Inside the Press – The reality of the media addressing politics and bias


Firstly, I know I am going to receive a lot of anti-media comments on this Mytake. I’m no longer addressing those people because, quite frankly, being in my field, I am completely jaded by it and I’m not going to defend my position against someone who wants to believe all media is false, evil and ill-intended.

Closest yall will ever get to a reveal.
Closest y'all will ever get to a reveal.

You are free to have your opinions, I don’t care that you’re anti-media. Go write in your friggin' diary about it bud.

However, a long-time friend of mine @TonyBologna25 admitted to me that he has had some anti-press sentiments in his life and asked that I, a journalist, explain to this platform what things look like from my point of view. I’m specifically going to be addressing how the media handles politics and the existence of bias.

So, is all media 100 per cent unbiased? No. It’s virtually impossible to have humans operate in any business, whether its political, social, economics, retail, or press fields. Period. Where the media is supposed to draw the line in the sand is through representing both sides factually, no matter how it makes either party look. I’ll get more into that later.

Opinions and bias – where is the line?

As journalists, our jobs are to not outright express personal opinions or inject extremely obvious, harsh biases into our work without properly representing the opposition. The only exception to this rule is if you work on the features desk and write actual opinion pieces – something the misinformed often mistake for regular news stories. News stories are based solely on facts and information.

Opinion pieces are exactly that – opinions of the author.

What do you do when you find that one news institution is subtly or staunchly a clear supporter of the life or right movement? As a reader, that’s genuinely up to you. But if you want to think critically, there are a few things you have to understand how the media approaches politics.

For one: REAL news institutions cannot outright lie or spread misinformation that hasn’t been attributed to a particular source. We cannot simply fictionalize events that didn’t happen without losing our jobs.

It’s a simple fact that has been in place for years. Does that mean there are journalists who haven’t outright lied? Of course not. Historically, there have been scandals that have led to more stringent editing and fact-checking as a result.

For example, an experience I had with an editor went as follows: I wrote a profile piece on a woman who grew up with an extremely alcoholic mother and made reference to: “when she was just a little girl…” My editor refused to publish the story until I got the exact AGE she was when I referenced her: “just being a little girl.”

Why? Because not doing so was not 100 per cent completely factual – it was too general and open to misinterpretation. Being a little girl could mean she was three or even 10-years-old, which could completely change the narrative of the story.

Now, I will say not all media companies are made equal. Some may not include all of the details that could threaten their position when referencing another party, but usually, those institutions are either independent or much smaller companies that aren’t held to the same responsibility as others by their audience.

Fox News, of course, would be the exception – but Fox News is more of a tabloid than a news source, I’ll do a separate Mytake on that subject.

The Audience

Yes, the audience actually has a responsibility when it comes to their readership. We need you to hold us just as responsible as we try to hold political leaders by pointing out inaccuracies and being critical. However, this doesn’t mean blind hatred of any news institution that doesn’t perfectly mirror your political preference.

You have to really READ and UNDERSTAND the material you’re bringing into question and try to see it from the journalist’s point of view. If say, someone from the Toronto Star writes a story about something super positive someone in the liberal party did for the community, like donating to an orphanage, it’s going to be their responsibility to see if the other parties have done something similar around the same time.

NOTE: this representation is a dramatization of the typical, over-played perspective of liberal versus conservatives in the media.

They don’t represent my opinions But, let’s say just for hypothetical sake that the conservative party instead did something like host a rally in support of your rights to bear arms. You can’t then be angry at the journalist for writing the story as: Liberal party donates to charity while conservatives oppose gun restriction– because it’s not wrong.

It’s current and that’s what happened. Yes, it doesn’t look good on the other party, but if the journalist reached out to that party to give them a chance to speak, and that’s what they had to say they were up to, that’s what we write.

Where the journalist has responsibility in that situation is to make sure they ask the other party what they feel about the country’s orphan issue and how their party would address that problem. They can’t just leave it at: What are you guys doing? They should bring up the focus of the story to give that party the opportunity to equally weigh in on the issue.


Not so much, because it’s no longer new and the current party leader isn’t going to be the one who did it. If it had been maybe a year or two prior and the current leader is the one who donated, it may be mentioned in that case to grant merit to the other side - something all logical journalists should do.

