Anyone broadly familiar with the British newspaper landscape, will tell you that the Daily Mail - often referred to as the Daily Fail, or simply, the Fail - is a notoriously populist newspaper which will print anything and everything as long as it pulls in readers.

They have a readership demographic which tends to be older and small-c conservative, but also less educated and more easily manipulated (which is possibly, on reflection, why they're small-c conservative).

It will fume that young people are lazy / toxic / entitled and everything is woke, because it sells newspapers.

It will reassure you that you are right and that William and Kate are Michael and Jophiel and that Harry and Meghan are the Beast and the Whore of Babylon.

It will excoriate anyone who doesn't support Brexit as traitorous - which suggests that not less than half the British population are traitors.

It will do all this because it sells newspapers.

It will exhort you to eat an egg a day in Jan 2019 because that will sell newspapers. Then it will alarm you in Nov 2020 that you have been terribly irresponsible and nothing could be worse than your daily egg, because that will sell newspapers too.

Twenty-five years after the tragedy, it will still invoke Diana, Princess of Wales... because that (apparently) will sell more newspapers than anything.

this stuff is potentially dangerous if a person reads one article and not the other

We're talking about the Mail readership here. By the time they get to the second article in Nov 2020, they've long forgotten the first article from Jan 2019. Give it another two years and if it thinks it will sell newspapers, the Mail will pull the same trick again. If an individual reader, reads one article but not the other(s), The Mail really doesn't care. If you had the impression that The Mail had zero respect and only contempt for much of its readership, you wouldn't be far off the mark.

How can mainstream media regain trust

What is "mainstream media"? Is it monolithic? Are the Washington Post and the New York Post equivalent?

Allow me to suggest that, after only moderate reflection, one realises one does not *trust* *mainstream media* or *distrust* it.

For two reasons:

1) There's no monolithic entity called the mainstream media - it simply doesn't exist
2) Trust isn't binary and it isn't fixed. Like most things in the real world, it's a spectrum and also like most things in the real world it's perpetually dynamic.

Instead, one has a certain amount of trust - on a sliding scale - for an individual publication* and that amount of trust continues to change over time - from one month to the next, from one year to the next.

* Arguably, it's not even an individual publication that one has a certain amount of trust for. Much more likely one has different amounts of trust for different writers and / or individual sections of that publication.

This unsophisticated level of analysis:

- Mainstream Media? There's only one of it.
- Trust? You either completely trust something or you completely distrust it.

is binary and reductive.

I'd suggest it leaves us with such a recursively crude approximation of reality that it's functionally useless.

It's like writing: trees are tall and have green leaves

That's fine if you're in grade school, but once you're a teenager (probably before), you recognise:

- trees are varying heights on a near-continuous spectrum from bonsai to sequoia etc.
- trees are different heights at different ages - an immature tree won't be the same height as its adult counterpart
- deciduous trees have leaves; coniferous trees have needles
- deciduous trees, by definition, don't have leaves all year round
- the leaves of deciduous trees aren't green all year round
- even some coniferous trees have needles which aren't green all year round

I know we can't have conversations referencing a 1:1 scale map of reality (not least, our language isn't a fraction as rich as it would need to be).

But it doesn't take much to recognise that phrases like the mainstream media which suggest the existence of monolithic entities or institutions - which even the most modest examination reveals have never existed - are simply meaningless nonsense.

Adults who are unable or unwilling to think critically and believe everything they read can blame others (such as "Mainstream Media") for their confusion. It makes them vulnerable to manipulation. It makes sense to them that leaders suggest banning books and dangerous words, but it hobbles society to its lowest common denominator. Adults should be able to tell when they are being fed baloney when they order a salad. I do not blame the media for their output, they are filling a demand.

Adults should be able to tell when they are being fed baloney

Adults who are unable or unwilling to think critically

Like trying to flatten a curve with stuff that never prevented transmission?

I'm sure you're right, legacy media awesome, people dumb.

Ronin has it correct about getting eyeballs, selling papers, selling stories that are popular, and don't necessarily have any news or educational value, especially in "that" publication.

As Not2easy says, many people can't think critically for themselves, and I believe that's a human trait.

I don't think the Daily Mail have a constant readership. I suspect they rely on clickbait and incentivised clicks/shares on social media. I don't see why anyone would go out of their way to make that specific source part of their daily reading schedule.

The ability to think critically about anything these days is being diminished. Facebook is probably the perfect example. People are willing to share just about anything simply because someone else put it in front of them. People seem to have a deluded belief that when someone published something it must be correct. You also get users who simply don't make any effort and share missing dog posts from the other side of the Atlantic?

