4 ms·

>Fake news is a real issue that deserves to be reported about, it's not a scapegoat It's too late to start treating fake news as a real problem after such an u

>Fake news is a real issue that deserves to be reported about, it's not a scapegoat It's too late to start treating fake news as a real problem after such an ugly an biased coverage of the election on their part. No one trusts them anymore

spiderfarmer 10y ago
> No one trusts them anymore Disagree. I'd say that your nation is so divided that 50% doesn't trust the other 50%. That means that a large part still trusts eachother. As an outsider, I think bias was just a small part of what was wrong with the coverage. I mean, if you know that an outlet is left or right leaning, you can place their news in a certain light. But the coverage was all focused on the wrong issues. The right wouldn't shut up about Benghazi and e-mails. And the left was way too "OMG look at this monster". Not a word on actual policies.
- B1FF_PSUVM 10y ago
  > 50% doesn't trust the other 50% Nah, even most of those who voted for the media's candidate knew how biased they were. Not buying used cars from them any time soon. (Also, only between 50 and 60% of the voting age population do vote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_the_United_States_presidential_elections https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_the_United_St... )
  - soundwave106 10y ago
    There is no such thing as unbiased news. Failure to admit so immediately shows a bias in itself. :) While I have an assumption of what you mean by "the media's candidate", "the media" is a broad term. Many traditional newspapers were more behind Hillary Clinton; many websites like Breitbart were more behind Donald Trump. They are both "the media". I actually agree more with spiderfarmer. I would be willing to bet an atypical Breitbart reader does not trust the New York Times. I would be willing to be an atypical New York Times reader does not trust Breitbart.

spiderfarmer 10y ago

> No one trusts them anymore Disagree. I'd say that your nation is so divided that 50% doesn't trust the other 50%. That means that a large part still trusts eachother. As an outsider, I think bias was just a small part of what was wrong with the coverage. I mean, if you know that an outlet is left or right leaning, you can place their news in a certain light. But the coverage was all focused on the wrong issues. The right wouldn't shut up about Benghazi and e-mails. And the left was way too "OMG look at this monster". Not a word on actual policies.

B1FF_PSUVM 10y ago
> 50% doesn't trust the other 50% Nah, even most of those who voted for the media's candidate knew how biased they were. Not buying used cars from them any time soon. (Also, only between 50 and 60% of the voting age population do vote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_the_United_States_presidential_elections https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_the_United_St... )
- soundwave106 10y ago
  There is no such thing as unbiased news. Failure to admit so immediately shows a bias in itself. :) While I have an assumption of what you mean by "the media's candidate", "the media" is a broad term. Many traditional newspapers were more behind Hillary Clinton; many websites like Breitbart were more behind Donald Trump. They are both "the media". I actually agree more with spiderfarmer. I would be willing to bet an atypical Breitbart reader does not trust the New York Times. I would be willing to be an atypical New York Times reader does not trust Breitbart.