Who is responsible?

The responsibility of the media when addressing politics and the differences between fake news and reality As media, our job is to write and represent the facts of what is currently happening in our political climate while giving each side the opportunity to voice their opinion.

If we talk to one party, we will always reach out to talk to others. It isn’t our responsibility to make sure we represent everyone in the best possible light – it’s to address current issues and provide the genuine responses of those parties regardless of how it makes them look.

At the end of the day, people frustrated by those who point out the stupid shit politicians say should stop being so angry at journalists and rather turn that anger to their party leader for saying it in the first place.

However, on the flip side, we have a responsibility as the media to make sure we don’t take quotes out of context and provide the full, unfiltered truth behind what was said. True journalism is intended to hold the powerful responsible, which is why political leaders are the focus of criticism.

It isn’t just because we oppose their views, it’s to make sure you, as a member of our society, have the opportunity to see where the problems are and form your opinions based on the truth.

When it comes to fake news, however, we all have a responsibility in eradicating it.

We, as journalists, need to ensure our information is correct and to attribute anything given to us by word of mouth. As an audience, you need to look at where your news is coming from.

You have no idea how many times I saw fake news about celebrity suicides or other nonsense being shared on social media as a click scam because the person who saw it read the headline and assumed it was true.

Those sites are not news institutions – they’re cloute-chasing frauds. Be critical, think logically and remember that journalists aren’t all out to get you. But, also hold us responsible when you think we got it wrong or if you feel we should be representing one side or the other better. At the end of the day, we’re here to serve you, so those reality checks can be helpful.


Inside the Press – The reality of the media addressing politics and bias
Add Opinion

Most Helpful Guys

  • OlderAndWiser
    When I was in high school, I studied this chart entitled "how a bill becomes a law.". It described the process of a bill being introduced, referred to committees, being signed by the governor, etc. When I was in law school, I worked in the state legislature for two years. That high school chart wasn't wrong but it left out many important details, like lobbyists and donations to election campaigns.

    What you have given us is the high school level equivalent of a journalism ethics course. I have no reason to doubt anything that you said except the degree to which others in your profession actually there to ethical standards.

    "Democrats donate to orphanage while Republicans vote against him control." As a journalist, you know that there are a thousand ways to report those two stories and how you report - even simply combining the two into one story - is intended to shape public opinion. If you are dedicated to reporting the truth, you give no heed to public opinion our the consequences of reporting the truth;. you don't sit in your anchor seat crying on election night.

    You defend the orphanage/guy rights story by starting that it's all factual and it's irrelevant that Republicans previously donated to an orphanage. What is relevant is that you NEVER ran a story that said "Republicans donate to orphanage while Democrats vote to raise taxes."

    Of course there are members of every profession who conscientiously follow their rules of ethics and I am sure that there are journalists who are ethical. But your content is controlled by an editor who reflects the biases of the owner and your explanation of ethics doesn't dispel our actual experience with bias. In fact, in your myTake, you did take the opportunity to call Fox News a tabloid, but you made no mention of MSNBC and other left leaning "news" outlets that are heavily infused with opinion.
    Is this still revelant?
    • The contrast between their treatment of the Kavanaugh confirmation hearing and the Biden rape allegations illustrates the bias of the mainstream media. The contrast is indefensible.

    • "Always believe the woman. . . unless she has accused a Democrat."

    • In other words, she's biased as well. At least that's what I thought. Especially calling out a specific news outlet and no mention of the others. What a treat to finally know the truth from an 'unbiased journalist'.

  • MrOracle
    I'm an independent, but in my opinion, a big part of the problem is that "news channels" (on both sides) have 3 times as many hours of opinion shows as they spend on news - and it seems that most viewers can't tell the difference. I see people on both sides complaining about the other's "news" when they are actually referring to opinion shows.

    But it's also disingenuous to say that the news shows aren't obviously heavily biased - many have publicly admitted their bias! - and in the example you gave, it's clearly an editorial decision to run stories based on a perspective that gives their side the best image and the other side the worst.

    The facts chosen to be discussed in the article may be literally true, but it's very easy to prioritize the facts that support your side and spin others to demonize the other - and that's literally what happens every day at virtually every national news outlet - by both sides.

