I think this is least of the worries. WaPO has extreme left bias which while reporting the truth, omission of important facts as they see fit for their readership.
HN’s left bias matches WaPO in perfect resonance. So, it’s difficult to even discuss it here.
CNN is especially eggregious. NYTimes should also be on the left column which is reflected in the votes "Somewhat disagree" with the current characterization as Center-Left (scroll down).
Edit: I am just pointing out a free publicly available dataset of what the population thinks of the media. Make what you will, don't shoot me.
CNN is more pro-status-quo/pro-Third Way than "left" in the traditional sense. They're markets-and-welfare nationalists really, but in the original, less frightening sense of "nationalist". I read Reason and The Economist plus additional assorted liberal media. It's still bad but at least there's variety without having to sift through as much crap.
It's not but both of these outlets are known for their motivated, advocacy-oriented reporting. A conflict of theirs (presented by one side) is a poor starting point for any kind of interesting discussion.
I agree with holding all media accountable. But the problem with what you say is that for millions and millions 'news' is actually BS opinion shows. On both sides but from my perspective Fox & Murdoch's empire abroad has done far more harm than say Maddow preaching whatever riles that audience up.
The actual press, WaPo, NyTimes (which does great docs, so does Vice imho) have rigid editorial process. Yet I still on HN people say NyTimes is liberal which I don't belive either.
Yes. All of those outlets attempt to put out unbiased news. CNN is "left of Marx"? I sincerely hope you are being sarcastic.
ps: instead of downvoting, why don't you do something more effective, and post an example of biased reporting by CNN (and something that isn't a story about a biased article that resulted in reporters being disciplined or fired)
Yes but it's kind of like "Fox News" versus most of the other ones. At least from my trivial purusual of them, many others lean the other direction, so the sum...
Are you unironically linking to the Washington Examiner and Dailywire as authorities about the state of the press?
I am literally laughing out loud.
Also, CNN has always been pro-US-establishment pro-corporate pro-military, a general center–right outlook, with a focus on sensationalism and opinion, lots of time given to various “Washington insiders” and ex officials, and mediocre coverage of the news. It wasn’t (like Fox) explicitly set up to be a propaganda network, and there are many good journalists working for CNN, but the end product is still pretty bad. The whole concept of a 24–hour cable TV news station is absurd, in practice. It’s not that there couldn’t be enough material to fill the day, but since cable stations have to compete for channel-surfers, every incentive is to be as salacious and repetitive as possible. 1 hours per day is about the maximum most viewers have attention for TV news coverage, and e.g. the BBC or PBS are reasonably successful at filling a bit of TV time with news, but for extended coverage newspapers are inherently a much better format. All the small important stories on the later pages are never going to make it on TV.
The partisan nature of media companies certainly contributes when 90% of the reporters lean one way and laud social media strategies for one candidate and loath when the other follows suit. No one network has a monopoly on conspiracy theories.l, they all push narratives. As far as entertainment, that industry is notoriously scummy and rife with political connections.
No. Alt-right tabloids like Breitbart are obviously significantly worse than mainstream media, but almost all journalism is trash. Every major network can point to really great work that some of their journalists have done. However, every day ALL of them post intentionally misleading stories designed to manipulate people that don't fact-check.
Frequently, they leave things out or use deceptive wording to change the meaning/context of events. Even when they cite facts, they often do so in ways that make telling what actually happened difficult.
reply