What happens to old news?

[commonsense]

Did I sleep through some breaking developments in the old news stories that were recently so relevant?

I mean I browse traditional news media and I don’t find stories on the Black Lives Matter divide or the gun safety controversy. We’re these issues resolved while I wasn’t looking?

Are there other topics that had given rise to so much righteous indignation when they were relevant but now have been forgotten?

Is this why it is said that the public’s memory is short? Or is it the media whose attention span is so brief?

What are your thoughts on the fleeting nature of events that should be of significant importance?

[stevie]

What are your thoughts on the fleeting nature of events that should be of significant importance?

There are news on one hand and the impact of events on readers/listeners of new on other hand. It's up to the reader/listener to attach continuous importance to selected events reported by news or to let her-/himself be distracted by the flow of news.

[commonsense]

What are your thoughts on the fleeting nature of events that should be of significant importance?

There are news on one hand and the impact of events on readers/listeners of new on other hand. It's up to the reader/listener to attach continuous importance to selected events reported by news or to let her-/himself be distracted by the flow of news.

So true, indeed.

[Immanuel Can]

I browse traditional news media and I don’t find stories on the Black Lives Matter divide or the gun safety controversy. We’re these issues resolved while I wasn’t looking?

No. They just became embarassing for the Leftists. The media just falls silent when that happens. They'll come back as soon as the Left stands to gain something from them.

[commonsense]

I browse traditional news media and I don’t find stories on the Black Lives Matter divide or the gun safety controversy. We’re these issues resolved while I wasn’t looking?

No. They just became embarassing for the Leftists. The media just falls silent when that happens. They'll come back as soon as the Left stands to gain something from them.

How is it that BLM and/or Gun Safety are now embarrassing?

[Immanuel Can]

I browse traditional news media and I don’t find stories on the Black Lives Matter divide or the gun safety controversy. We’re these issues resolved while I wasn’t looking?

No. They just became embarassing for the Leftists. The media just falls silent when that happens. They'll come back as soon as the Left stands to gain something from them.

How is it that BLM and/or Gun Safety are now embarrassing?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... ances.html
https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/lockd ... d/2759727/

[commonsense]

No. They just became embarassing for the Leftists. The media just falls silent when that happens. They'll come back as soon as the Left stands to gain something from them.

How is it that BLM and/or Gun Safety are now embarrassing?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... ances.html
https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/lockd ... d/2759727/

Do you realize that neither of these stories reveals something embarrassing to anyone at all?

The closest anything comes to being embarrassing just isn’t. BLM distributes its donations to charities and grants, rather than keeping the money within its own organization by filling the coffers of its local chapters.

Got anything that explains what you meant by “embarrassing”?

[Immanuel Can]

Do you realize that neither of these stories reveals something embarrassing to anyone at all?

How about...https://nypost.com/2021/04/10/inside-bl ... ing-binge/

[commonsense]

Do you realize that neither of these stories reveals something embarrassing to anyone at all?

How about...https://nypost.com/2021/04/10/inside-bl ... ing-binge/

Yes.

[Immanuel Can]

Do you realize that neither of these stories reveals something embarrassing to anyone at all?

How about...https://nypost.com/2021/04/10/inside-bl ... ing-binge/

Yes.

What you'll find is that if one sort of man, who fits the PC narrative's profile of a villain shoots up a school, or is on hand when another kind of man dies of his own stupidity, or if one such even speaks unwisely or ambiguously, the media turns it into a national event and whips up the public about it for months. But when a member of a group of people who have special PC status with the media should happen to embezzle millions from charity, or shoot up a school, or even kill each other quite routinely in their own streets, the media reports that sort of thing quietly, once, on page 10, if they report it at all.

You'll see that over and over again.

The whole care of the mainstream media right now is to protect a particular kind of political narrative, and to subdue any contrary narrative.

[Lacewing]

The whole care of the mainstream media right now is to protect a particular kind of political narrative, and to subdue any contrary narrative.

You see what fits your narrative, and don't see that which doesn't... then you tell/perpetuate stories based on that.

That's how extremism and conspiracies are fed and maintained by narrow-minded thinking.

[Immanuel Can]

The whole care of the mainstream media right now is to protect a particular kind of political narrative, and to subdue any contrary narrative.

You see what fits your narrative, and don't see that which doesn't... then you tell/perpetuate stories based on that.

If what you say is true, then you've just agreed with me. That is what people do...they tend to perpetuate that which fits their agenda.

But that is not what the media wants you to think they do. They want to say, "We bring you the truth." And they depend on the illusion that what they're bringing is fair, impartial, balanced, complete, and weighted to the gravity of the actual situation, in order to convince people. Because if they admitted to simply advancing such an agenda, who would want to read their reportage? The people who came from a different agenda position would have no reason to believe them, since they were manifestly not neutral; and the people from their own agenda position would regard them as redundant, since they are already inclined to believe the same nonsense anyway.

So the mainstream media have to rest heavily on the illusion of neutrality, even while advancing a slanted agenda.

[Lacewing]

So the mainstream media have to rest heavily on the illusion of neutrality, even while advancing a slanted agenda.

I'm not so sure it's as extreme or impactful as you suggest.

Do you consider FOX News 'Fair and Balanced' as taking part in an illusion of neutrality, even while advancing a slanted agenda?

For the record, I was responding to this:

The whole care of the mainstream media right now is to protect a particular kind of political narrative, and to subdue any contrary narrative.

Did you have 'one side' of political narrative in mind when making this statement?

There are all sorts of media sources (likely more impactful than mainstream news) that continually blanket the internet with misinformation, conspiracy theories, and outright lies, to advance all kinds of agendas and sow unrest and conflict.

This issue is not coming from just one narrative direction, right?

[Immanuel Can]

So the mainstream media have to rest heavily on the illusion of neutrality, even while advancing a slanted agenda.

I'm not so sure it's as extreme or impactful as you suggest.

Well, let's go this far together.

IF any news organization is going to be taken seriously and have an impact, it has to convince people who don't already believe its stories, be they true or false. That means that all news depends on the ability of the media to cultivate an air of neutrailty, of fairness, of open-mindedness, of sweet reason and truthfulness. The public needs to think no agenda is being advanced, and that the news is being selected and reported fairly, in a timely and relevant way, and free from distortion and spin: and the mass media needs to create that air.

Whether any of them deserves to have that air is quite another question, of course.