    Real objectivism in journalism died during the Vietnam war, never to return, as biased reporting makes far more money for everyone in the business.
    Is this still revelant?
    • I don't fully agree with that, but I'm also not a television reporter, so I can't really speak to the television side of things. I have always and will always choose to work strictly in print for a lot of the reasons you brought up here.

Most Helpful Girls

  • I'm not a journalist (obviously) but as I understand it journalists can be held accountable for what they publish by the IPSO. It always seems odd that those who dismiss trained journalists, who are aware of the laws regarding their professions, will always believe some guy in YouTube broadcasting from his bedroom.
    Is this still revelant?
    • They are not held accountable though. CNN openly edited footage to imply the president said something completely different (he criticsed a violently gang (MS13) yet they edited it so that it sounded like his response to the gang question was the one to the immigration question even though they were two separate questions said at two separate times. They phrase their statements in such a way that they can say what ever they want without recourse. For instance they will say "critics say" or something to that affect to insert their own opinions as no one will be able to find out what "critic" they are talking about giving them deniability. They create sensational headlines because they know that most people don't read past them, the few that do don't read past the first paragraph or so so that is itself tailored for that affect. In the US the Washington post wrote a story, the person they interviewed stated they had completely misrepresented them and lied about she had said in order to create their own narrative despite the fact that it was her story. They said they were sorry that's how she interpreted it and never retracted the story. So yeah, we know for a fact that they lie through their teeth and their is no consequences, that's not an opinion but provable fact.

    • @hellionthesagereborn Give examples.
      Those aren't examples.
      Those are manufactured gripes to match your own bias. CNN is one of the best television broadcast news organizations you have in the United States.

    • @coffeewithcream Are you fucking with mem, because I feel like your fucking with me? Not examples? How is giving examples no longer examples? No, CNN is actually one of the worse news sources in the country and have been for years. They are entirely on the left (the owners of which donated massive amounts of money to Hillary Clintons campaign (not exactly impartial)), they lie (again, I gave you examples of them lying, you know the ones you decided were not examples because they didn't conform to your personal biases), and they manipulate (again, examples given you decided you didn't like htem so they don't count because. . . reasons.).

  • MzAsh
    Awesome take!

    On a side note, I’ve also studied journalism and I can tell you that sometimes the truth is more effed up than anything I could ever make up. But its stuff no one would believe.
    Is this still revelant?
    • That's exactly true and a lot of people don't ever consider that possibility.

Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

  • There’s nothing wrong with the media as a whole but the problem with the mainstream media is that it’s too close minded and it frequently uses arguments from authority. Furthermore there are “intellectuals” who like to assume that inferential statistics are the only valid proof when in reality it’s only the frosting on the cake.

    Just cause a person cited all sorts of “experts” doesn’t mean the information is always accurate. You can cite all sorts of articles from professionals that support your personal views while dismissing everything else that doesn’t support your views just because it doesn’t come from so called “certified professionals” but by doing so you create a groupthink echo chamber.

    For example: A person who assumed that only pharmaceutical medicine should be trusted but ignores the fact that studies have shown that more natural medicines yield similar results just because the person has stubborn skepticism on alternative medicine.

    Yes everyone has their biases but when you are in a profession where there is no room for bias, you have a burden to put your biases aside lest they cloud your analysis and cause you to form a faulty conclusion.
  • Lynx122
    You say you are jaded but I don't know this mytake still seems pretty in favor of the media you talk about the principles the media should have but do they actually follow them? I feel like you're not jaded enough yet.

    Nobody would pay a journalist 30 000 $ a day if they were actually doing their job right because everyone with that kind of money would dislike them. Just the fact that they're getting paid that much proves that they're sell outs and shouldn't be listened to no matter what network they're on. The fact that you singled out FOX News tells me that you haven't fully realised just how corrupt the media is. Yeah they do bad reporting but so does every other network. The rules of journalism have not been followed for a long time now they're just for show.

    Why do networks not send people to war zones anymore? Because it's easier to just rely on information from biased sources that tell them what they want to report instead of having someone go there and see the truth. Disinformation is the standard now it's not like it's once in a while or a mistake. If the military want something reported in a certain way that's how it's gonna be reported. The media are just the cheerleaders for the war machine they sell all the bullshit lies that justify these wars instead of challenging them.

