Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Mediaite: Governor Starting Taxpayer-Funded News Service That Will Rival the Press


Burgold

Recommended Posts

Governor Starting Taxpayer-Funded News Service That Will Rival the Press

 

Indiana Gov. Mike Pence ® will reportedly start a state-run, taxpayer-funded news service that will provide real Indiana news outlets with pre-written stories and information. The Indianapolis Starbroke the news on Monday, citing documents obtained by the newspaper.

 

The news agency will be called “Just IN,” and will launch in late February. It will feature stories written by state press secretaries and will be headed by former Indianapolis Star reporter Bill McCleery.

 

“At times, ‘Just IN’ will break news — publishing information ahead of any other news outlet. Strategies for determining how and when to give priority to such ‘exclusive’ coverage remain under discussion,” according to a Q&A sheet obtained by the newspaper that was distributed to statewide news agency communications directors. In other words, “Just IN” will compete with the actual Indiana press.

-------------------------------

I think I have just the tagline for them...

Just In News... all the news that's fit to spin!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find today's version of 'News' outlets to be partisan at best, and in some cases/sometimes downright deceitful (putting it mildly.)

I think this is an interesting idea and I look forward to seeing how it works out and having a good laugh at all the criticism.

The start to the thread confirms my initial thought - this will never be allowed to even proof whether it's successful or not. It'll be labeled propaganda by many, including the major news outlets, and will likely suffer the safe fate NPR has. I imagine, like NPR, it'll probably contribute some to the idea that it's not wholly objective. Which will not help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find today's version of 'News' outlets to be partisan at best, and in some cases/sometimes downright deceitful (putting it mildly.)

I think this is an interesting idea and I look forward to seeing how it works out and having a good laugh at all the criticism.

The biggest reason that this is a dangerous idea is that the function of the media is to be a check against corruption. Now, I'd argue in recent years, because of shrinking newsrooms, an obsession on profits/rating, etc that the media has been doing a very poor job at this. CNN has been particularly atrocious actually basically picking one story and forgoing all others (like the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines nonstop for 6 weeks).

 

Now, as Timmy said, governments already have press secretaries who try to communicate to give the government's point of view or to add info to the puzzle and this is a good and useful service. In fact, it's possible this Indiana government media outlet could provide useful info, but how much it attempts to control the message and block other journalistic investigations could be very problematic. We'll see.

 

In any case, what you're smelling is stink.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The biggest reason that this is a dangerous idea is that the function of the media is to be a check against corruption. Now, I'd argue in recent years, because of shrinking newsrooms, an obsession on profits/rating, etc that the media has been doing a very poor job at this. CNN has been particularly atrocious actually basically picking one story and forgoing all others (like the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines nonstop for 6 weeks).

 

Now, as Timmy said, governments already have press secretaries who try to communicate to give the government's point of view or to add info to the puzzle and this is a good and useful service. In fact, it's possible this Indiana government media outlet could provide useful info, but how much it attempts to control the message and block other journalistic investigations could be very problematic. We'll see.

 

In any case, what you're smelling is stink.

Right, and I won't even bother arguing with any of that or even proposing that people give it a chance because there is such a solid argument there that it would likely be a waste of my time. And to be honest - the government has a track record of screwing things up so I'd be pissing into the wind even if I honestly believed this will work.

My problem is that the news has turned into what it is because it's what we want. Sure, we go on twitter, forums, or in everyday conversation and speak about how much we hate the media but the actions of individuals show that we're not interested in news; we're interested in opinion, and we're interested in watching conflict on TV (hosts and guests arguing with each other in arm wavy fashion.)

People don't like well structured debate with an objective moderating process that eliminates conjecture and only allows for facts.

There's a reason why the media is the way it is. It's the same reason the history channel shows less history, the discovery/animal planet/national geographic channels show less nature, and all of them show more garbage. Because that's what people are willing to watch.

So there's definitely a part of me that says - the private sector no longer is up to the task because the general public will not provide the basic motivation of profit for them to fulfill the task. Journalism is dead because people don't value it.

So who's going to provide it? There's a great argument that the government fundamentally can't provide it. So who will?

If the biggest issue with regards to how to 'move forward' on any of the real issues our country faces is the sheer amount of misinformation among the people, how can we ever expect it to be fixed?

I'm willing to give something like this a try. I don't know if it can work, but I'm relatively confident it won't be given much of a chance to work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's really sad that unbiased, non-partisan, consistent, and reliable news is hard to find especially via mediums outside of the internet even though that is littered with spin pieces too. If there was some kind of system of checks and balances on what will be "filtered" before being reported this could be a good idea. But I fear that any kind of neutrality and honesty that is being attempted will be long gone soon after the launch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The information is out there, it's just becoming hard to find.

In my personal experience, it's easiest to identify a subject matter and speak to people you feel are well educated on the subject and see where they get their ideas from. Then you have to put in a little effort to finding sources that go against that person's political preferences to make sure you're balancing it out.

Which is quite a bit of work.

If after all that work you then go to say, your favorite forum or twitter, and attempt to share this information prepare to be blasted with accusations of leaning one way or the other (which, depending on with whom you discuss these topics, will change based on who is engaging you) and still finding yourself involved in low-wattage arguments that devolve to the same old this party sucks, that party sucks, etc conversations.

Which just leaves you more frustrated because you feel like you're just bashing your head into a wall.

The lack of ability to actually discuss the information bars you from learning new things. It's frustrating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The information is out there, it's just becoming hard to find.

This does little good. People are inherently lazy and it takes quite a groundswell of outrage to provoke change. If only the most diligent find out about corruption then the bad guys getting away with it because there's not enough pressure to force change.

