https://reason.com/2020/08/22/there-is-no-straight-news-anymore/ There is No "Straight News" Anymore by David Bernstein I've been reading the New York Times since fifth grade, and the quirks I've noticed over the years have been interesting. For example, until I saw that someone referred in print to Russell Baker has a "humorist," I had no idea they were supposed to be funny, though I had stopped reading them years earlier because they were so dull. Anyway, the Times always had a liberal bias in its news pages, but the bias was almost entirely in what was covered and how it was covered. The stories themselves were written and edited in a careful, nonpartisan way. At some point, the Times starting to run "news analysis," which gave reporters an opportunity to shade things the way they saw them, but the readers at least knew in advance these weren't straight news stories. Things have been slipping ever since the 2008 presidential campaign, when for the first time I thought the tone of coverage made it clear which side the reporters were on. Nevertheless, it was relatively subtle, and even during the Trump-Clinton campaign, with passions obviously very high, the Times was still a world away from NPR, whose reporting seethed with Trump-loathing. Since 2016, the Times has faced a revolt from its staff regarding neutrality, as they believe that the Times should have gone full resistance against Trump, and its failure to do so bears responsibility for Trump's election. It's been a downhill spiral ever since, including widely reported internal meetings in which the staff made clear that it doesn't believe in "objective journalism." All that said, after reading the Times off and on for over forty years, I did a double-take when I read this in a straight reporting story (not an op-ed, not even a "news analysis"): This is the sort of overt opinion-stating in a news story that must have an earlier generation of news editors rolling in their graves. In one sentence, three separate opinions are expressed: (1) Implicitly but clearly, that one would expect very rich people to donate money based on what serves the interests of very rich people, not on whatever other values or opinions they might have; (2) That Trump caters to the super-rich, and not just here and there, but "largely"; and (3)That these policies in fact in practice largely serve the super-rich's interests, which contains two sub-opinions (a) that what's benefiting the super-rich isn't benefiting the rest of America; and (b) that whatever unnamed policies Trump is pursuing to help the super-rich is in fact largely serving their interests. On (b), surely some progressives would argue that Trump's tax cuts or whatever are bankrupting the country and that this will hurt all Americans in the long-run by eventually creating a budget crisis, which will in turn hurt everyone, but perhaps disproportionately those who benefit from stable capital markets, i.e., investors with large portfolios. The sort of people who tend to big fans of the New York Times used to chortle at Fox News overtly biased news coverage. It turns out that their favorite paper is using it as a model.
Except when they don’t. Hillary and her email server stories were not news and they beat that dead horse into the ground.
LOL....as long as you know Faux News is Propaganda for the Republican Party=Trump. There is nothing WORSE than Faux News....nothing.
Well............OAN would be worse, but they're small; and in their attempts to be even further to the right than FAUX, they don't break free of FAUX's orbit and become their own respected planet, they just clown themselves, like the MyPillow guy. Besides, gotta have Carlson, Hannity, Ingraham, the Unholy Trinity.
How would you know if The News is biased, or it's true and it's just you that is biased and It only appears biased from your assumptions. The best answer is peer review, vetting, good editing and responsible publishers. So let's assume America needs true news to function, where are the vetted researched trustworthy sources? Well for me, it's the folks that come out of a rigorous journalistic tradition, respected journalism schools and respected editorial traditions. So that would tend to eliminate the non-college graduates, those without investigative experience, the 'just a pretty faces". Who does that sound more like? FAUX is fairly regularly called out for misleading stories, edited video and out of context quotes. They regularly insert opinion pieces without identifying them as such. Who is peer reviewing them? What publisher influences the philosophy? Fox News controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_controversies CNN controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNN_controversies I believe you see more negative stories on Conservative candidates than Democratic candidates simply by the nature of the party philosophies, pluralistic v. individual and the individual tend to attract more grifters, because the are in it for themselves.
I love the irony of Fox News attacking the CNN head about this...considering we know that Rupert Murdoch talks to Trump regularly. However, this is still screwed up and another reason not to watch the 24/7 news drivel. https://www.foxnews.com/media/jeff-zucker-michael-cohen-phone-call-trump CNN head Zucker offered Trump debate advice, floated 'weekly show,' leaked 2016 Cohen call reveals Zucker told Cohen of his fondness for Trump, who the CNN president described as 'the boss'
So wait I thought CNN was in the pocket of the left and hated Trump? This explains why CNN got into the what about business and has so many lackeys for Trump.