    I don't follow the news at all anymore but before I quit all I watched was independent news because I can't even trust one word those corporate mouthpieces say. I don't know how hey live with themselves tbh.
  • Spiffy_and_Tails
    That all makes sense, and I'm sure the ones that are held responsible do report what truth they find. But I don't watch the news much because a lot of it seems pretty hypocritical-- I can give one example that's obvious, but I haven't watched it in months and I honestly don't want to. I can just ask people myself and figure out what I need to know.

    Basically my dad had the TV on during when Bernie Sanders was starting to campaign, and Trump was doing something like campaigning, too. I don't know what channel it was at but it was some big news channel, and they were reporting on it, and as far as I can remember it was back within the same minute. Literally back to back, when they said of Bernie Sanders that he was targeting his audience because he was saying stuff they wanted to hear, and then of Trump that he was throwing meat to the people listening, because he was.. saying stuff they wanted to hear.

    It was such a black and white switch from praise to insult about literally the same tactic that I couldn't take anything after that seriously, and just left the room.

    I would like to believe what you're saying is true of most news sources, but I don't think I'd watch them even if I did believe it. I honestly prefer to just do the research myself at this point.
  • I-am-a-nobody
    "We need you to hold us just as responsible"

    OK, we tried that, but at some point people just vote with their feet and walk away. And I realize that people have biases, but there was a time and there have been journalist who were at least somewhat balanced.
    • @I-am-a-nobody Bingo. The media has shown they are more a noise machine than a genuine news source. I completely agree with "voting with our feet" and walking away from the MSM. I can't bear MSNBC, CNN, and several others and I haven't watched them in at least a decade.

  • AllThatSweetJazz
    "The only exception to this rule is if you work on the features desk and write actual opinion pieces – something the misinformed often mistake for regular news stories. News stories are based solely on facts and information."
    A very frequent issue there is that often the pieces aren't labelled as opinion and it's pushed out as news. e. g Rachel Maddow. She's pretended to be news and then won a court case with the argument that she is just opinion.

    "REAL news institutions cannot outright lie or spread misinformation that hasn’t been attributed to a particular source. We cannot simply fictionalize events that didn’t happen without losing our jobs."
    They literally do though. We see it all the time, and these are not "scandals" that come from one person making a mistake and it being dealt with. We see fake news peddled and then swept under the rug, or stealth edits, or just doubling down and trusting in pubic bias to take their side. So what now?

    "smaller companies that aren’t held to the same responsibility as others by their audience."
    There's no shortage of huge corporations (e. g CNN) not being held to responsibility by their audience, and it's because they've fostered this audience, they've deliberately appealed to certain groups and gotten all the people who will watch them uncritically to gather around them -- and I think it's a bit ironic perhaps to be directing so much shade at FOX.

    "it’s going to be their responsibility to see if the other parties have done something similar around the same time."
    And if the media *only* chooses to highlight one party's work, then isn't that back on the media again? Are the public expected to do their own extensive journalistic work just to find out what one party is doing right when everything that is coming from the media is only in favor of one party? It muddies the waters a bit when all the positive framing for one party is abundant and propped up while good things from the opposition are ignored altogether.

    "You can’t then be angry at the journalist for writing the story as: Liberal party donates to charity while conservatives oppose gun restriction– because it’s not wrong."
    Depends how it's framed. There are very often much spicier and bias headlines and content within those articles that make no effort to hide that they are colouring the story in a way to suit their politics. e. g Basically anything that use "far-right", "misogynist" or "racist", etc. Or things like "claiming without evidence" or "credibly accused". It's a bunch of stuff unnecessarily injected into a story to influence you, not inform you.

    "It isn’t our responsibility to make sure we represent everyone in the best possible light"
    It kind of is actually. Or rather, the responsibility is to not use any "light" and just state the facts. The facts don't have to reflect well on someone, but the failing of the media, especially in the last 6 years or so, is that they very much do try to represent people in different lights. e. g "Orange man bad."

    "people frustrated by those who point out the stupid shit politicians say should stop being so angry at journalists and rather turn that anger to their party leader for saying it in the first place."
    Or maybe they're mad at the media for misrepresentation and the media is just being ignorant of it, perhaps even willingly ignorant. Happens all the time.

