way as Al Gore characterizes gravity, it just is.

So the small screen and social media have both contributed to the demise of hard reportage. It’s quite possible that in time, some novel news organization can recapture the public’s confidence in reportage.  Meanwhile, we expect that much of what passes for news will continue to be biased, vapid and ignored.  As long as people judge the veracity of an event by the number of likes on Facebook, or by the number of twitter followers, it only gets worse.