The 'Things you will NEVER understand' Thread.

[Nalano]

If I may play devil's advocate...

It's a paycheck. She wants to be a tabloid editor, which means she's not in the business of informing. She's in the only growth industry an English major can look forward to. If one's choices are "forever work for free at the Huffington Post" or "make six figures shilling as a Fox News 'Expert,'" you can't be surprised when people flock to the dark side. This is just a symptom of a brain drain that's occurring because of the lack of money in the newspaper industry, and all it takes is the fortitude to leave one's soul at the door.

TLDR: There's money in union-bashing. Who knew, right?

As for the connections to it and trolling, trolls and shills are two separate things. Shills do it for a paycheck. Trolls do it for the lulz. A troll just wants to sideline the discussion until everybody talks about the troll. The shill wants the opposing view to get drowned out in the manufactured "controversy."

[The JG Man]

I think she may be a combination of the two. She will clearly go on to earn big pay-checks, unfortunately, but she clearly lavishes the attention and the self-humour derived from it if her blog (not linked) and response article are anything to go by. You are correct though - when there's substantial money to be made doing something you clearly enjoy anyhow, why not do it? It makes perfect sense and it's hard to argue on those grounds at least. I just think it's a tad depressing that people who are not happy to sacrifice their principles will find it so much harder to get into the industry.

As it goes, I had a response put up on our newspaper website (our university is split into a couple of campuses, she's in the other which has its own paper) which included a quote from one of the teachers in the journalism faculty. The person who did the article for me said "I have an entire A4 side of quotes from him that I could give you, but this is probably the best one to use."

Tim Luckhurst, founder of the University’s Centre for Journalism said: “We teach our students to report news accurately, intelligently and ethically. But there is a role for journalism to be provocative. Being provocative and stimulating is part of the job. People who understand free speech understand the difference between offence and harm. We have freedom of speech so that we can have a range of debate. I don't endorse her views or express an opinion on the topic. I’m proud of Sara Malm and think it’s a great achievement.”

I replied to the writer saying I was a little disappointed that he thought this, considering the actual quality of the overall article, but then I'm just a lowly sub-editor for a uni paper, so my opinion is worth nought and I can only see a couple of issues in this statement, so what do I know?

[Tritagonist]

And that's the problem really, isn't it?

Something has got to pay those bills, but more to the point; has it ever been different? More than 200 years ago people lamented the "abandoned prostitution to falsehood" and concluded that "nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper". I think there have always been high volume, low price newspapers aimed at the many, and lower volume, higher price papers aimed at smaller demographics - and I doubt it'll be any different in the foreseeable future.

[Althea]

The cheapest newspapers (bar i) in the UK are generally right-wing pseudo-journalistic fluff. The Times is fairly neutral (as should be the BBC), whereas The Independent and The Guardian (even the New Statesman if you wish to count it as a newspaper) are left-wing and the more expensive ones.

[Nalano]

It looks as if you just got a crash course in yellow journalism, JG. William Randolph Hearst is chuckling from the beyond.

It's kinda like how all those lofty declarations as to the ethical responsibility of journalists would be akin to the Hippocratic Oath if doctors' livelihoods were entirely reliant on back-alley organ markets.

[Firkragg]

Funny, just today I had a counselling meeting over an upcoming project. My current theme revolves around Fox News and why its still popular even though it's been caught manipulating facts and even conjuring up stories. I was talking to my teacher about my current problemstatement and was slightly taken back by his views. I was questioning Fox News objectivity, which led to a discussion of what objectivity/neutrality is, which in turn led to that, from a republicans viewpoint, his view of objectivity will inevitably vary to that of a democrat. This I can agree with to an extent, but what happens when a newsoutlet like Fox News (who recently celebrated being the US's nr 1 news network 10 years in a row, brrr) deliberately misinform and push for a conservative viewpoint, even though their motto is "Fair and balanced"? Of course noone can be 100 % objective / neutral, but that dosen't mean a newsoutlet shouldn't strive to be as neutral as possible.

But then again Fox News is a privately owned newschannel, part of a much bigger organization that aims for higher profit margins. Honest journalism dosen't sell, not as well as what they are doing. They may choose to do what they want (sadly enough), but I will never understand why so many still chose to watch that channel. As my teacher said while we talked, he watched it purely for entertainment. I wonder how many really do. Not enough I fear. Then again even if it was only a handful who watched it and believed the news they served, that would still be a handful too many in my opinion.

[Nalano]

So, long story short, it's profitable to tell people what they want to hear?

Shocker.

[Keep]

objectivity/neutrality

Two very different things surely?

I don't mind bias as long as it cites facts to support itself. (In fact acknowledged bias + good research is best to my mind.)

