3
3
0
Is there any news channels not used to push an agenda now? It seems like some stations report extensively on one story that damages their opposing view while the other stations assist with the cover-ups by not reporting. And vice versa. I just want to go online or tv and see oh wow this happened and just the facts. Let me determine if it is worth more of my attention or not. Am I the only one out there that feels only local news can actually achieve that now?
Posted in these groups: 
Politics
Politics
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 17
5
5
0
The trick is .... there never WAS non-biased news. Newspapers came into being to push the agendas of their owners, actual information was a side-benefit. There was a brief window where news organizations made a point of trying to appear unbiased - but that was about appearance, not reality. Check into the actual history of some of the great names of "just the facts" news - Murrow, Kronkite, Rather, to name just a few and you will quickly discover that their coverage was far from "fair & balanced." They ("big media", for lack of a better, less loaded term) were just the big boys on the block and had monolithic control over the message and image.
Remember, something as simple as WHICH story gets ink or time on the newscast, or where in the paper/show it goes can skew its "importance." in the eyes of readers, even with factual "reporting." This is before getting into whether they are "terrorists", "militants", "freedom fighters", or "youths."
The closest you can come now (or ever) to "unbiased" is to get information from multiple sources with different agendas, and hope to find the truth somewhere in the middle.
The only differences are:
1. Now we know it
and
2. Fewer pretend to be neutral (which I actually prefer).
Remember, something as simple as WHICH story gets ink or time on the newscast, or where in the paper/show it goes can skew its "importance." in the eyes of readers, even with factual "reporting." This is before getting into whether they are "terrorists", "militants", "freedom fighters", or "youths."
The closest you can come now (or ever) to "unbiased" is to get information from multiple sources with different agendas, and hope to find the truth somewhere in the middle.
The only differences are:
1. Now we know it
and
2. Fewer pretend to be neutral (which I actually prefer).
(5)
(0)
5
5
0
I don't even watch the national news on TV anymore. If I find hear of a story and find it interesting, I'll research it myself. If something happens, I don't need some bobble-head puppet relaying it to me.
(5)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
SGT (Join to see) THIS. If you get your "news" from the cable "news" networks, all you're getting is hype/agenda meant to keep a specific audience tuned in. I get all my news online. Sites like Politico, Real Clear Politics, Memorandum, Beat the Press, Incidental Economist are good, and then I'll also read the online versions of NY Times, Wall St Journal, etc. I also listen to CSPAN and NPR while driving.
(1)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
@MAj Ian Dews, that's where I get mine, too. I agree with you. The only news I take less skeptically (though I should) is local news, because sometimes I can't find the coverage elsewhere online. However, I don't trust this small-town newspaper here.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
News, we don't need no stinking news. We have reality TV now so who needs the one way, hyper-intensified, over-produced, hijacked versions of the truth we are force fed on a daily basis.
(3)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google