Kneejerk reactions to initial (must be first)/hyperbolic reporting, whose fault is it?

[ttwtt78640]

You cannot disallow editorials. What you can do is not fund them.

That is true to a limited extent, but few (if any) ‘news’ sources lack editorials or ‘news analysis’. As I noted, most media bias is accomplished by simple omission (which is also editorial choice) - the events or situations which they elect not to report as ‘news’ have a large impact on having an informed population (audience?).

 

[Cope]

That is true to a limited extent, but few (if any) ‘news’ sources lack editorials or ‘news analysis’. As I noted, most media bias is accomplished by simple omission (which is also editorial choice) - the events or situations which they elect not to report as ‘news’ have a large impact on having an informed population (audience?).

I don't disagree but that just goes along with my thinking that "we the people" have become weak minded and stupid.
NEWS used to be news. Today it's a splattering of news and then editorializing about what it should mean depending on the slant of the 'news' organization.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I don't disagree but that just goes along with my thinking that "we the people" have become weak minded and stupid.
NEWS used to be news. Today it's a splattering of news and then editorializing about what it should mean depending on the slant of the 'news' organization.

That is absolutely true. My point is that much of that “splattering of news” is carefully edited (selected?) to promote a political message (aka propaganda).

In the following (linked) article, the bias (time dedicated to a covering a ‘news’ story) is obvious. It also shows its own bias by using the terminology “unconfirmed Hunter Biden emails”, but the NYT (and other left leaning ‘news’ organizations) intentionally made no effort to verify (or discredit, other than by implication) them. Obviously, it is fairly easy to verify an eMail since it contains all parties involved (from, to and cc).

Fox News Is Covering Hunter Biden Claims More Than 2016 WikiLeaks Emails (Published 2020)

In contrast, CNN and MSNBC gave more airtime to the Podesta cache four years ago, according to the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab.

www.nytimes.com

 

[code1211]

Not entirely.

There's your first mistake, right there. Why would anyone count on cable news as their primary sources? For one thing, it's never in depth. It's loaded with slanted 'analysts' who try to persuade us how to view the news.

Nothing wrong with reading BBC and AlJazeera, etc.


I think we've always had to do that. At least it's how I was taught.

Social media and the ability to do a google search of any topic has altered news dramatically and we have to be more wary than ever to make sure we've been given credible news. But your primary concern that we are being nudged into making uninformed decisions has a lot to do with the instantaneous feedback we get on the internet--on message boards like this and in comment sections and on fb and twitter. Endless voices giving us opinions.

I remember the days when I read the newspaper or watched the 6 o'clock news, and the only people who would hear my reaction were whoever was in the room with me at the time. And I didn't hear anyone else's either until I got chatting with people, maybe, later on. Three or four days later, there might be a few letters to the editor about it in the paper. Those were the sources--MSM tv reporting and the newspaper. Maybe a magazine later in the month with a more in depth analysis. Now we can jump on line and put in our two cents worth on any breaking news, whether it is factually presented or not. Endless quarreling. Nonstop efforts to persuade. Continual confusion and retractions and counter arguments.

Very true.

The ability to communicate is creating many opportunities and destroying some.

One comment I read somewhere was that:

We used to be told what happened and then we needed to determine how we feel. Now we are told how we feel and we need to determine what happened.

So, in the case of Trump, as one example, we were told to feel that he was a bad person. We were told to ignore his outcomes.

The result is that we got Biden. We were told to feel he is a good person. We were also told to ignore his outcomes.

Well, his outcomes are horrendous. so horrendous that they cannot be ignored. They are really, REALLY hurting us.

The good thing about this is that more people are asking the key question:

"If this is true, what else must be true?"