Media bias extends beyond politics

Babba

Former Staff
Jul 2007
74,912
65,026
So. Md.
#21
I know Arkady here has brought up the point that many of whats considered "great news sources" like NYTimes, WaPo, WSJ, Boston Globe, etc are all behind a paywall. So many cant read them so they instead turn to "freebie news" which isnt always top notch. In fact often times if you just Google something, the worst sites appear first, many people go their first as it comes up that way and they dont want to spend a lot of time reading the news.
It is frustrating for me that you can only get a handful of articles free from so many news orgs, but there are still free reputable sites. CNN, BBC News, the Guardian, MSN is pretty good news aggregator and sometimes posts articles from pay sources that everyone can access. The New Yorker and Vanity Fair are two other good sites for analysis pieces but they restrict the number you get each month also. You have to be creative. I read a couple of blogs that will quote from articles behind paywalls and give a good synopsis. I realize that a lot of people don't have time to spend a lot of time reading the news, but depending on FB will just keep you ignorant.
 
Likes: 1 person

Ian Jeffrey

Council Hall
Mar 2013
74,616
43,344
Vulcan, down the street from Darth Vader
#22
I know Arkady here has brought up the point that many of whats considered "great news sources" like NYTimes, WaPo, WSJ, Boston Globe, etc are all behind a paywall. So many cant read them so they instead turn to "freebie news" which isnt always top notch. In fact often times if you just Google something, the worst sites appear first, many people go their first as it comes up that way and they dont want to spend a lot of time reading the news.
In some cases ... it works with WaPo ... you can open the link in an incognito window and bypass the paywall.

Sent from my SM-J327V using Tapatalk
 
Likes: 1 person
Jun 2013
17,742
15,327
Here
#23
Simply put, all secondhand information is "media", including TWEETS from the POTUS. All media is "biased" toward what will keep them in business. Most people are NOT going to look at stories that say Mr. and Mrs. Jone's cat is still alive and breathing today. Most people ARE going to look at anything that is unusual, anything that might warn them of something, anything that catches their eye. Take the CLICK BAIT boxes on nearly every website these days as an example. The "media" is supported by the CONSUMER!! Don't LIKE the "media"......Don't keep looking at it!!!

The ONLY thing anyone should be interested in is what they are being told is the truth or not. Some care to investigate that, others don't and "believe" anything they are being told, if some con artist has conned them into believing they are to be trusted.

America needs to smarten up, become more intelligent and demand the truth and that includes words that come from their POTUS's MOUTH!!
 

Babba

Former Staff
Jul 2007
74,912
65,026
So. Md.
#24
It is. My in laws were born and raised in Germany and moved here about a decade ago. Now they are on FB all the time. I am shocked the things they find and believe. They just dont really understand how it works as they are in their 80s now. They were raised in a place where the news was always trustworthy and now the internet stumps them. They get confused all the time by it. I have to wonder how many elderly find that as well. Whats worse is they moved to a retirement community and so many of the elderly follow Infowars and those type sites. They dont get how it works.
My sister and I have childhood friends who share the most obviously false things and we call them on it. We use gifs sometimes and make fun of them. But sometimes we post articles from reputable sources contradicting whatever absurd crap they found. We're ruthless sometimes but it's ridiculous the things these people believe.
 
Likes: 2 people
Mar 2012
55,548
37,043
New Hampshire
#25
My sister and I have childhood friends who share the most obviously false things and we call them on it. We use gifs sometimes and make fun of them. But sometimes we post articles from reputable sources contradicting whatever absurd crap they found. We're ruthless sometimes but it's ridiculous the things these people believe.
Usually the older people can be reasoned with. If we show or tell my in laws its fake, they believe us. They then ask "how is that legal to lie like that?" But its the middle aged and younger ones that scare me, they know better or should. I still marvel that millions get taken by those emails that ask to enter your SS number or send money. I would think those scams are out in the open nowadays.
 
Dec 2015
15,902
11,343
SoCal
#26
The Guardian, WaPo, Vox, Twitter, MSNBC ...

I think informed thinking people know that if you are reading fake news MSM outlets like that you are getting 100% fake news.

Do you think it's a coincident that only Leftist look to sources like that?
They ain't Breitbart!
 

RNG

Moderator
Jan 2015
13,886
9,712
Left coast
#27
It is frustrating for me that you can only get a handful of articles free from so many news orgs, but there are still free reputable sites. CNN, BBC News, the Guardian, MSN is pretty good news aggregator and sometimes posts articles from pay sources that everyone can access. The New Yorker and Vanity Fair are two other good sites for analysis pieces but they restrict the number you get each month also. You have to be creative. I read a couple of blogs that will quote from articles behind paywalls and give a good synopsis. I realize that a lot of people don't have time to spend a lot of time reading the news, but depending on FB will just keep you ignorant.
I miss access to the NYT and WaPo but not enough to pay. I'm a late comer to twitter and now follow a couple of reporters I respect. With the retweets of other reporter's tweets, it gives me a good cross section of what's happening and I can usually chase down the meat of the NYT and WaPo stories.
 
Likes: 1 person
Dec 2014
13,662
11,273
NWOHQ
#28
I am fortunate living so close to the Canadian border that we get the CBC and other news. It truly is amazing the difference. They go around the world and talk about tons of issues, news stories and such. In about 45 minutes I know whats going on all over the world. US news is Trump focused. Stupid stuff too, "oh his wife had CNN on" and crap like that. Nothing that important. Then they have panels and they talk about Trump for 20 minutes. Its a wonder Americans dont know anything.
It's the same with Australia: the content is global and rarely evinces partisanship (although the ABC and SBS can tend toward the left, just not as pronounced as the US). The standards of the US media are just terrible by comparison.
 
Likes: 1 person

kmiller1610

Former Staff
Mar 2007
32,444
6,394
#29
Yea, that is a big problem. They pick one that spouts their biases and they stick with it.
Aligned Media, Preaching to the Choir Media, Fishbowl media, Self aggrandizing media, I'll stroke your ego if you stay tuned in media.

Applies to all political stripes.
 

kmiller1610

Former Staff
Mar 2007
32,444
6,394
#30
Simply put, all secondhand information is "media", including TWEETS from the POTUS. All media is "biased" toward what will keep them in business. Most people are NOT going to look at stories that say Mr. and Mrs. Jone's cat is still alive and breathing today. Most people ARE going to look at anything that is unusual, anything that might warn them of something, anything that catches their eye. Take the CLICK BAIT boxes on nearly every website these days as an example. The "media" is supported by the CONSUMER!! Don't LIKE the "media"......Don't keep looking at it!!!

The ONLY thing anyone should be interested in is what they are being told is the truth or not. Some care to investigate that, others don't and "believe" anything they are being told, if some con artist has conned them into believing they are to be trusted.

America needs to smarten up, become more intelligent and demand the truth and that includes words that come from their POTUS's MOUTH!!
But if you were starting a media biased outlet from scratch you would be looking for consumers with under-satisfied ears and eyes. Simply stated, the consumers who want their biases confirmed drive the coverage. The number of people who want straight information and who also want their biases challenged are in the minority.
 
Likes: 1 person