Is it truly possible to have a non-biased media?

My own view is that it isn't possible to be unbiased but some sources have higher journalistic standards and integrity. All media and all language carries values and assumptions within it, often unacknowledged and sometimes at a subconscious level. However, not all media is the same. Some tell outright lies and some insinuate things which the readership are intended to take as fact. If I don't trust a source then I read through to find the quotes and the verified details.

I have confirmation bias too and everyone does, though I think it is a healthy thing if you can be critical of friends and allies from time to time.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

Ynotisay · M

My mantra is "Consider the Source." Every time. Not only the outlet but the byline.

My issue is what is now considered "the media" as well as the inability many have to recognize the difference between hard news and opinion.

Big outlets, (AP, Reuters, NY Times, etc) go through a seriously in-depth vetting process. If they get it wrong they'll retract or cop to it. And in the case of wire services at least, there's a typical format they follow. I trust that reporting.

I know a bit about this world given my work and it disgusts me that so many have bought in to the "lame stream/ Lib media" nonsense. "Fake News" goes without saying.

Burnley123 · 41-45, M

@Ynotisay Yes I agree. I also notice who the 'Fake News' thing was originally aimed at the conspiracy theory right but Trump has co-opted the language for his own purpose.

Fake News means (or meant) deliberately made up stories which attempted no basis in fact. I am thinking of Pizzagate here. Trump has turned this into a playground insult contest where fake news is just something which you disagree with. There isn't symmetry between the NYT and Alex Jones though. Ask you say, the big titles go through heavy vetting processes and have standards.