True msm news runs more on conflict and divisive politics. But as far as getting factual info, they’re better than FB and 4 Chan, yes?
FYI- everyone person you mentioned are commentators
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
And that’s good to verify. But honestly, msm isn’t complete lies. It isn’t even half lies, or 70% lies. Theyre corporations, so that influence will have an effect.
That may be. I believe to see that U. S. news providers are a little heavy on U. S. related things or interests only - which is understandable of course.One similar example: if I look at (fucking) microsoft news I am fed (up) with very different things depending on my preference settings. Thinking about it... instead of having pointless meetings, the UN could attempt a ''clean'' news provider? After re-locating to -say- Switzerland of course.
... preference means language/regional settings here
That’s certainly true. Govt agencies and American corporations do have major influence.
Isn't that a pity...: Aliens may make contact in Africa - and no one knows because there was a traffic jam in Los Angeles :D
Be comforted that corporate media would never let that story go.
Guardian and npr are definitely msm, with consequences for running lies.
But they’re good platforms. Isn’t the blaze Glenn becks thing?
I’m not sure who owns the blaze I know Glenn beck is on the blaze same with David Rubin and Steven crowder and others
How do you determine what they say is true or not?
You must use your mind and listen with skepticism. On YouTube you are far more likely to see reaction videos as well so you can be exposed to both sides. We know the MSM is not trustworthy and they never correct their misinformation in the same manor as they deliver it. Long form debates where both sides can be heard at length are also very common.
Again, how do you determine what’s fact on YouTube. Reactions from other unknowldgeable people is not a good way. The msm is a good place to start. And you can corroborate facts by looking up their competitors.
I don't think you give YouTuber's enough credit. They normally research their stories far longer than any MSM figure. Also you can get primary sources... want to hear a congressional speech... it's on YouTube. Want to hear an expert explain a topic... Di Angelo on CRT or Freedman on Economics... again on YouTube. MSM is all agenda driven to pursue a propaganda goal. It is complete trash.
And how do you tell when people are trying to enslave you?
They tell you to submit to your vices, more or less
So people who tell you to act a certain way is freeing?
You save yourself with the hill. They’re at least qualified.
Come on, it’s not lies 24/7. They’re corporations run by profit. But for getting facts, they’re still better than social media.
You miss my point. Every "story" these outlets put out that has any political relevance is presented in a different light depending on what picture they want to paint. It's not all lies, but it's most definitely NOT unbiased. Perhaps that subtlety escapes you.I'll offer an example. The images CNN and Fox choose to publish for the same story are often very different, which can have a huge impact on how the "facts" are perceived by viewers. The picture they paint can be starkly different depending on those choices, and they know that very well.The coverage of the riots last year appeared similar on the surface between Fox and CNN. But anyone paying attention who watched both would have noticed that Fox showed tons of images of African Americans rioting, breaking windows, overturning cars and setting them on fire. CNN, on the other hand, chose very different images to publish. They chose to publish a lot more images of police brutality, often without some of the context that Fox provides.It's all about perceptions, and both Fox and CNN (and most others) make hundreds of decisions every day about what stories to report, how to report them, what context they should include or exclude, what images to publish or withhold, etc. All those decisions are politically motivated and intended to influence the public's views and political beliefs.Is Fox publishing a photo without context lying? Is CNN choosing not to report a story that does not support their political narrative lying? Nope, but it's powerful bias that has huge implications.Open your eyes and start paying attention.
That is true. I guess I’m just reading everyone’s hate on msm channels when there’s nothing else nearly as factual.
Nothing else nearly as factual and MSM? Come on now. For MSM, facts are nothing more than a vehicle for propagating their pollical biases.
And that’s the comment that enrages me. Obviously that’s not true. Where else to facts get distributed?
Obviously not true? LMAOWhen I look at the pure shit that CNN and Fox run every day, it's ridiculous. Honestly, I feel sorry for people who watch it and don't see that. You're a fucking puppet and you don't even know it.Facts get distributed, without bias, on my local news channel. They report the same stories as CNN but without the political bias that is ubiquitous with MSM.Sorry if all that hurts your butt.
True, there viewers are less i Ford on current affairs, but even Fox is better than Facebook or 4 chan
I do like them. NPR
Right - forgot about them. and I like NPR a lot.
They broadcast BBC in the states