    "we have a responsibility as the media to make sure we don’t take quotes out of context and provide the full, unfiltered truth behind what was said."
    Absolutely, and this is another area where the media has definitely failed.

    "hold us responsible when you think we got it wrong or if you feel we should be representing one side or the other better. At the end of the day, we’re here to serve you, so those reality checks can be helpful."
    I agree with this, but too often it falls on deaf ears. Much of the MSM doesn't give a fuck.
  • Hepy82
    You can try and bury your head in the sand as much as you want but unbiased reporting by the media is long gone, and many peoples opinion of the media is accurate, take the BBC in the UK for example, supposed to be completely impartial because they are funded by a licence fee that everyone in the UK must pay, You've only got to take one look at their sorid behaviour during the EU referendum to come to this conclusion, show after show of remainer panelists talking down Brexiters like they were all dithering fools, failing to report on protests in Greece, France, Italy and Spain against the European Union, its not that they downright lie about things, its the fact they are very selective on what they report and bury everything which doesn't suit their narrative, why should you ask? Money of course, the EU gives the BBC additional funding, when we leave the EU they lose that additional funding. So of course their not gonna remain impartial, because of this, they've lost all respectability from the majority in this country, as we now think, "Who else funds them?" and gives them a bung here and there? What other news do they fail to report incase it upsets their donors? When does it stop? I can guarantee the Huffpost is partial funded by the EU, because I have never heard a bad word said against them from them. Yet there IS plenty wrong with EU, the protests around Europe clearly shows this, so I'm very grateful for independent journalism, hopefully it will be the way forward when the mainstream media begins to crumble because hardly anyone listens to them anymore.
  • TCredo
    Excellent post - thanks for sharing. It's a topic near and dear to my heart. One thing before I forget... if you have not seen it yet, I highly encourage everyone to watch the HBO docu called "After Truth: Disinformation and the Cost of Fake News" - it's chilling.

    I totally agree with using different sources of info but that, unfortunately, is a big part of the problem as it seems most folks stay within their comfort bubble of news. It's a shame really - and, I suggest, runs counter to human nature with wanting to be curious... to expand your mind.

    Do this at any moment of any day - pull up cnn. com and foxnews. com - put them side by side... almost always get the feeling the sites are from different planets.

    I try to get at least 3 inputs on a given story. And I do appreciate what you said about "journalists" but... I truly cannot name one pure journalist... and I am a news junkie - from most every source. I have lost faith in the titles of "journalist" or "correspondent" - there is bias, seemingly, with most everyone. Some more than others - and likely many don't even know they are expressing bias.

    And, most noticeably, I believe there is bias in too many people's ears... it's not just they hear what they want to hear but they almost predetermine what they are going to hear. It would be a wild experiment to take a speech Trump gave and a speech Obama gave - and then have some type of computer audio changer play the speeches vice versa so you hear Trump's voice say Obama's speech and vice versa. I bet... supporters of Obama would cry bloody murder just from hearing Trump's voice say what were Obama's words - and same for Trump's supporters hearing Obama say what were Trump's words.

    To the audience... amen to your points with one amplification... to form your opinions, read articles from different sources and not just memes or tweets or propaganda (that's everything from any campaign...). It's frightening to think how influential that type of BS is... especially with how easy it is now to alter pics or vids etc...

    I would, if I may, call out one part of your post - which I know you stated as a dramatization. It's the part where you said:

    "You can’t then be angry at the journalist for writing the story as: Liberal party donates to charity while conservatives oppose gun restriction– because it’s not wrong."

    From what you described leading up to that point, I actually do think that is wrong and it would make me think it was intentionally misleading to express an opinion. While those two events might have occurred at exactly the same time, they very likely had nothing to do with each other - but putting them together (even using the word "while") connects them as a cause and effect. Also, earlier your example said the conservative group was holding a rally to support the right to bear arms... but that got translated to "oppose gun restriction" - the different phrasing tips a hint (or more) of an opinion.

    That all aside - great My Take - and 100% no matter what side of what topic anyone is on, we all should rally around rooting out truly fake news (the phrase has become meaningless with over and improper use - but the point is still valid). Again, please please please watch that documentary "After Truth: Disinformation and the Cost of Fake News". Cheers :)
  • loveslongnails
    I agree that Fox News is nothing BUT a tabloid. I've seen many, many disturbing things on that network over the years. I've seen bad shit on other networks too, but nothing like Fox.