It's all about clicks now. In the pre-internet days you had to have consistently good content for readers to buy your paper. Now you just need a headline that makes someone curious enough to click. They get their ad view and in effect generate revenue.

Mack.

- Mainstream Media? There's only one of it.
- Trust? You either completely trust something or you completely distrust it.

is binary and reductive.

I'd suggest it leaves us with such a recursively crude approximation of reality that it's functionally useless.

It's like writing: trees are tall and have green leaves

Agree. Agree with your entire post. It's what I try to say but you said it better.

Thanks!

R

Mainstream - noun - The prevailing current of thought, influence, or activity. The prevailing opinion or practice. That which is common; the norm.

It doesn't mention binary and trees?

Was this worth 3 years of claiming 'fake news' and countless bannings on social media? [msn.com...] Anyone not afraid to step out of the prevailing current saw the actual contents freely and knew it wasn't fake... 3 years of division... media needs to lose the bias and check themselves. If it doesn't it is literally going to keep dividing, losing trust and helping sources with a different prevailing current of thought.

Control isn't the answer, less bias is. Banning isn't the answer, that's divisive, being honest is. We had a lot more journalism, once.

Mainstream - noun - The prevailing current of thought, influence, or activity. The prevailing opinion or practice. That which is common; the norm.

You say the definition doesn't mention binary, but your framing of mainstream as unipolar makes it so.

Something is either mainstream or it isn't, right?

Well, yes, if you live in the Russian Federation. And certainly if you live in North Korea.

But in a plural society, there isn't a single mainstream school of thought. There exists a whole range of schools of thought and it's that range which represents the mainstream. There isn't one prevailing current, opinion, practice. There isn't one norm. We live in multi-faith, multi-cultural, plural democracies. There are small parties, big parties, small newspapers, big newspapers etc. In each of our societies, there are institutions, ideas, projects and aspirations in the centre, others that lean left, others that lean right. There are movements promoting more disparity and more division, there are movements promoting more parity and more unity.There are secessionist movements, there are irredentist movements etc.

media needs to lose the bias [...] Control isn't the answer, less bias is.

Bias is literally why newspapers exist. They don't exist primarily to report current affairs. They exist to influence their readership's reaction to and opinions about those current affairs.

If you want to know what's happening and you don't want the bias (which I applaud), try reading newswires like:

Associated Press

Reuters

Agence France Presse

Seriously. I don't do this enough and I know I should do it more. I recommend it.

Although there are many news agencies around the world, three global news agencies, Agence France-Presse (AFP), the Associated Press (AP), and Reuters have offices in most countries of the world, cover all areas of information, and provide the majority of international news printed by the world's newspapers.[1] All three began with and continue to operate on a basic philosophy of providing a single objective news feed to all subscribers. Jonathan Fenby explains the philosophy:

To achieve such wide acceptability, the agencies avoid overt partiality. Demonstrably correct information is their stock in trade. Traditionally, they report at a reduced level of responsibility, attributing their information to a spokesman, the press, or other sources. They avoid making judgments and steer clear of doubt and ambiguity. Though their founders did not use the word, objectivity is the philosophical basis for their enterprises – or failing that, widely acceptable neutrality.

Source: [en.wikipedia.org...]

Bias is literally why newspapers exist.

Yup, wake me when we get journalism again.

[…] wake me when we get journalism again.

Journalism from a newsroom where the reporters and sub-editors report to an Editor?

(A newsroom is where I worked in the very early 2000s before I started learning pre-Florida (Google Dance era!) SEO and turned my Geocities presence into a real, fledgling website…)

Do you think the Editor and the Proprietor talk to each other? What do you think these conversations involve? What do you think the Editor’s job is?

As above, you may be looking for Newswires rather than Journals. If you get your news from Newswires, you’ll get it sooner, more concise, more to the point, without all the fluff and padding and without the bias that Journals exist to insert.

[apnews.com...]

[reuters.com...]

Late to the party ... grain of salt is required. More than one source. Trust is needed. What is "mainstream"? All the other stuff is... stuff.

Note: other sources are becoming available. Those who do this for a living might take note and adjust.

Note: other sources are becoming available. Those who do this for a living might take note and adjust.

... and consider that not every storm is climate change. Not every tragedy is about white supremacy. Not every poor person is suffering from misogyny. Not every unemployed person is a victim of colonialism, patriarchy, etc. etc. etc.

Do you want to see just how hung up on racial bias mainstream media has gotten? This decision by the AP should give you a hint. [blog.ap.org...]

According to AP guidelines, the word black refers to the color. The word Black (with a capital B) refers to a race of people. No other race receives the same treatment.
- I'ts an improper use of grammar, but that's the least of the problems this creates
- It's racist when not applied equally to all
- It can't be applied equally to all, they aren't going to call indians Red people or Asians Yellow people, and writing white people is most often derogatory in mainstream media.

