3 ms·
Spurting out 'false dichotomy' and stating that I haven't provided the necessary treatise of evidence is kind of ridiculous. I hope you can see how pretentious
by orbitingpluto 10y ago
Spurting out 'false dichotomy' and stating that I haven't provided the necessary treatise of evidence is kind of ridiculous. I hope you can see how pretentious that sounds.
If a news organization only exists because the Koch brothers own it and it operates at a loss, its primary purpose isn't to serve unbiased news, but propaganda.
Contrast that to a news agency or journalist whose existence is funded only through subscriptions, with zero advertising. These type of agencies are not subservient to a Murdoch, a pharma company, or anybody. They only have to interest their readership sufficiently.
Of course there is still bias. But now you have multiple viewpoints. If the only news you're getting is from papers owned by billionaires or heavily moderated forums owned by billionaires, then good luck.
I would agree with you that sending money to Fox News isn't going to help with the bias much.
- jamez1 10y agoHe was right, you implied paying for the news removes the manipulation, which is a ridiculous notion.
- orbitingpluto 10y agoThat's not what I said. I said that if you don't pay for the news, then you being manipulated is the product. That's not the same thing as simply forking over money magically removing bias. The latter is a ridiculous notion and that equates to your straw-man argument. Do you really think a trusted news source with corporate overlords is able operate with unlimited autonomy? I would have no issue if there was a large diversity of ownership with conflicting issues. But I don't really see sufficient conflict in corporate America.