    Tonight I saw a replay of a segment on Tucker Carlson's interview about the "100% effectiveness of the anti-malaria drug in curing Covid-19". Ok, forget for a minute how packed with bullshit that was, and let me focus on this part. The supposed expert was one Gregory Rigano, an adviser to the Stanford University School of Medicine. Only problem is, the Stanford School of Medicine doesn't know who the fuck he is, and it turns out he's a fake who's a crypto currency hustler !!

    This is fraud of the highest degree, and it's allowed to be presented as "news", while at the same time, Fox News rants endlessly about the lies of the liberal press. It reminded me of Trump's claim that the head of the Boy Scouts called him and praised his speech as the best ever given to the scouts. In truth, no one whatsoever connected with the Boy Scouts EVER made such a call. In fact, they apologized to their constituency and supporters for some of Trump's remarks. But Trump fabricated the ENTIRE thing, every lying word of it. And it goes unpunished.

    Thanks for your take. It's a good one.
  • Smoothing
    I like this my take. It is refreshing especially now that we are being bombarded with so much misinformation and many people are choosing to believe in misinformation and rejecting credible information sources without bothering to fact check.
  • sensible27
    I feel like these sort of posts should have a tldr. But the problem of news not bieng reliable and biased is a problem of filteration. The thing to accept is most people are pretty irrational, tribal and biased. Or at least tend to take sides and eventually become biased even if they were not that interested in the topic on the first place. A lot of people would like very educated rational and unbiased media but most wouldn't step up to pay for hiring people of that calibre/standard.
  • MackToday
    Journalism is in pretty good shape if you go to independent journalists. It's only the big media companies controlled by globalists that are fake news. They're controlled by about 6 companies and they all say the same thing. Fake news is a good name for them since their left wing activists disguised as news people.
  • Gsm24diecast
    Have you ever heard of Operation Mockingbird?
    • I read some of it, but it's genuinely too long and jargony for me to fully study and respond to you in a timely manner. So, if you're more knowledgeable on it, do you want to give me a synopsis while I continue to read through?

    • Operation Mockingbird was a secret campaign by the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to influence media. Begun in the 1950s, it was initially organized by Cord Meyer and Allen W. Dulles, it was later led by Frank Wisner after Dulles became the head of the CIA.

      The organization recruited leading American journalists into a network to help present the CIA’s views, and funded some student and cultural organizations, and magazines as fronts. As it developed, it also worked to influence foreign media and political campaigns, in addition to activities by other operating units of the CIA.

    • Show All
  • Johnson7319
    Well what about the law Ronald reagen repelled in the 80's that let journalists not have to prove their sources I believe it was, basically let fake newa start way back then.. ok look at the ownership of mass media in the 60's it was over 200 entities down to only 6 now.. 'splain that sista!!
  • KrakenAttackin
    The media is such a stooge of the left, how can you even try to dignify what passes as MSM.

    Thank God for the Internet so that people can receive information beyond the liberal talking points and programming.
  • 888theGreat
    If you can't see Media is biased against Trump, Conservatives , then you either just stupid or have your head up your ass, or refuse to accept the truth. Poll after poll , people see the media as biased. They think they lie , are not honest, and have a hidden agenda. That is a big reason Trump got elected in the first place.
  • eschneider
    Journalism is a joke these days, it's pretty much just "Orange Man Bad". I don't watch any of it, 90% of it is complete crap. If I was a journalist in this day and age, I would be completely embarrassed at what it has become. Click bait fear porn for the uninformed.
  • simplelikeme
    I don't trust the media for 1 minute. They never tell you the truth and now it's make it seem worse than it really is. It's all fake and lies
    • Can you give me a few articles then that are 100 per cent completely false, 100 per cent confirmed, that come from trusted news institutions - other than blogs, personal/independents or fox news?