Neutrality though? That's what leads to this bullshit.

[Althea]

So, long story short, it's profitable to tell people what they want to hear?

Shocker.

Funny thing is, The Daily Mail doesn't do that.

As much as it pains me to say this, Dacre and his minions are... incredibly clever. What they do is create these pieces of a jigsaw, and leave the reader to put it together. They use certain words in certain places to skew the story, and they point out ones that only have a certain effect on a certain demographic. If you look at their site, the news tends to be:
Christians under attack
Muslims r evuhl
Councils are full of jobsworths
Transgender women are actually men
Mental health? Pfft, no such thing. GET OVER IT.

That's the sort of thing they do. But... not directly. They skew stories by emphasising pointless attributes. "Oh, a man got told to keep his shoes indoors? Wait, he's a muslim! Point that out! Point it out!"

They're damned clever at the game they play, but I hope to whatever cosmic forces there are that our Lord Leveson takes note and gives the DM one hell of a good kick.

In the face.

With concrete shoes.

[NathanH]

Very few news outlets have any intention of being neutral, and most of their audience don't really want them to be either. People want the newspaper they read to confirm their opinions, and they want other newspapers to disagree in a non-subtle way. This way everyone can have political "debate" without having to deal with the fact that reality is a little bit too complicated. Everyone is happy.

[Nalano]

Funny thing is, The Daily Mail doesn't do that.

Are you kidding me? That's all they do.

Their message is simple: All your problems are caused by this outgroup. Hate them! Hate them with all your ability, and stick with us because we're giving you the latest details about why these outsiders are responsible for everything that goes wrong in your life!

Tell me that isn't implicitly agreeable to somebody who doesn't want to think.

[Althea]

I missed a "quite" out of it.

The Daily Mail doesn't quite say minorities are bad. It puts the ideas there and leaves it to the reader to create the inflammatory feelings.

The thing is, however, a good number of people can see what it's doing. However, the sales figures of the print edition (and viewing figures of the site) suggest that not enough people have realised it.

[NathanH]

Daily Mail is obviously the best newspaper in England. It's the right size, the layout is the most appealing, and the print doesn't come off on your hands. What more can you ask for?

[Nalano]

The Daily Mail doesn't quite say minorities are bad. It puts the ideas there and leaves it to the reader to create the inflammatory feelings.

You're conflating intent with strategy. Yes, propagandists have gotten more clever as time's gone on. But their message is still the same.

- Public union pensions are causing you to pay more taxes.
- Minimum wage laws are costing businesses money and thus costing you jobs.
- Foreigners want to kill you because they hate your way of life.
- Blacks are stealing your jobs thanks to Democrats' efforts for affirmative action.
- Immigrants are stealing your jobs and causing you to pay more taxes with their dependency on state services.
- Liberals want to take your guns away, and force you to pay more taxes to support welfare queens.

All your problems are caused by these other people. Simple, direct fear-mongering and scapegoating: It's always easier to believe someone else is at fault, because doing so absolves you.

[Keep]

Daily Mail is obviously the best newspaper in England. It's the right size, the layout is the most appealing, and the print doesn't come off on your hands. What more can you ask for?

1. Budgie-cage-lineability

2. Window-washability

3. Fish-and-chip-wrapability

[Tritagonist]

They may choose to do what they want (sadly enough), but I will never understand why so many still chose to watch that channel.

The brain apparently gives off 'happy' signals when somebody tells us we're right: you might be interested in this conversation with the author of this book: 'The Filter Bubble: What The Internet Is Hiding From You'.

[Althea]

All your problems are caused by these other people. Simple, direct fear-mongering and scapegoating: It's always easier to believe someone else is at fault, because doing so absolves you.

Yes, that's basically what the DM does.

[NathanH]

You'd be less happy if it didn't exist, though.

[Althea]

I'd be absolutely over the moon if it stopped existing. There's always the "red tops", The Telegraph and The Daily Express.

[Nalano]

Yes, that's basically what the DM does.

So you agree with my original point, then.

I mean, think of all the "outsider" groups that Threaten Our Way of Life:

career women (emasculators)
sexually-active women (sluts)
sexually-reticent women (dykes)
ambitious blacks (uppity)
unambitious blacks (welfare queens)
mexicans (drug dealers)
mexican-americans (lazy job-stealers (!) who don't speak english)
chinese (communists and job-stealers)
chinese-americans (packing all the colleges)
indians (job-stealers who can't speak english over the phone)
homosexuals (sodomites and zoophiliacs)
intellectuals (communists)
democrats (communists)
europeans (communists)
socialists (communists)
communists (fascists)
muslims (terrorists)
catholics (pederasts)
mormons (cultists)
atheists (see muslims)