Voices
in
Japan

have your say

Which do you trust the most for news coverage: mainstream media or social media?

48 Comments

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

48 Comments
Login to comment

This comment obviously was not made by an American.

Ok.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Bob FosseMar. 19  01:12 pm JST.

I don’t know how closely you’ve been following Fox rkl but here’s a quick version. 

First Fox was the right wingers go-to channel. Then they turned against 45. Then they got caught lying and making fake news to keep their right wing audience tuning in. Now the right wingers claim they never liked Fox in the first place and it’s actually a liberal leftist media channel. 

I know, I can hardly believe it myself!

This comment obviously was not made by an American.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

hmmm...the leftist fascination with Fox sounds familiar....

We are fascinated by the stupidity of those who believe what Fox spews.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Neither.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

How ironic. Statistical facts are censored in a thread about trust in media.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Shocking that they have become the lowest form of tabloid recently.

They really haven't. What I think you mean is that they are effective at revealing the corruption of the people that you vote for. You prefer a more compliant media like what Murdoch runs.

Their investigative journalism is renowned worldwide. Panama Papers, Snowden, PRISM, Obama / Verizon, News International phone hacking et al. When big names want to release a story, they go to The Guardian. They don't go to Fox or Breitbart.

Unfortunately for American Republicans this means that they are often on the wrong end of it, as they are the group of people most responsible for anti-democratic / corrupt political activities.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Why do the various comments about the British news media remind me of this Yes, Minister sketch?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGscoaUWW2M

1 ( +1 / -0 )

The Guardian is a sad one. I used to subscribe. It went badly downhill.

I used to like the Guardian - they were my go-to to see what the left were reading. Of course they had a bias but they also had some good articles. Shocking that they have become the lowest form of tabloid recently

I wouldn't go that far if I think about the Mail, Express and the Murdoch filth but I get your point.

This conversation between John Stewart and Ian Hislop on the mainstream media, satire and social media and Murdoch's influence in particular is well worth a watch.

https://youtu.be/pbOiXmMnyw4

0 ( +2 / -2 )

I trust the mainstream media the most. Since the information sources are mostly transparent, what we get from such media can be trusted. On the other hand, lots of people can be involved in the social media. We are able to get the newest information anywhere and anytime. However, such information often come from unidentified sources in order to protect privacy of people related to the information sources. Therefore, wrong data can also widespread. Therefore, I cannot say the social media is trusted.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The best source of news and information on all subjects is ...

" The man in the pub".

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The Guardian is a sad one. I used to subscribe. It went badly downhill.

I used to like the Guardian - they were my go-to to see what the left were reading. Of course they had a bias but they also had some good articles. Shocking that they have become the lowest form of tabloid recently.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Is that a trick question?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

 If anyone is caught doing what Carlson, Hannity etc. were doing, everyone should kick them into touch.

Rachel Maddow. The entire CNN organization.

anything happen to them when they lied about Russia collusion for 4 years?

well other than now having smaller viewership than reruns of 20 year old cartoons?

1 ( +4 / -3 )

hmmm...the leftist fascination with Fox sounds familiar....

I don’t know how closely you’ve been following Fox rkl but here’s a quick version.

First Fox was the right wingers go-to channel. Then they turned against 45. Then they got caught lying and making fake news to keep their right wing audience tuning in. Now the right wingers claim they never liked Fox in the first place and it’s actually a liberal leftist media channel.

I know, I can hardly believe it myself!

0 ( +3 / -3 )

MotherJones

Democracy Now

Truth Out

Flipboard

Guardian

BBC World

Daily Mail

The Mirror

Liverpool Echo

Mainichi Shimbun

Asahi Shimbun

Seiko Shimbun

Komei Shimbun

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Fox presenters told each other so, that’s a matter of factual record. A fascination with bbc and guardian, sounds familiar…

hmmm...the leftist fascination with Fox sounds familiar....

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

 Fox, Newsweek (Daily Beast), Time, and Guardian can be awful

The Guardian is a sad one. I used to subscribe. It went badly downhill. Still good for football.

I’d add the Daily Mail to the list of garbage. Rancid paper.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

MSM over social media, for sure. I have the intelligence, knowledge and common sense to determine real from fake news. Just see my past posts on JT.

With MSM, I am able to make the call. Much of the NYT, Atlantic, New Yorker, FT, Economist and BBC are good. The Wall St. journal and CNN are definitely spotty. Fox, Newsweek (Daily Beast), Time, and Guardian can be awful.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Fox is "fake news" because people who exclusively read the Guardian, and watch BBC and MSNBC told me so ..

Fox presenters told each other so, that’s a matter of factual record. A fascination with bbc and guardian, sounds familiar…

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Fox is "fake news" because people who exclusively read the Guardian, and watch BBC and MSNBC told me so ..

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Yeah, but social media also shows that a giant swath of people are dumber than sticks.

Yes, but why would you follow such people? You can choose which sources populate your Twitter feed. If you have any critical reasoning skills at all, it's not hard to separate the good and bad for the most part.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

social media shows both sides at least and let’s people decide themselves if it believable or not.