  • DudeDiligence

    There is some good, unbiased media available, but most of the mainstream ones (MSNBC, Fox, CNN) are utter garbage. They report facts, but in a very biased manner. They attempt to paint a picture with the facts in order to sway the audience to their way of thinking, which of course is not unbiased media.
  • ericclayton
    It's more nuanced than people think, I agree. I have a suggestion that you write your next piece on cable news in general, since it just seems to serve as red meat for political camps. Remember that time CNN doxxed a 14-year old boy because he posted a meme on the internet, no less based of a buzzfeed article? The other networks have their problems but that was the most egregious abuse of the public by the press that I have ever seen.
  • spartan55
    I was just thinking this very topic yesterday and how much the anti-media aggravates me. I am not a journalist by profession, but do have a degree in public relations. I had courses on mass media, reporting, organizational communication, information flow etc. I certainly do not consider myself an expert on all things media, but I understand better than most. I just can't understand why people will just automatically dismiss a news story they don't agree with as fake, or bullshit CNN, or Fox News. I know there is bias, I can usually recognize it and go from there. I use various news sources and fact check myself.
    I don't get what anti-media people want. Repeal the first amendment and go to State News? Really? The media play a huge role in holding our elected officials accountable. How is this wrong?
  • PaulAbruzzo
    If people are anti-media, then the media has no one to blame but themselves. They've been peddling garbage for a while now and formerly respected news outlets like CNN are even worse than a supermarket tabloid at this point. And the thing is, they don't even try to cover up their misinformation, lies, deceit, and bias. They memory hole things constantly.
    Every time I talk about the media, I just put the "journalists" in quotes because real journalists haven't existed for a very long time.
    This is nothing new - Mark Twain used to say, "If you don't read the news, you're uninformed, if you read the news, you're misinformed".
  • Thatsamazing
    Indeed, stupid people who believe conspiracy theories with zero evidence are stupid people who believe conspiracy theories with zero evidence. Currently, there are about 50-60 million of them in the United States, most of whom vote Republican. Sadly.
    • chris0977

      Narcissistic theme: "here are my conclusions. I decide who's beliefs/ideas are valid. Anyone who does not agree with my perceptions, judgement, and evaluations is a moron."

      ME: "But what about all the republicans who believe opposite."

      "My conclusions make sense to me, theirs do not, therefore theirs are wrong, because I live in absolute world, where every conspiracy theory has zero evidence"

      The problem with "zero evidence" is it instantly suggests over generalization as you assert anyone who believes conspiracy theories is "stupid" because there is absolutely zero evidence for any conspiracy theory that has ever existed.

      IF there's anyone stupid (ignorant a more correct term), it's someone who claims their beliefs are the only correct ones, and there exists an entire category of beliefs without any evidence ever to suggest truth behind them, all of which happen to disagree with your beliefs.

    • @chris0977 Oh champ... I'm so sorry.

    • chris0977

      None necessary "champ" (lol love the belittling attempt to demean me). I've reconsidered. Every perspective you believe is automatically correct Your response is brilliant, reveals the highest intellectual ability, and greatest brilliance.

    • Show All
  • lolcraft
    "It's to make sure, you as a member of our society, have the opportunity to see where the problems are"


    Well, there's your problem.
    • That doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but alright lol.

    • lolcraft

      It operating under the assumption that you, as a journalist, have the capabilities of diagnosing what the problem is. The simple fact is that due to the wide range of topics a journalist will cover it's impossible for them to have the necessary expertise to cover all issues or interests (or in many cases any) accurately. Considering your profession requires the use of language being ignorant on how such statement could be interpreted counter to what you wish it to mean isn't exactly beneficial to your claim that journalists face unwarranted criticisms.

