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

SW-User
Largely. I say that meaning I don't believe media seeks to disseminate fraudulent or untruthful information.
Yes, they skew stories to garner the best ratings possible. Media has gone from journalism to entertainment. That said, if you can't see the occasional bias and correct for it, you probably shouldn't be listening to media.
Yes, they skew stories to garner the best ratings possible. Media has gone from journalism to entertainment. That said, if you can't see the occasional bias and correct for it, you probably shouldn't be listening to media.
Hi Oconner ... media moves observations, occassionally facts ... they have a responsibility to move the info along in context, no more
But media also does filtering and prioritization
Done well, it might be good
Done wrong, it is worst than no news
It is abundantly clear, filtering, priorization and context have bias .. intentional or unintentional.
Much bias is simply local bias ... For example; NYC, the biggest news hub ... they are cool people, but they have a different bias than Des Moines Iowa or Clearwater, FL
As soon as any bias enters the filtering, prioritization or context process ... all news becomes doubtful.
NYC has a reputation for promoting liberalism ... should we be surprised that some of that bias creeps into the news? ... nope
Should we then trust the media? ... nope
But media also does filtering and prioritization
Done well, it might be good
Done wrong, it is worst than no news
It is abundantly clear, filtering, priorization and context have bias .. intentional or unintentional.
Much bias is simply local bias ... For example; NYC, the biggest news hub ... they are cool people, but they have a different bias than Des Moines Iowa or Clearwater, FL
As soon as any bias enters the filtering, prioritization or context process ... all news becomes doubtful.
NYC has a reputation for promoting liberalism ... should we be surprised that some of that bias creeps into the news? ... nope
Should we then trust the media? ... nope

SW-User
@questionWeaver: I don't disagree with you. Journalism could be taken at face value much more purely in earlier times. But every region will skew to its concerns and perceptions, and each station in that region will do the same. Add to that the need for ratings that never used to weight so heavily, and the stories of the day and their true importance is anyone's guess.
I can say I absolutely despise the fact that unverified, partial input information and pure conjecture pass as news these days. By placing "What if" in front of any headline, it makes news and no one can cry foul. It's a disgrace.
I can say I absolutely despise the fact that unverified, partial input information and pure conjecture pass as news these days. By placing "What if" in front of any headline, it makes news and no one can cry foul. It's a disgrace.
@Oconnor: yes it is ... we stop reading ... then somebody quotes a "what if" ... like it was a fact ..
And we all look at one another like ..."that guy has been drinking again"
Lol ... I have no suggestions, just disappointment that folks take "news" at face value
And we all look at one another like ..."that guy has been drinking again"
Lol ... I have no suggestions, just disappointment that folks take "news" at face value