Freeman wrote:
Somehow, someway we have to find a way of having a source of news that all sides will find it is mostly unbiased and factual. Is that even possible?
This is a very important question and I'm not sure there is an answer at the moment.
I found it amazing that Trump was so blatantly militant against what he perceived as a biased media acting very poorly. It just so happens that I completely agree with him on this point.
I've never heard a politician chastise the media as he did. And I feel as though he had every right to do so.
What shocked me is that no one within the media even bothered to take up the topic and place a spotlight on themselves.
You would think that after being dealt an overwhelming blow, and by that I mean specifically that the country decided to vote Republican across the board, the media would, at the very least, be introspective enough to look at the role they played in the election process.
An honest media, at least in my mind, having had their asses handed to them on a plate, would have taken a step back to examine their own possible role in isolating voters or encouraging voters to take an opposite view from theirs.
If I owned a news agency and my company was left leaning (or right leaning) and biased toward a candidate and supportive of another candidate, I would definitely take a close look at how my company might have been part of my candidate's loss. Why? Because I wouldn't want to make the same mistakes twice. I would feel guilty that the opponent won. I would ask hard questions on where we might had gone wrong. I would then look to correct any and all deficits there may have been. And I would have done all of this introspective gymnastics right out in the open for the world to see.
Not the New York Times, not National Public Radio, not any of the television networks, not any of these clowns so much as bothered to look at their own roles in the election process. This is why they are vehemently hated. And I mean literally hated by so many.
It's so bad, that now we've entered into a new level or depth of hatred. Now when the NYT leads with a story, my instinct and the instinct of millions of others, is to absolutely doubt the credibility of the story or any of its so called facts.
When news agencies behave the way this lot did during the election, they lose any and all credibility with readers.
Now when they criticize Trump, I don't believe a word of it. I don't suspect foul play in their reporting, I know its foul play.
This is how bad it's become. And I don't even like Trump. I'm embarrassed by the man.
But back to the media avoided placing a spotlight on their own role in the election.....
Why not be introspective? Why not ask those hard questions? I'm not sure.
To do so would have given validity to Trump's claims I suppose and they would never swallow their egos long enough to do that.
And then there's money. If the money is rolling in, why bother? Who cares? If the ratings are there and folks are buying your product, leave it be. Or in this case tweak the old adage to read, "if it's broke but still brining in loads of money, in no way, shape or form fix it."
So Freeman, you raise THE question as far as I am concerned.
I've mentioned here before that for international news the Christian Science Monitor can be held up as a best practice in news reporting. Other than this source, I know of no other publication to look to for genuine, in depth, honest reporting on national news.
I've said it before, but for the odd local inde paper, journalism in our country is dead. I place it up there with other wasted degrees, right next to economics (aka astrology) and polling (aka used car marketing).