If there's a story floating around that is worth reporting on, someone is going to report on it.

Absolute bullshit.

Our careers are built on getting GOOD stories, not bullshit fluff.

Then how come every mainstream news website I go on is reporting on "microaggressions" and the Kardashians and what was said on the Daily Show last night?

This will probably be downvoted due to Reddit's opinion of journalists

Can you give us an idea of what news agency you work for? There's still some outlets that occasionally do good work but if you were to tell me you wrote for HuffPo/Slate/Salon, I could be sure you are a complete moron.

If a story opens the company up to liability, it won't be published.

LOL. ?????? Give us some examples of stories that your paper hasn't run for "liability reasons".

We should be just as critical of these sources as we are of the government-fed narrative, which certainly exists.

So as a journalist, what's your take on the relationship between ISIS, Turkey, and Obama? It's clear that the Oil trade keeping ISIS strong has to be state sponsored correct? Who's buying in your opinion and how do you know this?

In your opinion, is this German News Editor lying? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGqi-k213eE

You are aware of Operation Mockingbird correct?

The only decent "old media" are:

1. The Wall Street Journal

2. Christian Science Monitor

3. Vanity Fair

4. The New Yorker

Pretty much everything else is shit.

The San Francisco Bay Guardian is decent, for what it is. Village Voice is terrible crap.

[deleted]

You conveniently ignored important quesrions. Fuck off.

That's certainly how to go about a rational discussion. I'm not trying to give my own take on certain events.

That's certainly how to go about a rational discussion. I'm not trying to give my own take on certain events.

That's certainly how to go about a rational discussion. I'm not trying to give my own take on certain events.

That's certainly how to go about a rational discussion. I'm not trying to give my own take on certain events.

That means you have to debase yourself into clickbait. People don't pay for their news online, so the only way to keep the ad revenue coming in is to have good web traffic, which drives up the price of your digital ad space.

Doesn't all of this contradict the idea that you are independent and will report on good stories and "not fluff"?

I'm not sure what's so unbelievable about this. The Rolling Stone's rape story is a great example. For some inexplicable reason they ran that story and are now being sued.

But, again, this example contradicts your point. "The news doesn't report things because of liability." Then you give me an example of a time Rolling Stone ran a story that caused them to get in trouble for liability?

and another story about people being fucked around by an insurance company.

Did you have more than two sources? Could the sources prove what they were saying?

Doesn't all of this contradict the idea that you are independent and will report on good stories and "not fluff"?

Not at all. Those stories take zero time to churn out, and senior reporters sure as shit aren't writing them. You don't move up in the industry writing about the Kardashians. You do it with good reporting and better stories.

I never said "The news doesn't report things because of liability", I said that stories will not get published unless they can be confirmed as fact, eliminating any liability. That story was full of holes and irresponsible to publish.

As for the insurance story, I had the entire family on record. But those stories are tricky because you can only report one side. The insurance company would not respond, so the story that ended up being published was just about the family's predicament.

• Do you know of any news organizations who have followed up with the San Bernardino eyewitnesses who saw three shooters?

• Or who have interviewed other witnesses from the scene?

• Have any of them asked whether the SUV was rented in person, and asked whether the rental agency had footage of that?

• Have any tried to get the CCTV footage from the facility?

• Have any tried to get dashcam footage from the chase?

At best, journalists appear to be lazy and incurious in this case. At worst, they are complicit and racist.

[deleted]

How would trying to get CCTV and dashcam footage hurt their reputation? It would be a great segment or story. The fact that no one seems to have tried is what hurts their reputation IMO.

The witness accounts are more shaky, but no one expects the news org to be responsible for them. All you have to do is interview a bunch of people and let what they say speak for itself.

The number one complaint people have about the media... well, actually it's stuff like their breaking into the Farouk apartment. But the number two complaint they have is that the media tries to crowbar everything into a preset narrative.

Oftentimes the juice is not worth the squeeze.

This is called the Chilling Effect and it is currently taking our country to hell...

Rarely do we even get the juice. More like muddy water.

Really? You are trying to tell us that you do not self-censor at all? There are no carrot and stick mechanisms when it relates to the content of the stories you are pursuing?

Seriously think about this. You are steeped in the news journalism environment, so it seems normal, but take a step back. You are trying to tell us that if you pursued stories in areas such as below, unless you adhered to a very specific narrative, your career would continue on the same?

-vaccine dangers
-Jewish domination of banking, business and just about everything else
-recent false flags perpetrated against the people of North America. You said you worked at the Toronto Star. Do you think you would be allowed to print a real news piece about what happened on Parliament Hill?

As a member of the mainstream media you self-censor in order to survive. So when you post bullshit like this, are you just lying to this subreddit, or do you really believe it and you lie to yourself?

journalists are not walking shills

• "Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knolege with the lies of the day. I really look with commiseration over the great body of my fellow citizens, who, reading newspapers, live & die in the belief, that they have known something of what has been passing in the world in their time; whereas the accounts they have read in newspapers are just as true a history of any other period of the world as of the present, except that the real names of the day are affixed to their fables. General facts may indeed be collected from them, such as that Europe is now at war, that Bonaparte has been a successful warrior, that he has subjected a great portion of Europe to his will; but no details can be relied on. I will add, that the man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them; inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods & errors. He who reads nothing will still learn the great facts, and the details are all false." - Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to John Norvell, 14 June 1807

