3 ms·

I won’t act like I have the answer, but I do have a complaint about the state of our news sources (specifically focused on the USA). A lot of people like to th

by tnel77 7y ago

I won’t act like I have the answer, but I do have a complaint about the state of our news sources (specifically focused on the USA). A lot of people like to throw around the term “fake news” when they see an article from the news source that is opposite their side of the aisle. While fake news does exist, CNN and Fox News are not fake news. They produce heavily biased news. There is a major difference. While both news sources have been caught lying before, both of them are usually telling the truth. It may only be half of the truth and purposely mislead the viewer, but that doesn’t mean the information being shared is fake or false. I’m relatively young so I don’t know if there has ever been anything remotely close to “unbiased news,” but just presenting the public with facts that aren’t tarnished by bias would go a long way to helping people become more informed and, potentially, less worked up.

TuringNYC 7y ago
I totally agree with your premise. I'd agree the term "fake news" is not an exact term, but I'll say that everything from Fox News (on the right), to the NYTimes (on the left), and everything in between lie by omission (lack of coverage) and by framing (e.g., "disturbed man" vs "terrorist"; "hungry" vs "looter"; etc). There may not be a term for it, but the phenomenon is real and has caused people to want to drain the system all-together and look for alternate public squares, ones where they have a voice.
cr0sh 7y ago
What you may or may not know is that at one time, there was a doctrine by the FCC known as the "Fairness Doctrine": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine "The fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters." This doctrine was eliminated in 1987, after a series of lawsuits about it. Arguably, it's part of what started this whole mess we now find ourselves a part of.

by tnel77 7y ago

TuringNYC 7y ago

I totally agree with your premise. I'd agree the term "fake news" is not an exact term, but I'll say that everything from Fox News (on the right), to the NYTimes (on the left), and everything in between lie by omission (lack of coverage) and by framing (e.g., "disturbed man" vs "terrorist"; "hungry" vs "looter"; etc). There may not be a term for it, but the phenomenon is real and has caused people to want to drain the system all-together and look for alternate public squares, ones where they have a voice.

cr0sh 7y ago

What you may or may not know is that at one time, there was a doctrine by the FCC known as the "Fairness Doctrine": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine "The fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters." This doctrine was eliminated in 1987, after a series of lawsuits about it. Arguably, it's part of what started this whole mess we now find ourselves a part of.