ng,ng

done

start

ding

Journalism worldwide can be very powerful when they play the long game, look at the Panama Tapes as best practice, along with relentlessly pursuing the truth as in the early efforts of uncovering church sex abuse in Boston.

he press plays a vital role in truth telling. But I think there should be far more fact checking and sadly, everyone with a phone and a social media account thinks they're a journalist.

How about the algorithm experts start searching and ranking journalists and their papers by truthfulness and corroborated evidence as a heavily weighted index that can be challenged.

Then we could see for certain how much rubbish is on the net masquerading as news. We do it with the banking system, so I think it's about time we did it with journalism.

done

Done

The problem with ranking journalists is the ranking can be biased. You just have to understand who is writing what. What their agenda is. Why they are writing it. When they are writing it. The most important criteria is to think about the subjects of the writing and if they stand to benefit or not financially from the situation the writer is documenting.

Follow the money.

Always. If you are talking about sexual abuse by priests in the Catholic Church? Why would they cover it up? They don't want donations to go down and have to pay settlements or fines. It's always about the money.

Some good tricks. 16.

Look at Climate Change. Who is writing or reporting that it is not a problem? Sources that are funded by the Extraction Industry. Why? Green Energy threatens their bottom line.

More people are killed by drunk drivers than by mass shooters. Why would someone write that or use that spurious comparison? Because tighter gun control will affect the Gun industries bottom line. It is all about the money, Always.

Why are the Washington Times, Fox News, Rush Limbaugh et al so against Liberalism, Social Democracy, National Health Care? Because their owners, donors and corporate masters do not want to be taxed at a higher rate nor regulated in a fair and equatable way. Money.

They don't give a sh*t about the Constitution, the law or their fellow man. They are not Patriots nor Great Americans. They are greedy mother fu**ers who just want more.

And they make us pay more out of our paychecks, which are artificially low to begin with, for our school taxes, health care, fees, etc because the money never "trickles down" It is always the money.

Why is it that you need a 2 income family now to live as well as a 1 income family in the 50s-70s? Why? Trickle Down economics. That is the only reason. Redistribution of wealth from the bottom to the top.

Perhaps because there are a lot more 'things' that are considered essential which weren't even available in the 50s-70s

No stewart those things would have been replaced by a second home or lakeside cottage, a boat, vacations to a foreign country etc.

are you saying that people in the 50s had holiday homes, boats and did overseas vacations?! Wow - America was great then

is that why Trump is "making America Great Again' and is so popular

In the 50's, 60's & 70's. people were much less self centered & more forward looking. My parents, for example, put most of their 'extra' money into college & grad school funds for my sister & I. That's not happening so much anymore - just look at the student debts. We also were able to take yearly trips to Europe. Values were different then. It sure isn't Trump who is going to be bringing those values back. Heck, he has no idea what those values even are.

I was born in the 50's - no cottage, no boat, no vacations to europe - we were lucky to drive to Indiana to see my cousins once a year. Yeah - things were great then. However, under the trickle down economy I have more money than I need, nice house, great insurance, two degrees both paid for by yours truly. So yeah - I want the good old days - please. :)

And don't tell me I'm lucky - or privileged. I am not. I was able to see the hole I was born in and figured out how to dig out of it.

Ah, there is the difference KT, we did not have a car. I bought my own car when I was 18, and so began my career as family chauffeur. Trips to Europe sounds kinda fancy, so I elaborate: Pretty much the only things were paid for were transportation, and some money to give to our relatives. As ALL my relatives lived in Poland, & the Polish are huge on family, expenses were at a minimum. It's not like we were staying at the Hotel George V in Paris. And a few American dollars went a very long way at that time, still do.

Ah yes, unlike all the kids in my class, I was the only one whose parents BOTH worked. My mother made much more than my father, unheard of in the '60s.

done

start

done

go

done. easy.

done

My point Tuco, is they should be ranked by truthfulness. So much rubbish is written and lack of fact checking. The better journalists would finally get more attention because they are diligent and write the truth. At the moment there is far too much proliferation of garbage masquerading as journalism. Too many sites just take rubbish and share it, no checking or even journalists. People will pay for news if it is real.

What is truth?

not a pack of lies KT. or about half of what your president tweets!

Here's one for you KT - the world is not flat!!!

Phil, the social media age has changed the rules of "news." A huge percentage of people are now totally unaware that they have made choices as to which "news" to receive, and equally unaware that they pay for "news" because they pay indirectly by allowing their information to be harvested. When "news" is constantly fed to your mobile (and other) devices by your favorite social media channels, the challenge is to keep up with it and respond appropriately, not to evaluate its accuracy. Receiving "news" is no longer passive, it has become participative. The only time you change to a different source of news is when you move to a different social media platform because you believe it will enhance your social connectedness. Of course that may not be true of you as an individual but it is nevertheless the new pattern of the world in general. If you don't understand that, you will never realize that old-fashioned investigative journalism is rapidly dying because it is no longer relevant to the mass market for instant and constantly updated "news."