I am curious about your statement above.
If ALL main-stream media (which I presume also includes the entire Internet and all social-media platforms in existence) has some nefarious, undefined, indeterminate "agenda" to to lie to (or brainwash) all human beings on earth, what would be their ultimate purpose or endgame? It is that very same public which pays for the services these media provide, whether it be through patronizing advertisers who run commercials the air or by direct investment in their corporate stocks if publicly traded. Either way, the moguls who own the big global media empires are already gazillionaires, so their "greed," it would seem, has diminishing returns after some point (which they've long passed).
It seems to me that "big" media would have nothing to lose (except maybe ratings) if they just presented to their viewing audiences factual, independently verifiable information 100% of the time, however mundane or boring to watch on a typical, normal day. Sensationalized stories should be the exception, not the norm, in everyday life for all human beings. All media would be telling the same story without significant differences and without subtle corporate-cultural nuances or political biases. The end result: The public's trust in the entire media (print and electronic) industry is uplifted and restored over time! Otherwise, the industry is "cutting off its nose to spite its face," as the saying goes!
By the way, when it comes to all natural disasters, including major tornado outbreaks and hurricane landfalls, the public demands, expects, and should always get "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth!" The NWS, SPC, and NHC all do a good job of communicating timely, accurate information via these media to the public they serve. They are acutely aware that lives are at stake and depend on them! I rest my case...
Good reply/questions.
I did not say "all" MSM, I said "a lot of." I am careful not to talk in absolutes b/c that largely does not reflect reality.
You wrote:
"It seems to me that "big" media would have nothing to lose (except maybe ratings) if they just presented to their viewing audiences
factual, independently verifiable information 100% of the time, however mundane or boring to watch on a typical, normal day. Sensationalized stories should be the exception, not the norm, in everyday life for all human beings."
I agree 100% that sensationalized stories should be the exception, not the norm, but that has long since been absent.
Losing ratings is a big thing for any media, so sensationalism works. It appeals to the lowest common denominator and is proven psychology to get views/clicks/likes. So they do have a lot to lose. No viewership or engagement, less ratings which results less advertising and sponsorship revenue.
Sensational reporting has always been present in MSM and was kept in check, but it has really gone off the rails since the 90s, and weather/climate is no exception. Add in the fact the digital age and internet which has resulted in way more completion out there, so the pieces of the pie are getting thinner and thinner, and the result is even more sensationalism to stay afloat as a business. I get it, it is a business in the end, but it value to the public has declined, becoming just a bunch of scarce tactics and other ways to make you watch and keeping watching.
Forgive my cynicism, but it I am just calling things as I see them, and watching over the decades the change, one gets a good idea of change and how we got from point A to B. The MSM has gone from just reporting the news, to endless speculation, conjecture, opinion, and an annoying tendency to tell you not just what to think, but how to think w/ harsh lecturing.
And unfortunately in the last 10-15 years, what the MSM has been reporting has become more politically-biased more on one end of the spectrum, which just makes the situation worse. It is not just pure sensationalism, but one-sided sensationalism to promote certain agendas/ideologies. This is most apparent in traditional media, such as TV (network and cable). On-line, I find it somewhat more balanced, but so many ppl get much of the information from traditional media, and that format is very powerful and persuasive.
You mentioned what would their ultimate purpose or endgame be by the MSM acting like this? I think it goes into molding the public into thinking and acting a certain way for more govt control. This means less independent thinking and freedoms which is detrimental to science, among other things. It is like what we've heard from some politicians for a long time, "the science is settled concerning climate change." That is direct contradiction to science itself. The science is *never* settled. If was it, it would stop. Dissent/debate/discussion is what science is all about, but there has been strong forces out to silent much of that.
