Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!
T.L.Also, epstein didn't kill himself.
T.L.Also, epstein didn't kill himself.
freestyler540Things happen in the world. Journalism is about telling you what happened. How can events be bias? The consequences of that event can be interpreted.
Opinions are bias takes on those events.
The referenced post has been removed.
r00kieI've been lopking to various local networks for news lately. They tend to not follow the bias of their national brands as bad. Also report from where things happen and not a studio a thousand miles away. When things hit the fan this summer looking at different local outlets from around the country gave a very different picture of events than any national outlet.
BrandoComandoI blame the removal of the fairness doctrine. There used to be a law that media outlets had to show both sides of a political argument. It was removed in 1987. It's largely credited with media bias and party polarization.
"The fairness doctrine of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, was a policy that required the holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was honest, equitable, and balanced. The FCC eliminated the policy in 1987 and removed the rule that implemented the policy from the Federal Register in August 2011.
The fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented. The demise of this FCC rule has been considered by some to be a contributing factor for the rising level of party polarization in the United States.
- Wikipedia (The best source. fuck you high school teachers)
JAHpowThere is no news outlet that exists anymore without some sort of bias or agenda. Personally, I think all major news outlets should be burned to the ground.
With that being said, no news outlet is so good that they will tell you the whole narrative of a story. But no news outlet is so bad that they won't tell you part of a narrative. To get the whole narrative, you have to read news from multiple sources from the left, right, and "center".
A good place to go to achieve this is through Ground News. They're a news aggregator who will rate the bias distribution of a story from a bunch of different news outlets. Then they provide links to read those articles.
You need to read multiple sources. Don't live in an echo chamber.
DolansLebensraumTo answer your question,
Yes. Either watch a few of his shows and see how many of your fact checks catch tucker in a lie. You will find it happens about once for every 1000 times you hear a lie from cucknn and msnbcuck.
the righteousness of the left doesnt come from defending facts or defending reality. They get their righteousness bc they think the robinhoods will always be righteous and the person who gets rich by selling you chemo to save your childs life will always be evil.
If you follow the facts you will see that the most wealth and happyness will come to an “atlas shrugged” type civilization where people learn to not bite the hand that feeds them.
And to be fair, an atlas shrugged civilization will be better able to help the needy than some metastatically central planned socialist regime ever could.
efficiency is a friend to everybody, both rich and poor, and if you disagree, you probably look like this \/
HypeBeastI wouldn't go so far to say major outlets should be burned to the ground lol. Obviously the major right (Fox) and major left (CNN) are heavily biased-I won't even begin to discuss radical right "news" outlets cuz they're not news. I agree to always read articles from both sides. If they cite something, follow the source; it's hilarious when news channels cite some breakthrough study but when I go to the source it's a poorly designed study that I'd rip apart. If you read a potentially charged article, Google it and check an alternative network's article on it. If it reads like opinion, search for another article that is just facts.
Anyway had on Fox the other day cuz my cable had like 5 channels and fuck me they are worse than CNN at times. Like report the fucking news. When tf did fox get so bad at just news... Sure if you wanna have interviews with extremely biased individuals, great, get both sides on the screen. But the anchors need to stay neutral, and I think Fox particularly does the worst job of staying anchor neutral. I guess the White House wanted (or may have already) to declare a public health crisis on "gun violence" so the anchor and commentators were somehow making the connection that means they're going to take your guns away-literally come to the houses of millions of Americans and take their semiauto rifles. Jesus calm down. There is an epidemic of gun violence but it's not with legal gun owners. I highly doubt any gun control bill restricting semiauto rifles will ever make it through the senate. There's a dem senator from WV who will never be on board. Also way too many moderates from gun friendly states to revert to Clinton era restrictions. And worst case if something does pass restricting new sales, it will be reverted eventually.
CNN second worst.
Personally I try to stick to Reuters, BBC, AP, and then my daily is USA TODAY cuz I grew up reading their paper and it's usually pretty good. USA today is getting more biased and full of ads but they also do a good job of providing counter opinions if they have an editorial.
Tldr: I like news
JAHpowBut no news outlet is so bad that they won't tell you part of a narrative.