Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
IMO, the 24/7 'biased opinions' in the name of "news," has become a serious danger to our society. It follows the old adage, "If you repeat something enough, people will believe it." The media pretense that they are trustworthy, ... has long-ago been sold to the highest bidder.
One might say, "If you believe everything you hear on the "news," internet or TV, you deserve to be deceived. But, How is one to find 'truth' today when the public is bombarded with 360-degrees of opinions spouted by "news sources" 24/7? Of course I believe in 'freedom of the press' and 'freedom of speech,' but, not when it is sold to the highest bidder a 'political weapon' or for advertising and financial gain.
There used to be a "Truth in Advertising" law" which has fallen by the wayside. If America doesn't wake-up and demand a minimum public truth standard from its "news" (ie; verifiable by proof and reliable sources), the voice of America will be entirely spoken and 'owned' by big money interests.
It's not censorship or free speech, when it places limits on the 'freedom' to yell "FIRE" in a crowded auditorium. For example, when "free speech" (and "freedom of the press"), completely justified burning, vandalizing and looting in the streets ... as it did this past year!
I find the the AP is a good source of unbiased news. I go there first. Then, I go to NBC News. Then I visit HuffPost.
The AP is a trusted source, and its stories about national and international news are often quoted verbatim by newspapers and local TV stations. I believe the AP is non profit, but I have never confirmed that.
I like NBC news pretty well. HuffPost is something of a guilty pleasure. These places are online sources. We do not subscribe to a newspaper or watch TV news.
Sometimes you can find different stories at the NPR site.
I don’t want to get all my news from Huffpost for the same reason I would not recommend getting all your news from FOX or Newsmax.
Our press is free. Just investigate news coverage in Russia or Saudi Arabia. But, a free press cannot publish lies or slander without suffering consequences. And if a news source gets its stories consistently wrong, it might suffer credibility problems.
A lot of what s reported is certainly biased, but it isn't necessarily untrue. Let's say a study is published that 49% of the population is affected by XYZ. One news source may report "Nearly half of all people now affected by XYZ." Another may report, "Most people not affected by XYZ." Both are technically correct, but one makes it sound as though XYZ is a huge problem, and another makes it's sound like it's not much of an issue at all.
You are not, however, allowed to just spout things that just aren't true. Freedom of speech and the press are not and never were absolute. You can't jeopardize someone's safety (i.e. yell "fire" in a crowded theater, incite violence, or threaten physical harm on someone). That's also why libel and slander are against the law.
Freedom of speech has never meant that anyone can say anything anywhere without consequences. It means that one can't be punished by the US government for criticizing the government. Look at what's happening to Alexei Navalny in Russia right now--his life is in danger for being critical of Putin. That is not having freedom of speech. A private social media company banning someone for violating their terms of service is not limiting someone's constitutional freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech has never meant that anyone can say anything anywhere without consequences. It means that one can't be punished by the US government for criticizing the government. Look at what's happening to Alexei Navalny in Russia right now--his life is in danger for being critical of Putin. That is not having freedom of speech. A private social media company banning someone for violating their terms of service is not limiting someone's constitutional freedom of speech.
Reminds me of an old stand up comedian's line "we have free speech in Russia, but the difference is in the U.S. you are still free after speaking" Para phrasing because I can't remember his name, but he was/is a Russian Comedian.
The proliferation of news sources, each exercising their free speech rights, makes it more difficult for the consumer to separate news from opinion, especially when they get blended.
On broadcast, I only do NPR & PBS. Cable is CNN only. For digital, there are so many options I'm willing to try anything once. I get a daily email from so many sources that I never open all, due to time and duplication issues. I prefer the email format, rather than going to the website, where I might get distracted, except in a fast moving story. I trust the sources to send me what they believe is the best of their website, and I just scan the headlines.
I get daily emails from the main US and EU papers, AP & Reuters, and specialist publications on subjects of interest. I used be a fan of Politico, but the emails became too wordy and time consuming. I much prefer Axios as an alternative. Bottom line, being a educated news consumer could be a full time job if you let it. I rarely do opinion, unless I stumble on it, everybody has one, or many more.
Reminds me of an old stand up comedian's line "we have free speech in Russia, but the difference is in the U.S. you are still free after speaking" Para phrasing because I can't remember his name, but he was/is a Russian Comedian.
