Quote:
Originally Posted by InkyBooky
Most all news has some lean- whether right or left. Some more than others. However, there is a difference between a slight lean (or bias) and outright unethical and untruthful reporting. The latter seeks primarily to confuse and muddle the facts in order to instill fear, propaganda and misinformation. News tabloids fall into this category.
And while many respectable news sources may have a lean, they don't all attempt to hide their bias by presenting it as fact. So when reporting news (rather than opinion) they adhere to ethical principals of presenting both sides while sticking to verifiable facts that will not spread misinformation and/or known propaganda. The NY Post is not a reputable news source. That is a fact.
There are a few neutral news sources. One can do their own research to figure out what those are if they are so inclined. There is quite a bit of research out there on the subject. I get most of my news from a variety of news sources (on the spectrum from neutral to left leaning). Consume whatever media you want- just educate yourself on where it is coming from and what the goal of the source may be.
|
But that is my point - even supposedly reputable news sources spread misinformation either by error or hidden agenda. Presenting both sides of an argument as balanced news reporting is actually an example of creating news which is based on opinion rather than simply presenting fact. It involves a kind of insidious bias which feeds polarisation, affords value to both sides, explores argument rather fact. As I said, I am not supporting tabloid journalism and I agree that people need to consider the bias of the source - but even your examples of neutrality do not qualify as such. Neutrality doesn't mean presenting argument A alongside argument B, it means sidestepping argument altogether and unfortunately, most people don't want dry fact. They (we) want something instructive which chimes with their (our) approach to information.