Yeah, but social media also shows that a giant swath of people are dumber than sticks.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Weak. 

Fox is MSM.

Liberal MSM, thanks for the correction.

Let’s stay with the concrete.

Sure, let's.

Fox presenters were caught red-handed winding up the stolen election crowd while not believing it themselves. That is at best dishonesty, but I prefer to call it preying on the vulnerable which should disgust everyone. 

Again, not even close to all the crap the left spewed and continue to spew, scroll up to view some of the list, and so much more all the time.

The question posed is about trust. This is not about left or right. If anyone is caught doing what Carlson, Hannity etc. were doing, everyone should kick them into touch. 

Liars.

Ok, then don't watch them. Lol, that is YOUR CHOICE.

There are intelligent and sincere voices on the right worth reading. 

Of course.

Fox is not one of them. Elimination of nonsense you need to ignore is useful.

Again, you are entitled to your personal opinion.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

A pretty good description of what Fox News has been caught red-handed doing.

Compared to what the MSM has been caught doing this is really nothing

Weak.

Fox is MSM.

Let’s stay with the concrete. Fox presenters were caught red-handed winding up the stolen election crowd while not believing it themselves. That is at best dishonesty, but I prefer to call it preying on the vulnerable which should disgust everyone.

The question posed is about trust. This is not about left or right. If anyone is caught doing what Carlson, Hannity etc. were doing, everyone should kick them into touch.

Liars.

There are intelligent and sincere voices on the right worth reading.

Fox is not one of them. Elimination of nonsense you need to ignore is useful.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

A pretty good description of what Fox News has been caught red-handed doing.

Compared to what the MSM has been caught doing this is really nothing.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

A pretty good description of what Fox News has been caught red-handed doing.

Jimizoo- any narratives in particular that have been proven definitely false?

(but who am I to grapple with such a success story?)

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Depends, I don't trust or listen to the majority of the MSM media, especially the outlets that are only set on telling the news as they see fit and not as it is

A pretty good description of what Fox News has been caught red-handed doing.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

Usually I believe all the news in smaller letters or tuned down volume. The big rest has big letter headlines or is loudly shouted into all directions, so is highly probable some intentional propaganda with interests behind. So either in mainstream or social media you can find both categories, news that can be fully trusted and news you surely all have to question beforehand and deeply doubt and can’t be fully believed unless multiple sources verified.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Depends, I don't trust or listen to the majority of the MSM media, especially the outlets that are only set on telling the news as they see fit and not as it is.

Most of them either talk about Trump 24/7 or that Republicans are racist and you can see why their viewership numbers are all gone downhill. There are more things to cover in this world and in this nation and when it comes to Cable news with the exception of some of the programs on FNC, Newsmax, PBS, and CNN or BBC documentaries (which are good for the most part, as long as they don't go on a climate tirade their program are palatable) no one else is doing it.

When it comes to print, I prefer NYPost, WSJ, Washington Times, Epoch News, Stratfor, other than that, it's just pretty much all garbage.

Hakman dropped the mic on Lincolnman/Busby and his nonsense. 

I would say so.

Before: Fox News is pro Trump! Waaaaah, cry! 

then: look all the hosts lied and Fox News really hates Trump. 

well ok, they aren’t really pro Trump then are they? Or are they? The flip flopping is laughable

Bingo!

0 ( +5 / -5 )

Btw, Which host on told you on air that “Trump won?”

i stopped watching so I’m not aware which one supposedly said that.

According to social media, Lou Dobbs the only one even hinted at it and Paul Ryan got him fired right away for it.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

Nope I know Fox News was corrupted the day Paul Ryan joined the board. Then definitely the election night shenanigans.

it’s your team incessantly pushing that Fox News is supposedly on “our side”.

we know better.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Hakman dropped the mic on Lincolnman/Busby and his nonsense.

Before: Fox News is pro Trump! Waaaaah, cry!

then: look all the hosts lied and Fox News really hates Trump.

well ok, they aren’t really pro Trump then are they? Or are they? The flip flopping is laughable.

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

Here are just some of the things the media have lied to us about or covered up in recent times:

So things that have been repeatedly proved with huge amounts of evidence (that you make no effort to refute) are lies because proven liars said so in videos? For example, what recognized institution of human health supports your claim that this is a lie?

How many of those "lies" can you actually characterize as such, or being actually pushed as true by any kind of people with real authority to have an opinion about it?

It is very easy to accuse coverage of lying when you include things that were never said on the first place, or that were at much doubtful or said by people without any relevance.

-7 ( +5 / -12 )

Hakman - post of the year.

I salute you.

3 ( +11 / -8 )

you are disproving your own statements.

Indeed - the emails proved that the Fox talking heads all lied...

On Air: "Trump is great!", "The election was ripe with fraud", "Listen to Rudy".....

Off air: "Trump's four years were a disaster", "The fraud claims are mind-blowingly nuts", "Giuliani is crazy"....

They lied because they all believed their viewers were too weak to handle the truth...or that they preferred to live in a non-real alt-reality far-right bubble...

-3 ( +5 / -8 )

The oddity is liberals claiming Fox News is pro conservatives and biased towards them.

while then also typing out proof that it’s actually not.

you are disproving your own statements.