I remember a similar story about a Russian and an American talking about free speech. The American said, "In my country, I can freely and openly say that the President is an idiot and doing a lousy job, and not get in trouble." The Russian quickly retorted, "Da, Da, it's just like that in my country! I can also freely and openly say that your President is an idiot and doing a lousy job - and not get into trouble."
well since 'authoring" books of history or of religious means are considered free speech and "free Press", I consider the "author" to be the source of recognition ( viable) or a complete loon contingent on the substance contained from their medium.
In regions where certain even well posed Books are banned, then this debate stands. Some folks are speaking truths that are silenced by the government for which they reside or produced the material.
I dearly detest this "Main Media News" is "Bad- unreliable- bias mentality. Reading and listening skills are the overall handicap for some receivers of information.
Misuse or twisted data can be mishandled . So overall the old addage "consider the source" holds some weight.
Modern times does allow retractions or court proceedings for slander/ libel. So there is that to utilize when some misinformation harms a business or individual.
You can spin anything to make it mean anything you want it to. That's Journalism 325; Advertising 435
As a congenital liar (I'm just heterozygous for the trait) that adage "it takes one to know one" plays big here. I can spot a liar. All you need is an agenda, and lying is like, so "in" these days. I now refuse to watch TeeVee.
Despite my background in infectious diseases, I can honestly say I know almost nothing about this COVID thing (Is it real? Are people actually dying from this? Just how many? What exactly is with this mask business? Are the conspiracy nuts actually on to something? Can there actually be a vaccine for a coronavirus? Never could before) You don't really know and neither do I.
IMO, the 24/7 'biased opinions' in the name of "news," has become a serious danger to our society. It follows the old adage, "If you repeat something enough, people will believe it." The media pretense that they are trustworthy, ... has long-ago been sold to the highest bidder.
One might say, "If you believe everything you hear on the "news," internet or TV, you deserve to be deceived. But, How is one to find 'truth' today when the public is bombarded with 360-degrees of opinions spouted by "news sources" 24/7? Of course I believe in 'freedom of the press' and 'freedom of speech,' but, not when it is sold to the highest bidder a 'political weapon' or for advertising and financial gain.
There used to be a "Truth in Advertising" law" which has fallen by the wayside. If America doesn't wake-up and demand a minimum public truth standard from its "news" (ie; verifiable by proof and reliable sources), the voice of America will be entirely spoken and 'owned' by big money interests.
It's not censorship or free speech, when it places limits on the 'freedom' to yell "FIRE" in a crowded auditorium. For example, when "free speech" (and "freedom of the press"), completely justified burning, vandalizing and looting in the streets ... as it did this past year!
Well said Jghorton. I personally think that for the most part, the 'mainstream' news sources still adhere to the ethical standards of the past, but the right-wing media has become much more sensationalist and entertainment-based and just want to blame the other side. For example, statistics show that many on the right obtain their information from sources from one or two sources such as Rush Limbaugh, which is definitely not a good news source. Other statistics indicate that many Republicans will only listen to one or two sources of 'trusted' news and they abandon all other forms of media, whereas typical independents and Democrats will read a variety of sources (see source below). I am not sure why this is the case, but I suspect that our right-wing friends are more likely to abandon information, even science or factually based, if it disagrees with the views that they want to hold. Case in point global warming.
The left is not completely immune to this either, but at least the news sources on the far left still try to adhere to factual news reporting, at least when compared to the news that the right-wing folks. Our social media sites, such as Facebook and Twitter on the other hand, try to deliver news that is quite narrowly tailored to the unique views of the individual in order to capture more attention from the audience for capitalistic marketing purposes. The more attention that they can hold from each user means that they will receive more ad-revenue and information that they can sell to third parties. This too is quite dangerous. We would not have the crazy theories, such as QAnnon, to be so widespread if it was not for social media.
I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiments; we need to try to at least have some sort of a baseline in which we all agree, and if we don't fix these issues we are in a world of mess...
Just my take,
Gregory
PS If anyone is wondering about my political affiliation, I am a moderate swing voter and since voting for Reagan in 1984, I have voted for the President winning the overall national vote in every election, other than once.
Last edited by gregory77; 01-26-2021 at 03:26 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
