I try not take take it personally, but the thing just wea
rs on you a little bit when we catch flack for what CNN and Fox and MSNBC do.
The confusing thing to me is that in 1972 and 1973, the Washington Post's Watergate coverage was relentlessly critical of Nixon, with little positive. Yet, people trusted the media, and the reporting took down a president. Now, in what is a similar situation. reporting by the Washington Post and the New York Times on Russia dealings has been fantastic, and it's being dismissed as fake news. Why? What changed between 1972 and 2017 to make people outright dismiss effective, watchdog journalism? Again, I have my theory, but I want someone else to reconcile this.
Part of my struggle is that I live in a world of facts and science, and I honestly can't even personally relate to people that don't value those things. To dismiss facts or science runs counter to logic. That's why many of us reporters are so pissy in these dark times. It's the Post-Truth Era. Don't like something? Well, it must be fake. Once told a man that scientists said medical cannabis has benefits. He said "I don't think so." I asked why. I never got an answer. He just disagrees. Once told a man that the ACA drastically increase insurance rates in rural areas (this is objectively true), and his response? "Well, I disagree with that." I can't comprehend how you disagree with a fact.
Jesus, that ACA one really gets to me. A buddy of mine; his payments went from $100/mo to $612/mo. He posted it all over Facebook, showing his monthly statements. People would have been outraged, but they were already seething from their own payments rising. But I certainly understand how you would feel if someone said to your face "No, ACA does not do that."
On a personal level, I deal with nonsense like that all the time as well. I have what is considered senior level experience in three different programming languages: C, Python and PHP. The last one, PHP, gets a lot of unjust hate from certain elitists (despite the fact that over 80% of the internet is powered by PHP), and when I tell them that I use the language, they view me as some incompetent chud that doesn't know any better; essentially undermining my credibility.
How do I handle that? I ask them what they think is so horrible about it. I correct them when applicable, acknowledge if they actually bring up a valid point; but not surprisingly, most of them simply do not know what they are talking about, or do not even know the language well enough to make an assessment in the first place. There is no reasoning with people who do not use reason. Therefore any discussion with them is fruitless and a waste of time if your goal is to teach them anything or correct them. That means that their opinions carry so little weight, that it is beneath you to get upset over it. It's like being mad at a four year old for being utterly clueless about a complex system. Perhaps trying looking at it from that point of view.
As for why people call WaPo and NYT "sensationalists" and "fake news"....the obvious example is Trump's supposed collusion with Russia. What evidence is there of it? There is none, but they would have you believe that Trump is this close to impeachment, because they tend to present the issue as a forgone conclusion, when there is zero evidence to back it up with. Even Maxine Waters of all people, admits this to be true.
http://dailycaller.com/2017/05/18/e...-no-evidence-of-trump-russia-collusion-video/
But despite that, every day it seems, Trump's collusion and impending impeachment is a topic of discussion for them. But yet, they fought tooth and nail defending Hillary and her emails. Showing a clear bias is a death sentence to one's credibility. And again, it is not just the "liberal media" pulling this nonsense, it is nearly all of the major networks. This is the world we live in now.
**edit**
No sooner do I say that, and now today WaPo is somewhat back tracking with this article this morning:
View attachment 10
To summarize:
"Warning signs existed before Nov. 8. It’s not even clear that more forceful warnings before the election would have made any difference, because it’s hard to see how knowledge of what Russia was purportedly up to would have diminished or altered the effect. But: Trump wasn’t supposed to win. That he did and that he did so narrowly magnified all of the factors that went into his victory, including Russia’s role. That’s the key reason that the meddling question is more important now than it was then."
So giving credit where it is due; this article was about as objective as can be. No accusations were made, no innuendo suggested. If only they would do that
consistently.