did journalism used to be more credible

[everything]

now we live in the fake news era. were things more credible earlier? why (not)?

[edededed]

The Internet has polarized people more, leading to people really believing their (actually quite extreme) beliefs, and then these people go and write articles

[grzegorz]

The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission, introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial heckling issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was—in the Commission's view—honest, equitable, and balanced. The FCC eliminated the policy in 1987 and removed the rule that implemented the policy from the Federal Register in August 2011.

[everything]

The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission, introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial heckling issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was—in the Commission's view—honest, equitable, and balanced. The FCC eliminated the policy in 1987 and removed the rule that implemented the policy from the Federal Register in August 2011.

hmmmmmmm

[Trick]

with the internet anyone with an interest and knowlege can find out about things much quicker than wait for an j(news paper/tv)ournalist to report. this make the mainstream media feel a broader and tougher competition that they can not really handle which has lead them to begin to report fake news 8)

[Steve James]

There's no such ting as "Fake" news. There's what happened, and there's someone's opinion about it. We used to use the term "spin" to describe conflicting descriptions of the same events. From my perspective, no one "believed" the news in the past the same way people seek to believe the news today. Nowadays, belief is simply confirmation bias. So, actual "news" reports do not get the biggest audiences (and attract the most advertisers). News "analysts" are paid for their ability to attract the most viewers.

Meh, the real question is what one does with the "news" one gets. It's always possible to check the accuracy of a report from the media or the internet. One can draw one's own opinion about it. But, once you decide what to believe, it's what you do with that belief that counts. For ex., it's possible to find someone on the internet who can "prove" that some group or individual is evil and should be eliminated.

[vadaga]

My thought is yes, a lie can travel around the world while the truth is getting out of bed and the internet enables this. Once upon a time, we could tell the difference between the NYT and the National Enquirer but that line is totally blurred on the internet especially when the revenue model is partially based on getting revenue for sensationalism

My advice both then and now is to read primary sources and decide for yourself, most everything else will be spun somehow. This was a piece of advice that I got in newswire reporter 101. Also that if you are going to use secondary sources on breaking news, print news is better than TV news due to less lag in editing and production time and more detail due to not needing to fit things into subsegments of a 30 minute or hour news program

[everything]

I don't know where everyone here is located, but when I travel or watch news from non-USA shows, it's a little weird. Mostly how ridiculous US "news" now seems.

[Steve James]

Local news everywhere I've lived in the States is about crime or loss. If someone's not been murdered, then there's been a fire, or a car accident, or a traffic backup. Of course, most stations reserve a spot for "human interest" stories, but they're not always good. Nowadays, the only consistent human interest story is about bad housing conditions.

I guess it depends on where one is overseas, but wherever the news programs don't depend on advertising, they are much more informative, but would be considered boring in the states. Ime, this means that they don't try to scare the audience with the news. For ex., the European response to the ebola outbreak was completely different. French news (and France had many doctors in the affected region) didn't freak out about their doctors returning home. Then again, maybe that's part of the USAmerican psyche. I mean the desire to be scared, just like in a horror movie. Every possible threat is amplified and exaggerated to the point of being a matter of survival.

[Bao]

No. There has been news papers and magazines since the beginning who sold through lies and rumors. In the 1920s, when the movie star system developed, movie stars have had their lives and rumors exposed. And in the WW1, the telegraphing system was very simple, so the reporting from the war was very brief and words sparingly used, so the newspapers interpreted what they and made up stories.

Agree with Trick, it’s better now when people can search for fake news directly.

[everything]

Well, not to get too into epistemology, but since confirmation bias is so insanely strong, what is the "informed citizen" supposed to do in this day and age, in modern republics? And even if those well-informed folks can do that, how about the people who cannot?

Well obviously one answer to this question is advertising and fake news to manipulate the latter group. But how about other answers?

[Trick]

extra extra read all about it!!...is gone. traditional(mainstream) media in the free world is losing ground, to survive they have to come up with something new, maybe they can convince governments to install public internet restrictions ?

[Bill]

Good journalism used to be the most important thing to a News organization. Now it's profits first, everything else last.
Once the NY Times and CNN found their sales and viewership rising when they bash Trump, they found their way to greater profits. It's that simple.

[Steve James]

Aw, don't pick on CNN or the Times. Trump's treated pretty much the same on every newspaper in the world, well, except Pravda.

[origami_itto]

That poor Mr. Trump. He's trying his best but that mean old media just keeps pickin on him.