Millennials Collecting

As noted above, the political reference may be the ad soliciting support for the Guardian which appears sometimes at the bottom of articles on their website (maybe only if they think you're in the US). "These are perilous times. Over the last three years, much of what the Guardian holds dear has been threatened – democracy, civility, truth. This US administration is establishing new norms of behaviour. Anger and cruelty disfigure public discourse and lying is commonplace. Truth is being chased away. But with your help we can continue to put it center stage."

Not to divert this thread off in another direction, but it clearly indicates that, despite being a British publication, the Guardian has definite views when it comes to US politics.

Now, back to stamp collecting . . .

I apologize. Re-read the article. Don't know what I saw that I considered political but certainly not there now.

Views are something so many of us have. As it happens, that ad was not at the bottom when I read the post, but I have no problem with it.

From a media studies standpoint, the importance of the "constrained times" statement is that it is pure editorial injection by the writer. None of the people interviewed in the story mentioned it, and nothing in the article has anything to do with it. I wonder if the writer wrote it, or if a Guardian editor injected it. Must every story relate to virus, quarantine or government orders? Their desperation for eyeballs is showing.

Almost every media source nowadays is desperate for eyeballs, which is why there are so few (IMHO) that can be relied on to provide actual news untainted by agenda or political views. I have to spend time consulting multiple sources all along the spectrum to finally find out what actually happened or the totality of what someone actually said in context. Not that the line between editorial and news hasn't always been a little blurry but it has now been completely eradicated. Sad state of affairs. IMHO

That's a 40 year old story. Ever since the various media forms decided that the news dept has to turn a profit. Before that the line was much less blurred. And there is no such thing as an "untainted by an agenda or political view" because of it. Everyone should be using a variety of sources to get the news; but relatively few people actually do.

I saw this article and decided to look on instagram to see if it was true. Found quite a good number of accounts. Here are a couple you may want to check out. Many IG'ers with over a thousand followers. Surprisingly good stuff.

https://www.instagram.com/ukstamps.ir/
https://www.instagram.com/philatelie_classique/
https://www.instagram.com/studia_marok/
https://www.instagram.com/purple_rain75/

There are many more.

(apologies for posting in two places - not sure which will survive.)

As you have aptly pointed out, we all have our views . . .

I did not think the link was political.

In my opinion current news outlets pitch hatred and division; they want viewers/readers angry and polarized. They offer affirmation (as opposed to information) to their particular viewership/readership and think that if they offer actual neutral news many of their users would tune out. Many outlets have token opposite points of view so they can pretend to be balanced but anyone with half a brain can tell within 60 seconds which way a news outlet leans.

I also think that the demographics of the reporters has changed over the years. In the past reporters were working class stiffs, folks who understood what being blue collar meant. They were willing to work long hours and overtime to dig out the facts and present good contextual background. Today the demographic is more formally educated folks whose only overtime is going to uptown cocktail parties and talking about going to the Hamptons.

Lastly, an unintended negative impact of the internet and 24/7 television is the need to fill space. Everything is 'breaking news' and a news cycle is now measured in minutes as opposed to days. This causes reporters to not do their jobs and verify information but also drives news outlets to rush to publish; a deadly combination if there ever was one.

This would explain the news media precipitous drop in 'trust' over the years. In 1972 only 1/3 of people polled said they had either 'Not very much' or 'None at all' trust in the news media. Today 2/3s of people polled reply that they have 'Not very much' or 'None at all' trust in the news media.
(https://news.gallup.com/poll/1663/m...ation.aspx).
Don

Again, much of that goes back to the fact that news divisions must be profit centers. Back in the day, news departments for different stations and different newspapers would cooperate to at least some extent on important news. They competed for stories, but were more willing to work together when it was in their best interests and the public's best interest. Which still had some genuine meaning. Today the bottom line is all that matters, and being partisan is the easiest and surest way to insure that. So even the relatively middle of the road stations have to do so to some degree, although some do it far less than others.