4 ms·
What's wrong with local news? In my experience, it's the most trustworthy, agenda-free source of info. It's the nature of its scope, but I don't see what you're
by lin_lin 9y ago
What's wrong with local news? In my experience, it's the most trustworthy, agenda-free source of info. It's the nature of its scope, but I don't see what you're getting at.
- croon 9y ago1) Because "local news" by its very nature doesn't mean anything (or anywhere). Since it is a ubiquitous term, anything can be local news. 2) Since local news doesn't have a defined head, it's hard to scrutinize, whereas national/global news is at least exposed for what it is (regardless of whether people recognize that or not). 3) What I mainly wanted make a point about was the future of local news in regards to Sinclair buying up Tribune Media stations [1]. That would make it "local news" with quite a blatant, pointed agenda. [1] http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/06/trump-fcc-sinclair-broadcast-expansion-241337 http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/06/trump-fcc-sinclair-...
- lin_lin 9y agoI think most people know what's meant by "local news". Fair enough about State side events, I'm in the UK. My local news papers are far and away the most trusted source of news I have in the traditional form. The BBC, Sky, the national papers can take a running jump.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- ddebernardy 9y agoJohn Oliver had an interesting show on this a few weeks ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvtNyOzGogc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvtNyOzGogc TL;DR version would be: the Sinclair group is collecting local TV news channels, and their editorial line isn't exactly neutral.
- nerdponx 9y agoI trust local news, but only for reporting on local news.