• "There is no such thing, at this date of the world’s history, in America, as an independent press ... There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone. The business of the journalists is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it, and what folly is this toasting an independent press? We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes." - John Swinton, journalist and writer for the New York times, in 1890 at his private retirement party after being asked to toast the 'independent press'

• "Protection against government is now not enough to guarantee that a man who has something to say shall have a chance to say it. The owners and managers of the press determine which person, which facts, which version of the facts, and which ideas shall reach the public." - Commission On Freedom Of The Press, 1947

• "The press is so powerful in its image-making role, it can make a criminal look like he's the victim and make the victim look like he's the criminal. This is the press, an irresponsible press. If you aren't careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed and loving the people who are doing the oppressing." - Malcolm X, Audubon Ballroom, December 13, 1964

• "You could get a journalist cheaper than a good call girl, for a couple hundred dollars a month." - CIA operative discussing with Philip Graham, editor Washington Post, on the availability and prices of journalists willing to peddle CIA propaganda and cover stories. "Katharine The Great," by Deborah Davis (New York: Sheridan Square Press, 1991)

• "The corporate grip on opinion in the United States is one of the wonders of the Western world. No First World country has ever managed to eliminate so entirely from its media all objectivity-much less dissent." - Gore Vidal, The Decline and Fall of the American Empire, 1992

Besides, are you too young to remember the media's role in 9/11?

Great post. As you can see, it's not that journalism was better in the "good old days" and the poor journalists have to cover Kim Kardashian because of the internet.

Journalists have always been shit liars and shills. It's the nature of the industry.

Do major news outlets silence stories? All the time, when they aren't done properly.

You're either very naive or terribly uninformed if you're trying to suggest that major news outlets don't also silence stories based on their agenda.

You're a journalist? You've heard of Noam Chomsky, right?

journalists are not walking shills

Yes they are.

Our careers are built on getting GOOD stories, not bullshit fluff.

Nope, bullshit fluff is the basis of most journalist's careers.

Journalists are essentially propagandists and the typical American journalist would make a writer for Pravda look objective.

Of course, journalists want to think of themselves as heroic and professional, but journalist have a bad reputation for a reason.

[deleted]

Your mind doesn't seem particularly open, considering your OP.

It's understandable that a journalist would want to defend his career and think of himself as a "good person." Organized crime figures often talk about their "code of honor" and how they are "soldiers" as well.

I see the problem as the "Journalist" has willingly become a Special Deputized Agent, Operative In Charge, Junior CIA. Since most agencies have a resident spook or co-opted editor/owner who matches his content up with "the list" everything is laundered. The only thing the poster says that's true is they are worried about liability : somebody's gonna yell at them, and since the oligarchs killed the unions, he might get fired or black balled.

Journalists don't tend to make a lot of money, so they are easy to bribe. There's a famous quote by a CIA director saying that it's cheaper to hire a journalist than a DC call girl. They both do essentially the same job.

Much of what journalists do is re-write press releases from companies.

The myth of the "righteous journalist" comes from Woodward and Bernstein, the writers that broke the Watergate scandal. Of course, their reputation is completely unearned; far from courageously exposing government corruption, they were simply tools by parts of the establishment to take down Nixon, their source was an FBI agent that hated Nixon.

Of course, Nixon was a crook but compared to politicians today he was a Boy Scout.

Most of journalism is just shilling for the powerful, they are establishment propagandists.

"The juice ain't worth the squeeze". Is that your opinion, or orders from higher up ? Either way, some one other than Joe Public did not have a voice in that decision not to pursue a story. Lots of stories not being followed up on too BTW.............

K.

PSA from an obviously unemployed journalist.

OP is full of shit.

Hmmmm........maybe he's "working it" now. Operation Mockingbird that is.

Sandy Hook was bullshit, unverifiable, and ALL media scum work exclusively to continue supporting this evil story because ALL non-internet media is exclusively composed of people whose evil careers depend on evil gubmint owners of the state-run media. In The O'Reilly Factor, a wildly successful sellout suggested modern journalists would never have supported a Gulf of Tonkin reporting error and promptly led the WMD brigade of dedicated Satanic monolithic evil that was/is the Bush media. Your post is seriously beyond absurd; it's a sad attempt to ignore the indefensible history of America's clearly corrupt media.

Operation Mockingbird. Your credentials have been compromised .........

I am upvotimg this post so the comments may be seen, not in support of the OP.

So the Warren Commission was accurate and not worth further reporting on, even to this day?

I would say 10% of submitted posts in r/conspiracy are based on....honest intentions, which leaves a full 90% as propaganda. This post obviously is meant to wast peoples time. It falls in the 90%...absolutely. Interestingly, of the 10% of posts stemming from honest intentions, at least 80% of them are from wholehearted dumb people (people, who, through their day-to-day domestication have stunted all capacity for original thought and have had their critical thinking faculties neutered). This leaves a measly 2% of posts in r/conspiracy that are worth your time. The best way to operate is to spend as little time as possible in this subreddit. Get in, quickly scan the headlines, maybe click on a few linked articles, but just get out and research the topics elsewhere. 100%, this is what you have to do to protect your time and actually have your understanding of "things" progress in the right direction. r/conspiracy is a fucking minefield! It's actually worse than MSM outlets in many ways. Good luck.

Right. The US media virtually ignored the TPP for months, instead reporting on Bruce Jenner's "heroics" and Kim Kardashians ass. Care to explain this ?