  • NYCQuestions1976
    People and politicians, in general, unfortunately, suck out loud. All try to get away with whatever they can, point fingers at one another, regardless of party or politics, whilst almost always being hypocrites themselves.
  • joyridejake
    I wouldn't say That all media is false. But a large amount of media is just about giving attention to the wrong and unnecessary things. Very less amount of attention is given to wholesome things. It's possible to say that if it gets too much media attention it's made up or messed up most of the time.
  • hellionthesagereborn
    So the press isn't bias despite all data to the contrary and the only sources we should question are the very few right leaning ones because you disagree with them but all the ones that confirm your own personal bias are absolutely trust worthy despite the fact that they have been caught lying multiple times whether that be the Washington post which was called out for misrepresenting Trump in an interview with his ex girlfriend (to the point where she said they had outright lied and they still didn't retract their story) to CNN who actively altered video and audio footage to imply that trump called immigrants animals despite doing no such thing (provably)? Seems reasonable.
  • Sensmind
    Yeah good and reasonable take - I always take news coverage with a pinch of salt, there is no right or wrong way to take in your news , read the story , glean the facts , make up your own mind - Say a story will have diametric views , read the two opposing views and find somewhere suitable in the middle - We all have a natural bias, one side will invariably make us madder than the other - Also we are in the era of personalised news feeds where you get the news from the sources they want, the only reason they go to CNN and FOX is to get mad.
  • Hermes-Paris
    The news got gobbled up by big corporations who understand dividing people sells a lot more air time than actually reporting acurately the events of the day. I'm sure having a political agenda as well sells more air time than being neutral. Reminds me of the days when Walmart and home Depots would open up in a town and within a few years all the smaller businesses folded. Those big news channels should be classified as entertainment channels. Those folks make a lot of money selling their junk to us. I turned off the news about two years ago but it seems to be everywhere. I am much happier and kinder since I stopped filling my head with all that crap. Real journalism I hope is not dead because we need it now more than ever before.
  • genericname85
    press always has to generate follows, clicks, magazine sales or whatever sort of commercialization to stay alive. for that, it needs to generate content streamlined for such purposes.

    doing that, press generally neglects the normative/moral imperative to report about reality becomes the secondary objective and creating sensational articles that are eye catching is the primary one.

    media that just reports reality as is will be boring by nature and just die out due to a lack of customers. that's why bullshit media like faux news are so shockingly successfull.

    responsible for that is of course mostly the consumer. because if the consumer was interested in factual and well researched reporting, the media outlets that produce such things wouldn't fail.
    also responsible are of course the huge media conglomerates that are owned by people that are everything but not "unbiased".
  • Anpu23
    The ability to think critically seems to be a rare commodity. In a world of almost unfettered information it seems irresponsible to not fact check.
    I follow news sources from all over the political spectrum, and it really bothers me that we have such a huge devide between the two. I even wrote about it here (Why The term "Fake News" really bothers me )

    Anyway, well written and good information.
  • Kaneki05
    I don't hate media but i stay away from it. Just rather not have it. Only time i find media useful is when it comes to gaming stuff or social media like here. And poltics i will never ever go near that not because of media just trying to find something good in poltics is always looking through a haystack.

    in short everything can have downsides and benfits and media is one i don't see that the benfits would help me. maybe sometimes it does. But ethier way i can carry on my life without it.
    just ain't my life style to listen to media.

    lucky when it comes to media around gaming it's so easy to tell if the person who made it is just wrong Or right or when they are clickbaiting.
  • Shamalien
    I don't think anyone is anti media, but a large portion of us are anti mainstream media. We often see what you might call an 'opinion piece' being regurgitated by like 20 different outlets that all have the same bias and are funded by the same people.

    I think the main thing to watch out for when consuming media is what interests are being represented here? Money has to come from somewhere. Like for example, in Canada, we have state funded media. If anyone expects me to believe that they can accurately critique the party that funds them, they have another thing comin

    Would suck to be a journalist right now... but hey, you can always learn to code :P
  • Hyper2
    Twitter and social media killed the Press because everyone with a phone has the same or more access to info than the actual reporters. In the US especially it's all about the clickbait headlines and trying to get likes and retweets. Because of this you can clearly see political bias amongst reporters and media companies. You can't report John said xyz, but when you pull up the clip (which takes 5 sec) its clear his words were taken out of context , something which seems to be happening way too often. This is why trust in the media is at an all time low. People can't be easily fooled , because we have too much info to find the truth in any story.

    A good e. g. was ABC news a few weeks back. They ran a story about covid19 cases in New York and showed a video from an Italian hospital (which was posted a week before) and even tho they got called out for it online, they didn't delete or correct the story. It's like they don't give a shit lol it's all about the clicks.
  • Sevenpointfive
    i'm kind of tired of this copy and paste
  • ChefPapiChulo
    you're getting kinda fat
  • lofii
    Teasing me with those sweet ginger tits 😍
  • Nice take nice boobs👍
    Well done. Good my take. 👍😊
  • Joker_
  • bulletbob555
    Good take on a very important subject.
  • SecretGardenBlood65
    Nice take