> Firstly, whatever they report, people can just go straight to the Whitehouse Newsroom website and confirm and get the news straight from the horse’s mouth. .

> Firstly, whatever they report, people can just go straight to the Whitehouse Newsroom website and confirm and get the news straight from the horse’s mouth. ...and as you can see, I did mention websites. But the fact is, that extra step significantly decreases engagement. Especially for current events. Also it's just a fact of psychology that the order in which you are presented information matters a lot. > Secondly, of the news orgs, several are legally bound to report neutrally (BBC), several just will because that’s their business model (AP, Reuters) I've personally worked with both BBC and AP/Reuters reporters on multiple occasions as both the subject of a story, and for background research. Based on my experience, I do not believe they consistently portrayed the facts neutrally. Not to mention, it's hard to even define what "neutral" is in a lot of cases. > and then there’s enough there with polar opposite agendas that you’ll be able to determine an accurate picture pretty quickly. ...which goes back to my point re: effort: you're asking _much_ more of the audience than just letting them receive an email. Not to mention, reporters of all political persuasion consistently neglect to cover certain types of stories. For example, getting reporters to report on "feel good" stories is quite hard - especially feel good stories relevant to smaller audiences - as it just doesn't fit their narrative/business models.