The biggest problem it creates where none need be created is division. IT HELPS GROW ALTERNATIVE MEDIA SOURCES by turning off people who don't see skin color first in EVERYTHING, like media is doing.

I don't care if they capitalize Black or don't, they just need to realize that what they did was racist. ie: decision based on skin color of one race. They need to look at what they are doing with this stuff objectively. They won't, they'll double down next election and divide further, but every woke article is creating the very problem media claims to want to "solve", it's costing them readership and growing alternative sources.

Morgan Freeman said it better than I can, years ago - [youtube.com...]

Making it impossible to access alternative content is not the solution, too late, readers alienated. It's time to stop dividing and resonate with everyone again. Or don't, and become irrelevant. Change doesn't stop, and biased reporting is propaganda.

I agree with some of your points above and I disagree with other points.

You write:

According to AP guidelines, the word black refers to the color. The word Black (with a capital B) refers to a race of people.

You then point out this is inconsistent house style for AP:

No other race receives the same treatment.

Your assertion is at odds with the fact that the post that you link to explains that its entire justification for this change is to make its house style more consistent:

We also now capitalize Indigenous in reference to original inhabitants of a place.

These changes align with long-standing capitalization of other racial and ethnic identifiers such as Latino, Asian American and Native American. [...] As a global news organization, we are continuing to discuss within the U.S. and internationally whether to capitalize the term white. Considerations are many and include any implications that doing so might have outside the United States.

So, you start with:

Do you want to see just how hung up on racial bias mainstream media has gotten?

And then you give as evidence AP's move to capitalise a category ("Black") which makes it consistent with the house style of other analogous categories which AP already capitalises ("Indigenous", "Latino", "Asian American", "Native American").

What exactly is the issue here? Should AP not be striving for consistency?

I don't care if they capitalize Black or don't, they just need to realize that what they did was racist. ie: decision based on skin color of one race.

They are doing the opposite of what you are claiming they are doing. They are making their house-style more consistent, not less consistent.

it's costing them readership

Consistent orthography / house-style costs readership?

Surely a news agency striving for orthographical consistency in its house-style isn't the reason why "Mainstream Media should look at themselves"?

=====

Separately...

It's time to stop dividing

On this I very much agree with you.

=====

Separately...

It's time to stop dividing

I don't think the double line and "separately" label are doing that, lol.

In the off chance you mean it....

Not every storm is climate change, not every tragedy is white supremacy, not every unemployed person is a victim of misogyny or colonialism or whatever. If that's what you prefer, great, have at it, but most don't care to focus everything on skin color and the other stuff nearly as much as mainstream is doing.

- Here is what a white woman writes for huffpost, she 'demands' more radicalism for black history month - [huffpost.com...]

- and here is what a popular actor has to say about the same subject, many years earlier, and mainstream didn't listen. [youtube.com...]

- Canada is worse, the taxpayer funded National Arts Center went full racist by launching a show where white people are banned.

"My husband is white, I guess I can't see the show"
"How do I tell my white friend she can't join us?"
"Please don't do this" said the black community

and the feedback was ignored - [nac-cna.ca...]

I stand by what I say, the mainstream needs a gut check on how radical they've become, and in what they gaslight, before they make themselves irrelevant. The radicalism is fueling the alternatives, it doesn't resonate with most.

Then again, if most prefer the alternatives, like Gutfeld topping late night comedy ratings, keep being radical, hateful, and divisive and alienating your own viewers who don't care to keep getting more radical, mainstream. When you call someone who isn't racist a racist, you're probably turning them away, from you. It's a huge disservice to those who truly care about inclusion and a given cause.

I don't think the double line and "separately" label are doing that, lol.

I was simply drawing a clear distinction between my deconstruction of your criticism and the fact that on the single most important thing, I agree with you.

most don't care to focus everything on skin color and the other stuff nearly as much as mainstream is doing

Indeed they don’t. Skin tone is an arbitrary spectrum across homo sapiens sapiens, much like height, vocal range, eyesight, hearing etc.

Yes, there are people who want to embrace 16th century European colonialist racism (borne of the need to justify the very profitable Atlantic Slave Triangle) and essentialise it. They will tell you - five centuries later - that human races (plural) exist. I have the impression they are particularly prevalent on your side of the Atlantic.

It may not seem like it on your continent, but, rest assured, these voices are really not the mainstream. There are eight billion of us. The majority of us have been born since the first moon landing. You can be confident that most of us don’t care for this 500 year old attempt to divide people for profit.

This ugly fiction will not endure much longer.

