It is no secret that US media has become hopelessly biased in the last few decades. The days of Walter Cronkite are a distant memory. Today, news sites in the USA are echo chambers for the views of their subscribers. Any story that might upset the preferred niche narrative of their subscribers quickly winds up on the cutting room floor. They are so terrified of a Twitter storm if they run a story that is unpopular that nothing which challenges the religion of their viewership can even be mentioned.

But recently, I've been surprised to see 2 courageous journalists resign in very public opposition to this trend. Could this be the start of a #metoo movement by journalists who are tired of the current mockery being made of their profession? Have we finally reached "peak news bias" where serious journalists will finally say enough is enough?

First, Bari Weiss, an editor for the New York Times quit in a very public way shaming the paper for the blatant abuse of the news and unacceptable fear of an online mob by upper management. Now we have Ariana Pekaryk, producer at MSNBC, leaving because of the "cancer" at the station that caused any credible news about the coronavirus to be buried in favor of fluff pieces on how Donald Trump handled it so poorly. The latter is what the viewership wants to hear and gets much better ratings. Anything the could cause this narrative to fade into obscurity is quickly crushed.

These are only 2 people out of thousands of journalists, but it is an open secret that everyone in the industry feels this way. Could this be the start of a flood of journalists that are finally going to jump on a movement to force the mainstream media to clean up their act? Can we go back to what news was originally supposed to be? If enough journalists quit and publicly shame the media, is there hope that something will finally change?

I know I would love to watch a station that reported actual, credible, well researched facts on both sides of an issue rather than one that simply spewed biased nonsense designed to appeal to my basest emotions. I'm not a fan of Trump, but I do have to give him credit for coining the term "lamestream media". If anything, that term is too polite to describe what they are. Am I the only person alive who misses real news that we used to take for granted?

Someone else will just take their place on the news. Nothing will change. It's sad and unfortunate, but that's the country that we've allowed to develop and now we're paying the price for it.

I remember in the late 60s, a dumb kid with but 3 tv channels to watch, and rarely did I want to watch 'the news' but once in a while. I remember thinking it a bit odd and pointless for all 3 news stations to carry the same thing, say the same thing, and all sound alike. So, maybe it wasn't all 'good ol'days' of the honest media. Probably wasn't but Chet and Walter were comforting and authoritative.

In the 80s and onward I started to get a clue about politics and political writings. It was, to me anyways, obvious that the 'tv news' was very left leaning and bias. Same for most tv shows and programs. Newspapers didn't seem much different albeit longer winded.

Then along came Rush and alt-right radio and it was quite refreshing to hear the other side of the coin. That alt programming proliferated and finally there was a voice to the conservatives. Shame that wasn't the case for the presidents and congress. Thought there would be a change coming.

Then the internet sort of opened up a free for all opinion arena for a few years and seemed to be home for all the radical right wingnuts and the rest of the not so nutty conservatives. Ah, change has come.

Along come Clintons and then Zero and the Photoshop Gang with their slogans and catch phrases, and they seemed to own the media. Maybe not own but the main stream media sure was in love with those lefties. MSM preached in lock-step as if they had daily talking points emailed to their main news desks from up on high - they probably did. The right still had the internet and a good presence on the radio though.

Along comes Orange guy with a ground swell of voter support, a tough NYC businessman attitude, and great slogans. Given the choice between Hitlery and my dog Spot, the later should have won the election in a clean sweep, so DJT was a shoe in.

To date I rather like the guy and most of what he's done. However there is a lot he committed to accomplishing during his campaign but has fallen quite short. Whether that is because of significant opposition from the left (and at first from much of the right) or whether it was just politician talk knowing it was just hot air...?

But after almost 4 years, "trust the plan" and "yes we can" don't sound all that different. "Hope and Change" versus "MAGA"? Different but same same...
Watch the internet news's, and twater, and you have fanatics on both sides - and hard to find a centered yet critical voice.
YT/Goog/FB/Twtr are all censoring content. If they don't like your opinion they lock you out. Same for a number of web forums. No desenting opinion allowed be it left of right.
AI (I hesitate to call it that literally because it presumes an innate self-generated intelligence which I consider impossible for a computer), but AI and web bots respond to comments as if they were real people. I am very sure this is put to work in the big corporate advertising and marketing world too.

What's next? 5G? Talk of implanted sensors, retina screens, immersive virtual reality computing. Think people are slaved to their cell phones now? HAHAHA, 10 years from now you'll laugh at how caveman like it was in 2020.

Peak "bias" perhaps but peak media? Not peak media.

Deregulation may have had a hand:

“The fairness doctrine of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, was a policy that required the holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was—in the FCC's view—honest, equitable, and balanced. The FCC eliminated the policy in 1987 and removed the rule that implemented the policy from the Federal Register in August 2011.

The fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented. The demise of this FCC rule has been considered by some to be a contributing factor for the rising level of party polarization in the United States.“

no one forces you to watch the commercial enterprises that pretend they present the news, ( be it fox supporting Trump or MSNBC/CNN presenting the opposite)

Checkout
RT new
Aljazeera
Channel news asia
or follow some twitter channels

I miss 60 minutes on Sunday night

The fairness doctrine is what allowed one point of view to reign on the media for decades before it was dissolved.

The problem is not the doctrine, but who administers it. Who gets to decide what are the ‘different’ points or view. And how it’s presented.

A prominent congressman who was the chairman of communications committee (the one who would write the rules) tried to bring it back a few years back. And impose it specifically on talk radio and internet. Because, TV and newspapers was for the most part, already politically neutral with a conservative bias. In his opinion.

Asked what was a balanced, neutrally political opinion. Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez was what he considered mainstream, middle of the road. Anything else what way alt-right and disqualified from serious discussion.

Beware of what one wishes for.

I prefer to have presenters with diametrically opposing views hash it out live, bringing out all the facts and figures at their command, and letting the viewer decide. Moderators should only there to allow both sides to have equal time and prevent bias.

phuketrichard wrote: ↑Tue Aug 04, 2020 8:35 pm . . . pretend they present the news . . .

Checkout
RT new
Aljazeera
Channel news asia
or follow some twitter channels

lol

the issue is trust

with the old institutions you could at least probably trust the facts
though maybe not the presentation, or that all facts were present

but with the current crew you can't even trust the facts
and they know you know it (hello RT)


twitter is not even worth mentioning

Most of my news comes from aggregator sites like rantingly. Even drudge became an anti trumper awhile back so there’s no reason to give them clicks anymore. Just provide the news, we don’t need your opinion or bias.