Why do people think that mass media is supposed to be unbiased? Was there ever t

1. 67

   ptosisposted 6 years ago

   Why do people think that mass media is supposed to be unbiased? Was there ever time that it was?
   
   What is your favorite trusted political news source that is truly unbiased? Isn't unbiased reporting a metaphysical impossibility? Being trusted doesn't equate with being unbiased. What is your opinion of the following; findthedata, politico, politifact, diffen, ontheissues ... ?
   
   

   replyreport
2. 93

   lisavollrathposted 6 years ago

   I am old enough to remember Chet Huntley, David Brinkley, and Walter Cronkite, all old-school news reporters who just gave us the facts, with a minimum of personal thoughts. They seemed unbiased at the time.
   
   I think a lot of bias now comes from corporate control of the media. News is about profit, rather than about reporting the facts. Reporters are personalities, rather than brilliant journalists.
   
   I also think there's a lot of confusion between what is news, what is opinion, and what is satire or comedy. A lot of what is quoted as news these days is opinion or entertainment, rather than fact.

   replyreport
   1. 67

      ptosisposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Yes, controversy sells papers (or click bait)

      replyreport
3. 51

   bradmasterOCcalposted 6 years ago

   Mass news media needs to be reporting the news, the who, what, and when. Then make sure they got their facts verified, and their validate their source. That is the concept of news.
   
   Since the creation of Cable 24/7 "News", they added more fat then there was meat. That is because there isn't enough Real News to fill 24/7.
   
   Before that the News was Reporting Events etc, and there were Editorials by the media to state their positions. Now the "News" has been replaced by the Editorials, opinions, and views of the owners of the media. It has become of form of social reengineering, instead of the factual, verifiable and investigated "News".
   
   We don't really have any sources of Real News anymore.
   
   When the final hours of the election started to change the media predictions from HRC to Trump, the media especially the biased left ones looked more like the Clinton Campaign Team than a News Org.
   
   That is in NO Way a New Org, and it clearly shows that they didn't give reliable factual reports of events during the election campaign.
   
   Now, they are demanding, and threatening anyone that brings up Seth Rich. They claim many things that are equally applicable to the no evidence Russian Trump investigation.
   
   Neither the Rich, or Russia issues has an ending resolving it. So, why is the unsolved Murder also not fair game to investigate?
   
   Why aren't executive branch leaks of classified information also as important to investigate. And why should the media keep using anonymous sources that leak the existing investigation. That defeats the purpose of having a special prosecutor.
   
   Like the Russia Trump dossier which the media published saying all 17 US intelligence agencies think it means something, yet even in their own report they note, that the document has not been verified, validated or considered to be accurate. In fact, this dossier was uncovered as fake.
   
   Additionally, not one of the agencies did any independent investigation on it, they all reference the same document. Then why do we need 17 different agencies if they don't work independently?
   
   The point here is that media calling themselves "News" org cannot be biased. If they want to change their name to Cable OpEds, that is OK, but there is no equality today between "News" and "OpEds".
   
   There are too many people that believe what ever they hear or see on these media outlets.
   
   Today, there is little difference between WWE and News Media.
   
   There are some real stuff in both, but the end is already determined.

   replyreport
   1. 51

      bradmasterOCcalposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      NEWS is reporting Events, accurately, and validating and verifying the info. Slanting that report takes it out of the realm of NEWS, and into OPED, opinion editorials. News needs to be objective, while OPED can be anyway it wants to be.

      replyreport
4. 89

   peoplepower73posted 6 years ago

   I trusted Charles Kuralt, the author of that quote.  I also trusted the Huntley Brinkley Report, and  Walter Cronkite.  These were newscasts of the 60's and 70's before Reagan repealed the fairness doctrine. These were fair and balanced, one hour newscasts that aired during the evening, not 24 hour echo chambers of today.  They were called the news, not shows like we have today.  Everything changed after Reagan repealed the Fairness doctrine. Fox News was born with a conservative bent that Reagan wanted. CNN became 24 hours of news shows, with more of a liberal bent.  Today we have a president, that calls CNN fake news, and yet goes to Sean Hannity'show which is really fake news.

   replyreport