I have the impression they are particularly prevalent on your side of the Atlantic.

Thank media for that impression, it's not true, and I doubt you've come to see for yourself.

Also, attacking people, labeling them, canceling them, silencing them, controlling them etc. doesn't convince them to see things as you do. It's divisive. Regardless, this isn't coming from regular people, it's coming from leadership. Fears and crisis are required to impose change, so expect to constantly read fear and crisis articles in mainstream media.

You should read a book by Klaus Schwab titled "Covid 19 - The Great Reset". In that book he describes his ideal Utopia for the west where people own nothing, have no privacy, and are happy. You might actually be fighting to help these people enslave everyone, lol.

Who tries to turn a pandemic into total societal change while people are already hurting? Rich people. I'm not sure if you've thought about what a socialist country run by elite capitalists might mean for everyone.

I hope I've at least given you something to think about as you read, how hateful everyone who doesn't lean left must be. I hope media reigns in the gaslighting of hate vs people (it's never vs those who dictate the narratives). Fighting hate with hate creates more hate.

I doubt you've come to see for yourself.

If you're asking if I've ever flown from east to west across the Atlantic (are you?), the answer is: I have, but, admittedly, only 7 times (One of those seven was for the PubCon in Las Vegas in 2010 and another was for the PubCon in New Orleans in 2014.)

expect to constantly read fear and crisis articles in mainstream media.

I don't constantly read "fear and crisis articles" in the media I read. (Do you?)

You might actually be fighting to help these people enslave everyone, lol.

I'm not clear how this relates to the thread or anything you've written, I've written or anyone else has written.

I hope media reigns in the gaslighting of hate vs people

It's not something I observe in the media I read.

I don't think humans have ever had a true neutral information source for information they didn't see/hear for themselves? Hasn't information always been controlled by a single powerful person/organization? When I was much younger and first starting to get a handle on all this being human stuff I was a fair bit surprised when I found out that Shakespeare fella was actually a kind of propaganda machine for the royal fella running the show at that time. Sure, he was a great wordsmith, but when they first introduce his works into our classroom they should first tell us he was that sort of person. He had to be, to make money. To be allowed to perform his stuff in public. Hasn't it always been like that?

And I think I saw some wording in a post above about Twitter being a news platform. That surprises me. I thought it was simply a discussion platform. I mean, there aren't Twitter staff out collecting news/information, are there?

You know, folks, even within a tight group, like a family or small business, others slant information in one way or another. Sometimes they may not even realize they did so. Yes, some do it on purpose. But a totally, 100% honest person? Where do I find that kind of human? I'm not even sure I can be classified as a 100% honest person. In fact, my blunt style (being 100% honest) has gotten me in more hot water, than if I sometimes kind of dodge around an issue. Then there is the problem of your perception of an event/happening/hearing. You may filter information without realizing it.

I think information gathering and dispensing has always been a funny business that requires a serious degree of doubt as it enters your brain. That idea that history is written by the victor is so very, very true. Look at that China thing recently about how the Hong Kong area was never a British colony, or something like that. That idea may be considered true in about 500 years. Well, if it isn't true. Can't say as I studied that after I read about it. Just sort of thought it was a fair bit far-fetched. Wasn't such a bad place to visit a long time ago. But a nasty airfield to fly into. Got to be on your toes with that approach!

I'd say I came of age during the Cuban Missile Crisis and maybe that was the first time I took television and radio broadcast news seriously, as that was where we heard what the president had on his mind as the situation developed. Of course, being my pa was stationed at Homestead then we knew before it went public that something really bad was going on and we knew a few days, at least, before the president went on the air. But maybe that was the first time that method of getting information really got me to - - - well, try to understand that system. Then that Johnson fella a few years later did that campaign thing with the little girl picking that flower and that nuke bomb thing and I saw that bad stuff could be sent over the airwaves of communications. That advert was one nasty bit of business. I suppose a lot of you younger folks don't know about that. And I don't think you can "feel" what it was like coming just a few years after that missile crisis.

I'd state that getting information from a source other than your own eyes or ears has always been hard when the trust factor is considered. Nothing new about that in this day of so much being out there to reel in, if you are into that sort of thing.

The UK has a company that does a good job of a broad range of news headlines put before your eyes without filtering it too much for political purposes, I think. They seem to have some sort of screening process to weed out easy to see as unreliable news sources, but it looks like they cover a wide political spectrum. We aren't allowed to put links like that here, are we? That company isn't so new, either. Been doing it for 25 years, I think.

But media bias sure ain't new!

Oh yes, and folks these days like information to be zip-style compressed. Posts, like this long one, are thought of as a kind of bad thing. Short and sweet ain't so good for true understanding. Good for selling something, though.