0 ( +8 / -8 )

I try to get a decent balance of left and right from various sources you’d probably describe as mainstream media.

Some are just not worth bothering with - GBNews, CNN, Fox etc.

I tend to avoid conspiracy idiots and loudmouth podcasters. There are one or two decent ones out there, but for the most part they are just noisemakers.

A few red flag expressions to watch for:

’The MSM isn’t reporting…’ ( it almost invariably is )

’Another ‘conspiracy theory’ proved right’ ( almost invariably no proof offered or laughable proof ).

’Fight’ ( We will keep up the ‘fight’ against…)

’….are being silenced’ ( usually before an invited cross-eyed member of the ‘silenced’ group starts shouting his/her mouth off ).

Podcasters ripping into other podcasters. Punch and Judy crap.

-3 ( +5 / -8 )

Well, first of all you have to want news that reflects reality - versus an outlet that provides "fake" and "faux" news merely as entertainment for it's low-intelligence viewers who "can't handle the truth"...

The perfect example is Fox News that has been caught red-handed pedaling lies to it's viewers - saying how much they couldn't stand Trump and that his four year administration was a "disaster" according to Tucker Carlson who then directly lied to his viewers on air saying the exact opposite...

Hannity, Ingraham, Pirro all thought Trump's election fraud claims were “mind-blowingly nuts”, “totally off the rails” and “completely BS”...but supported them on air...

They played, and continue to play, their far-right viewers for suckers and fools...

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

It’s more media lies by omission by refusing to cover things that happen which are “inconvenient” to liberals.

social media shows both sides at least and let’s people decide themselves if it believable or not.

media lies to you then even tells you how you must feel about the issue.

0 ( +9 / -9 )

All of this just to check the news(?)…; a small, healthy mix of TwitterReddit and YouTube is the way to go (this is the third option/answer)…; you can choose and control who and what you wanna follow

Yes, it's a lot, but essential to do sometimes. Obviously, nobody has the time to check everything, so are accounts I follow on Twitter, YouTube, etc. that I trust. But if they post something that sounds off, it often only takes a minute to verify it. I unfollow accounts that start posting dubious stories, even if I generally agree with their perspective. I also follow people who I completely disagree with if I think they are trying to be accurate - they often annoy me but help keep me from being in a bubble of like-minded media.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Today  07:59 am JST

Don't trust anyone. Verify and fact-check. Especially don't trust "fact check" websites. After a while, you will learn that some sources on Twitter on reliable - not that they always tell the truth, but that they try. To verify, check the source: search for the origin of the report, use Google reverse image search to determine if a photo is authentic or what it claims to be, ignore reports where the source is not named, ignore reports where the source has a strong interest (big investors, corporations, political groups and government agencies wanting to sway public opinion) unless they present strong evidence. If you simply trust any source, you will certainly be misinformed.

Today  10:38 am JST

@Eastmann

@commanteer

+1 to both

Personally I go for a what/who/when/where/why/how approach.

.what is the story (obviously)

.who is telling it (e.g. what media or, sometimes, what person in the media may tell you volumes about how seriously or with how much tons of salt you need to take that news)

.how is it being told (e.g. you can see literally 2 events being told about from two completely opposite standpoints leading to two different impressions)

.when is it being told (e.g. it may come out in a broader context, building for or against something, etc) 

.where is it being told (e.g. what media or what is the media's allegiance: business, politics, newsgroup like Murdock, etc)

By the time you figured out all of the above, you will reached an answer as to the "why" and whether the news is in: 

.your interest

.somebody's interest

.anybody's interest (at all)

Common sense and healthy skepticism is a must these days and frankly...it's tiring...

All of this just to check the news(?)…; a small, healthy mix of Twitter, Reddit and YouTube is the way to go (this is the third option/answer)…; you can choose and control who and what you wanna follow and see what the people commenting there have to say and their different views…; technically, it’s social media but there’s msm accounts in these platforms…; you can’t be too naive and you’ll need some common sense to have the “power” to create and control this combination.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I very much trust that mainstream media will lie, except perhaps when it comes to weather and traffic updates.

I find certain social media to be much more trustworthy.

0 ( +7 / -7 )

The mainstream media are part of the establishment, so you cannot rely on them exclusively.

It's just the way it is, but the best way to hear non-mainstream news sources is now Twitter. There are other things, Substack, podcasts, Youtube etc. but they probably all fall under "social media".

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Neither. I find Looney Tunes is far more trustworthy and accurate.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Don't trust anyone. Verify and fact-check. Especially don't trust "fact check" websites. After a while, you will learn that some sources on Twitter on reliable - not that they always tell the truth, but that they try. To verify, check the source: search for the origin of the report, use Google reverse image search to determine if a photo is authentic or what it claims to be, ignore reports where the source is not named, ignore reports where the source has a strong interest (big investors, corporations, political groups and government agencies wanting to sway public opinion) unless they present strong evidence. If you simply trust any source, you will certainly be misinformed.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

option 3.

various sources.and own common sense.

13 ( +16 / -3 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites