3 ms·
Care to supply examples? But yeah, ideally the media should as unbiased as it is realitistically possible. If things are truly bad, then they'll be recognized
by tpeo 10y ago
Care to supply examples?
But yeah, ideally the media should as unbiased as it is realitistically possible. If things are truly bad, then they'll be recognized as such without the need to distort the truth. The media can only hurt itself by willfully manipulating the message, since that undermines the public trust on journalists, whose impact on the public is crucially dependent on that trust.
It's a "boy who cried wolf" kinda scenario, or sorta like how everyone rolls their eyes when an "X causes cancer" headline pops up. If journalists choose to trade their credibility for anything else (eye-popping headlines, ads revenue, or subserviency to whomever is bank rolling them) they're paying it with their relevancy in the minds of the public. And if journalists really conceive themselves as on a moral mission, that's the last thing they should do away with.
- SerLava 10y agoAlright, basically I didn't want to jump straight to Hitler, because it's so overused, overdramatic and distracting. But do they actually gain credibility by being "fair" to the campaign of Hitler back from the dead? They don't. When they call a spade a spade, the media gains credibility in the next election between two normal candidates. I'm sure someone will hate this comparison. But really, the republican candidate is a fucking monster this time. It's never been this bad. It's not even a bad comparison anymore. I've always hated when people use it, but this guy wants to do some scary shit.