Mainstream Media is a 'Cancer and There is No Cure', Quotes MSNBC Producer Who Quit

in Deep Diveslast year (edited)

Ariana Pekary made a scathing review of the mainstream media in her blog discussing her reasons for quitting her cushy job as a producer for MSNBC. Speaking about her job and not liking, her colleagues told her to stick it out for years. But she had enough of just being a cog in the problem and keeping it going:

The problem is the job itself. It forces skilled journalists to make bad decisions on a daily basis.


Source

The main insult to the garbage media was in reference to a TV veteran told her:

“We are a cancer and there is no cure,” a successful and insightful TV veteran said to me. “But if you could find a cure, it would change the world.”

I'm not sure what a TV veteran is. Maybe it's a long-term employee in the TV industry, or TV news. But anyways, the point was that it's a disingenuous sham with a political agenda.

The mainstream media acts like a cancer that stokes national division. They just care about dividing people and creating chaos in the minds of the masses. Keep people divided and at each others throats, not going forward together towards a better future.

Speaking of the scamdemic of COVID-19, she mentions how the focus was on DOnal Trump and what Trump does wrong. The science didn't matter.

This cancer risks human lives, even in the middle of a pandemic. The primary focus quickly became what Donald Trump was doing (poorly) to address the crisis, rather than the science itself. As new details have become available about antibodies, a vaccine, or how COVID actually spreads, producers still want to focus on the politics. Important facts or studies get buried.

This cancer risks our democracy, even in the middle of a presidential election. Any discussion about the election usually focuses on Donald Trump, not Joe Biden, a repeat offense from 2016 (Trump smothers out all other coverage). Also important is to ensure citizens can vote by mail this year, but I’ve watched that topic get ignored or “killed” numerous times.

Elaborating on the exclusion of important information to get people to think and actually be informed, she adds:

Context and factual data are often considered too cumbersome for the audience. There may be some truth to that (our education system really should improve the critical thinking skills of Americans) – but another hard truth is that it is the job of journalists to teach and inform, which means they might need to figure out a better way to do that.

Yes, people are dumbed down. Check out the book the Dumbing Down of America. School aren't meant to make you great, just get you by with some basics to get formed into cogs in the machine. It's outcome-based education to get people the basic skills to go and fill in spots in the economic machine.

The news is structured to get rating. The more an audience would like a guest or topic, the more likely it was to get talked about as "news". The editorial process is geared this way. It's the standard everywhere, not just an MSNBC:

Likewise, it’s taboo to discuss how the ratings scheme distorts content, or it’s simply taken for granted, because everyone in the commercial broadcast news industry is doing the exact same thing.

It's refreshing to see someone with the backbone to quit a well positioned and paying job. She had enough of losing her integrity for a paycheck. She wants discourse. we need real talk, not the bullshit rating and silencing of important information that is pervading the mainstream and social media.

Sort:  

Bad idea to upvote your posts..... generally they get nailed by the "anti spam" brigade and anyone who upvoted you loses that curation income. Not saying I agree with them, at all.... just saying that upvoting you is hazardous to a person's pocketbook!

That's why voting a post shouldn't have the primary focus be on the self reward. Free speech isn't free, and the true value of an idea is highlighted when those in a system such as this support ideas even when the financial incentive is being stripped. One way to mitigate this to a smaller extent is to reblog the post, which if it's worth supporting despite heavy stake flags would qualify as being share worthy.

So all in all

Bad idea to upvote your posts

A great idea to upvote these posts :)

Just like it's a bad idea to quit your job, it's a bad idea to resist Bernie's oppression of independent thought.

I submit that succumbing to extortion is the real hazard.

So the anti spam brigade is in the wrong, and you should use your votes to counter their nonsense. Hive is about more than money.

