Quote:
Originally Posted by comrademoomoo
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.
|
Agreed. At the core I think my point is the same as yours. To be aware that media is biased in some form and we should educate ourselves about that and be very mindful of that. And more specifically that there is a big difference between biased yet credible (fact based) news and biased yet non-credible news (ie: with little to no basis in fact).
The only reason I commented in the first place was to point out that the source in question is absolutely a tabloid and not in any way a source of credible fact-based information (regardless of the bias). If you love reading that kind of tabloid stuff and wild opinion is your jam (whether it skews left or right) then more power to ya. I've heard that the NY Post has an outstanding horoscope section.
Edited for clarity