[–] revfelix 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Every news source is biased to some degree, because every news source is ultimately run by humans, who are by nature biased. Your best bet is to collect information from as many varied sources as possible and compare them, that should give you a reasonable idea of the facts and allow you to form your own opinions on the rest.
[–] WhiteRonin [S] ago
Agree but I'm also saying things have changed starting with Clinton's second term.
[–] carlinco 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
In my opinion, the death knell for independent news already came under the last Bush administration, where homeland security and other fascist 'improvements' also meant lots of new controls over the media. The Obama administration only used this with mastery, and with a more willing media.
So now we are in the very unlucky situation that nearly no media dare to say anything too critical. They are all unlikely to publish any real leaks - it's always the European or Russian newspapers who need to publish something about the US before it can be published there. And even that is changing.
Unluckily, people in law enforcement and government don't usually get how much such leaks helped improve their countries and made them better and more successful than third world dictatorships.
Additionally, with political correctness becoming more and more rampant, the (leftist) media refuse pretty much on their own to publish anything which could get any backlash happening against minorities - which I can partly understand, but which also leads to social issues being suppressed and festering under the surface.
With right wing media doing the opposite and completely exaggerating the importance of some events, I think the main issue is that it leads to crazy right wing activism and symbolism - like big walls - which also do nothing to fix the underlying issues, only cost everyone a lot of money, which could save many more people if it was instead used in such boring areas as traffic and health improvements.
What we really need is a more statistic based and less emotional approach to news. Which parts of the population are involved in which crimes? How can it be changed? Which areas are unsafe to go to for which groups of people? Why? What can be done? Who is unhappy with things as they are? How much is real issue (actual differences to others), how much is just flatly wrong and only based on rumors and such? How can it be addressed? Where do people die of what causes? And so on.
[–] WhiteRonin [S] 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
I watch the horror show of 9/11 go down from Japan and it was straight reporting since it wasn't not about Japan. I saw how quickly the US went police state and how Bush ramped it up. Nobody in the US at the time who I said this too believed me -- it's our security yada yada.
I agree that your solution would bring back a lot of integrity to journalism but many Americans prefer the 3 seconds of Fame karadashian news technique.
[–] CrustyBeaver52 ago
Remember, during the Clinton era they were still lying their asses off - the real difference is back then everybody still believed them for the most part - and the MSM was at least still pretending they were telling the truth. These days, they hardly bother to pretend.
Trust? it's not about trust... it's propaganda. It's about brainwashing. Program the human like you train a dog.
Good Dog, Bad Dog, Look at these big tits, Have a treat, Sit, Don't read these files - Russians are bad.
[–] kkkkkkkkkk 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Frontline, PBS Newshour, to an extent BBC
[–] WhiteRonin [S] ago
Hmm, I'll try those sources. I can see the BBC being less biased reporting on the US.
[–] BAAC 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
As someone who spent a couple of decades as a journalist... No. None of them are any good. They never have been, but they were better at their jobs before. Now they can't even be bothered.
You need to read everything, talk to everyone, and find the threads that sound honest to you. No single source is reliable all the time.
But - one important thing - social media like FB is not news in any way, shape or form. It never was. It will never be. It is media for sale. It's as neutral and useful as a Gap catalog.
[–] WhiteRonin [S] ago
Awesome to have a person from the business.
When about a was the last time they good at their jobs?
I was thinking Clinton's first term.
[–] BAAC 1 point -1 points 0 points (+0|-1) ago (edited ago)
Hmmm... I don't know. It's been that long. Did the press adequately cover the fact that as many as half a million Iraqi children under five died as a result of Clinton's economic embargoes and no-fly zones? (Remember: they hate us for our freedom...) Well, why would they when he got himself a blowjob in the Oval...?
I think there used to be more professionals in the job, so you had more bright spots. There were men and women who were actually prepared to tell truth to power. Those days are done.
The standard up until about 2000 used to be 3 reputable sources for any story. I had tons of stuff killed because I only had 1 source. And I can remember co-workers chasing stories for weeks until we were 100% sure - sitting in a room with 4 or 5 people debating whether we could run something. In retrospect, it was fantastic.
But, at least in our lifetimes, the media has always been the cheerleader for power. Think yellow cake uranium, Gulf of Tonkin... We've been the tools of government for so long I don't think you can point to a line.
If I had to say what finally killed journalism, it wouldn't be an administration or anyone on the left/right. It was social media, plain and simple. It's now about getting it up first and fast, and fuck your sources. Soon after that happened, PR and spin companies figured they could get their messaging out easily and cheaply because the filters were gone. No one had time for the meeting with 4 editors to see if a story was legit. It would take too long to get it up. Journalism died without so much as a whimper.
I remember picking up the phone once when I first started working and the guy said (not bothering to say 'Hello' first...): "I'm suing you. I'm suing your paper. I'm suing your publisher." Great way to start a conversation. But I had taken a shortcut and relied on one source. Never did it again. I think it's so common now, no one would even make that call anymore.
[–] CrustyBeaver52 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
When I grew up we had three tv channels, and two newspapers - some magazines and some books, and we believed everything we read or saw like it was God's gospel truth. We were a happy people - blissfully ignorant in every single way possible.
Today MSM is dying - as it should - but the Internet is exploding, and everyone with a cell phone is a reporter now. You get to see the world in real time, with all of it's true beauty and vile ugliness like never before.
We have tasted the fruit of the tree of knowledge and have been flung out of Eden as a result.
So, if you find yourself a little disoriented at the moment - don't be surprised.
[–] WhiteRonin [S] 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Grew up similarly.
I also get the idea if 24/7 connection. This new found information age is definitely still in its wild west stage.
[–] WhiteRonin [S] 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
There was and is always a bias but recently it's out of control.
Fact XYZ but yeah we have no proof.
[–] Whitemail 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
I don't even like to see a link from a mainstream news website, and I sure as hell don't watch them on TV.
[–] WhiteRonin [S] ago
Agree.
I stick to Netflix but will watch some local news every so often but time out when they go nation coverage stories.
[–] Whitemail 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
I don't even use Netflix or some other source to watch the same shit. I watch YouTubers.