Yeah, obviously. I've worked 3 years full time for free. In fact, I've lost the $5000 I put in at the start, and I still contribute daily. It sucks to have your crumbs taken from you because you upvoted something you thought deserved it. Not only is the deserving post (and its author) harmed, but so are all those who had tried to support them. I realize Hive isn't only about money. I have a channel dedicated to that topic (money) if you're interested :)

That's the alt plan with the downvotes, to get ppl who are concerned with the curation rewards to not vote any longer.

The cancer is socialism - the media being the PR extension of it.

When it dawns of people that is the foundation to all our ills, change will happen - rapidly. (starting with people understanding what Central banking really is - which is nothing more than socialism in drag)

I know you dislike socialism, but in reality self chosen socialism is where change for the better occurs. Seeing a neighbor in need and stepping forward if at all possible. Not forced socialism, but one where folks understand the honor in aiding another in hard times. Folks were more prone to do that when I was younger, and there was a cohesion in the localities back then to a degree that is lacking nowadays.

A book I read as a child called Futureshock predicted where we would be today because of the ways already present then promoting areas where people were strangers to one another and hence didn't look further than their own self interests.

Central banking is an interesting concept, its appeal allowing an agreed upon valuation provide a flow that negates moment by moment negotiation. Many have found this beneficial as it somewhat alleviates the burden of one side of a barter having the upper hand in many cases as it allows for there to be flow of goods in greater amounts which aids in the supply not strangling the needs of the user as much (unless artificially made scarce as we still see happen). The problem with central banks as we see now is they are used to pick winners and losers while enslaving most to pay back what can't be paid back. In the end, the question I ask is are most willing to accept the burden of making their own agreements in terms of commerce as they have been trained to let others make it for them. As one who spent many years living off flea markets/swap meats I enjoy it, but notice many who frequent them as customers either don't enjoy bartering or they try to act as though they always have the upper hand over the seller as though we are desperate. One of my early mentors taught me no matter how much I might need the money, always hold myself as though I don't and let the money walk. It creates a mindset that places one in a power position when selling.

I have no truck about communism - on micro scale. It can and does work.
It just never scales up - due to bureaucracies becoming an entity unto themselves.

Socialism on 'the bigger scale', is nothing but cancer

Political socialism has no great track record and violates rights of individuals in favor of collectivism at the hand of the state with a monopoly on violence. But voluntarily done, social cooperation is how you beat the statism and government tyrrany.

It is critically important to realize that disinformation and censorship is an existential threat to survival. It is also demonstrable that this problem has been ongoing for decades, as the song 'Harvester of Eyes' by Blue Oyster Cult recorded in the 1970s reveals.

While the internet has enabled us intent on factual information to sidestep professional enemedia, the present desperation of disinformation agents and their resort to censorship reveals that avenue is constricted today, and, absent mesh networking enabling independent sources to maintain communications between peers, is likely to become utterly ineffective in short order.

Thanks!

Can we make centralized markets for gathering yet also distributed or decentralized control? I think so. The aspect of being notified is important. You don't have to get your notifications form one site itself. Mailing lists where you get notified by email are a good way for people to network the many independent sources. A platform based on open collaboration of information could act as a hub to get relay independent sources in a market place for people to find. I suppose a search engine does that, but they censor now. It takes a principled person to create and sustain it, ensuring the market place stays up for all network.

That's kinda how I use Hive. I only search elsewhere mostly to verify what I have learned here. There are some sources I watch across the net, many of them hostile to my philosophy, because it is those hostile to me that present the greatest threat.

American media has been a hot mess for far too long. Journalism is about profits now instead of informing the people on what they should know.

Indeed. Money is the god.

We need more like this woman who sheds the bondage not just From the media but everyone at a job that faces retaliation for going against the grain, it’s not an easy choice, but we do have a choice. Hats off to her!!!

The cure is Hive. We need to promote it. No censorship here, open discussion!

Censorship resistant yes ;)

there is a cure...if Americans have the guts to employ it...if only 3% of Americans have the guts to employ it