I think editors and media companies have a lens by which they see the world and they interpret the news to us through that lens. They may make decisions to write on one subject and bury another, ask these questions and not those questions, and the like to produce the reporting they think is most meaningful and true. And that lens they apply may or may not agree with the conceptions of their audience and it might shape the way their audience members end up thinking about the world. I think it's important to think carefully about where you get your news from for this reason. Journalists have a much smaller remit in applying their lens on the world. But they are professionals and they do things that you can't expect of Joe Blow on the street with a cellphone camera. Stuff like asking multiple people about the same event to make sure the stories match up. Looking at official records to make sure they agree with what people tell them. Authenticating video that purports to show a thing. Being careful with their language to not inject emotion or bias into their reporting. And, of course, there is a wide range of skill and professionalism among journalists and I've seen plenty that I don't think are even worthy of the name. Mainstream media usually hire at least competent people and some outfits have very good people in these regards. Fringe outfits are more a mixed bag. So again, you need to think carefully about where you get your news for this reason. So, yeah, I think mainstream media's journalism strives to be honest and fair as they see it, but "objectivity" is a matter of whether the audience has the same worldview as the editor. Now, you tell me, do you think social media and the randos you follow on twitter are honest, fair, and objective?
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/bbc/ Overall, we rate the BBC Left-Center biased based on story selection that slightly favors the left. We also rate them High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing of information. Although they have failed a fact-check, they appropriately issued a correction. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/la-times-los-angeles-times/ Overall, we rate the LA Times Left-Center Biased based on editorial positions that favor the left and High for factual reporting due to a clean fact-check record. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/npr/ Overall, we rate NPR (National Public Radio) Left-Center Biased based on story selection that leans slightly left and High for factual reporting due to thorough sourcing and accurate news reporting. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/fox-news-bias/ Overall, we rate Fox News right biased based on editorial positions that align with the right and Questionable due to the promotion of propaganda, conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, the use of poor sources, and numerous false claims and failed fact checks. Straight news reporting from beat reporters is generally fact-based and accurate, which earns them a Mixed factual rating. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/libs-of-tiktok-bias/ Overall, we rate Libs of TikTok as an extreme right-biased and questionable source based on the promotion of right-wing propaganda, conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, lack of transparency, numerous failed fact checks, and citations by anti-hate organizations. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/tweetsATWshares/ Overall, we rate Twitter users as delusional biased based on the dissemination of unsubstantiated claims, conspiracy theories, and misinformation. While some tweets may provide factual information, the platform is often rife with biased opinions and distorted narratives that cater to the user's personal beliefs rather than objective reality. Additionally, the lack of fact-checking mechanisms and the prevalence of echo chambers further contribute to the propagation of delusional content.
I've noticed that you frequently appeal to a supposed higher authority. The funny thing about leftists is that they often claim to be opposed to multi-billion dollar corporate behemoths while simultaneously swallowing every morsel of what their media outlets broadcast to them.
The Washington Establishment DESPISES X because it is a free speech platform and users regularly eviscerate the LIES spewed by Washington elites. Your problem is your inability to discern truth from misinformation, for which the Washington Establishment is king at spreading!
Any and all but I view all of them through a lense of skepticism. I've been burned a few times probably like everyone else and so I try to be more discerning.
Your social media algorithmic feed fine tuned to maximize engagement by reconfirming your predisposed biases is how you absorb how the world operates around you isn't it?
I try to guard against that. By the way, did your trusted sources ever confirm their repeated accusations that Trump is a Russian agent?
God is always speaking to you if you would only listen; he's telling you to repent and abandon your false MAGA idol. Listen. Pray harder.
Man, I gave you 3 paragraphs explaining why I believe what I do. You give me 1 sentence and zero thinking.
Skepticism is good. But treating all sources of information as equally untrustworthy is not how skepticism or critical thinking works. So, a random person I don’t know making a claim online should receive less credence than an established news media company, for the simple reason that random people have far less at stake if they are shown to be promoting clearly falsehoods. Moreover, people that cultivate a “news bubble following” through algorithmic engagement, where their target audience are unlikely to poke holes in their coverage, are risking far less by putting out unvetted or poorly sourced information. All of this is true regardless of the political leanings of the random person or the new media company we’re talking about.
National political coverage is a JOKE. Most of them are parrots for their Washington masters and they are serial liars with ZERO integrity and 60 Minutes is at the top of the list along with the New York Times. Do you not know this?