 

I do agree that it is frustrating, but there's a reason that "Don't shoot the messenger" is a centuries old saying.  People have always tried to get away with murder, theft, etc and blaming the town crier or trying to shout down debate is a favorite strategy in keeping the status quo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why does everyone act like agenda driven news reporting is a new(ish) thing? Newspapers in the US always have had an agenda. Sure, that agenda has changed over time but they've (the news reporters be it newspaper, tv, radio, etc.) have always been biased in the U.S.

 

Don't act like the info is harder to find. Instead, just admit the truth and say that you don't like the way it's being reported in so and so media and that you like the way Fox News, or CNN, or whatever is doing.

 

It's ok, we've already judged you anyway.

 

;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's really sad that unbiased, non-partisan, consistent, and reliable news is hard to find especially via mediums outside of the internet even though that is littered with spin pieces too.

Actually, I rather disagree with this notion that the information landscape consists exclusively of biased media.

Frankly, I think that's a myth, which has been successfully pushed, for decades.

By the intentionally biased media.

"Everybody else is biased, so it's OK if I am, too, and you should just listen to me."

----------

Now, lately, I've been really disappointed in the competence of most media. It's like they don;t even try to report facts, any more. They just quite one sentence from a Republican press release, and one sentence from a Democrat one, intentionally not point out that at least one of them is intentionally dishonest, and say "Well, we quoted both side's spin, so they can't accuse us of anything wrong."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why does everyone act like agenda driven news reporting is a new(ish) thing? Newspapers in the US always have had an agenda. Sure, that agenda has changed over time but they've (the news reporters be it newspaper, tv, radio, etc.) have always been biased in the U.S.

 

Don't act like the info is harder to find. Instead, just admit the truth and say that you don't like the way it's being reported in so and so media and that you like the way Fox News, or CNN, or whatever is doing.

 

It's ok, we've already judged you anyway.

 

;)

Heh :)

The problem is that the agenda drive stuff is growing in ratings, and money, while the non agenda driven stuff is shrinking because it can't keep up.

Blogs are more popular than news papers.

So while the idea isn't "new", the actual problem we're facing now is.

They've titled this the information age. Judging what I see, it'd be more appropriately named the Misinformation age.

At this time the internet is a great tool being completely misused :\

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find today's version of 'News' outlets to be partisan at best, and in some cases/sometimes downright deceitful (putting it mildly.)

I think this is an interesting idea and I look forward to seeing how it works out and having a good laugh at all the criticism.

The start to the thread confirms my initial thought - this will never be allowed to even proof whether it's successful or not. It'll be labeled propaganda by many, including the major news outlets, and will likely suffer the safe fate NPR has. I imagine, like NPR, it'll probably contribute some to the idea that it's not wholly objective. Which will not help.

 

 

Today's version? Look up the Newspaper wars of Ben Franklin's time. 

Why does everyone act like agenda driven news reporting is a new(ish) thing? Newspapers in the US always have had an agenda. Sure, that agenda has changed over time but they've (the news reporters be it newspaper, tv, radio, etc.) have always been biased in the U.S.

 

Don't act like the info is harder to find. Instead, just admit the truth and say that you don't like the way it's being reported in so and so media and that you like the way Fox News, or CNN, or whatever is doing.

 

It's ok, we've already judged you anyway.

 

;)

 

 

Thank you. Find me a time where the media wasn't biased in some way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Now, lately, I've been really disappointed in the competence of most media. It's like they don;t even try to report facts, any more. They just quite one sentence from a Republican press release, and one sentence from a Democrat one, intentionally not point out that at least one of them is intentionally dishonest, and say "Well, we quoted both side's spin, so they can't accuse us of anything wrong."

 

 

Heh :)

The problem is that the agenda drive stuff is growing in ratings, and money, while the non agenda driven stuff is shrinking because it can't keep up.

Blogs are more popular than news papers.

 

The answer to both these concerns orbit around money (of course). Shrinking newsrooms mean that it is far easier to get an analyst and play the conjecture game than do any type of investigation or real journalism. Plus, people like blame. It's comforting.  As Tshille points out, loud news gets rating whereas informative news doesn't always. Perhaps worse than the FOX spin was the success of the FOX model.  

 

The money folks realized that you could could cut staffs drastically get talking heads to react to news and people would flock to it. No or rare info, but a lot of opinion and finger pointing works great. It's cheap and generates money/ratings. The other big loss is the newspapers. Newspapers would actually try to do more depth reporting. Inches are more available than seconds. 

 

Think about it. How comprehensively can you cover any news event or issue in 90 seconds?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perception, laziness, and growth in access are the primary contributors to the "Misinformation age" as it was put earlier in the thread in my opinion. There are now more options than ever for people who would rather hear information that aligns with their ideologies than just the plain facts. Sure, "News" with some kind of spin or bias has always been around in some form or another. Now there are just more choices. It's easier for folks now more than ever to receive all of their information about current events in a way that supports their opinions or political alignment.

 

I think that makes it so it's more important now than it has ever been for the general public to be savvy in the way it receives and communicates information. Not to even mention the addition of the public's apparent poor ability to recognize satire. Good grief, that one seems to get worse by the day. It's mind boggling to me how often I scroll through FB and see OBVIOUS satirical articles from sites like The Onion, Empire News, and The Daily Currant etc. being taken as fact. To me, that is incredibly alarming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would guess it's legal..   freedom of press extends to government too, I suppose.

 

But wow,,  it is like brushing a cat's fur backwards to me.

 

I'm no fan of the ridiculous propaganda that serves as "news" these days, but this hardly seems to me to be a wise counter.

 

 

I'l echo Slateman,,  will they have reporters out working stories and angles?..  or just reporting like a newsletter of their activities?

 

~Bang

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...