5 ms·

Here's a good test - if you find yourself in general almost always agreeing with / aligning with all of the stories that your favorite news source runs - that's

Here's a good test - if you find yourself in general almost always agreeing with / aligning with all of the stories that your favorite news source runs - that's how you know it's not a real news source. Real, impartial, objective, news, would report on everything, and give voice to other opinions than your own. They'd report things you agree with, and things you disagree with. They'd report things that further your agenda in the eyes of the public, and things that don't. They'd give others a chance to share their viewpoints as well as your own. When all you read on CNN are stories you personally resonate with, that's how you should know that you're not actually receiving the news, you're receiving an ideology. I can guarantee you that you don't just happen to hold the "right" viewpoints across all areas, removing the need to ever be exposed to other ideas. (And no, having CNN set up caricatures of other's ideas to make a mockery of them is not being exposed to other viewpoints). The idea that you're so right and everyone else is so dumb/wrong/evil/etc. that they're not allowed a voice, is really not a good position to hold.

tootie 5y ago
Real news is not subjective. There is no agree or disagree. News outlets running stories on climate denial, election lies, covid denial are driving an agenda of untruths. Most of my point of view is driven by an aggregate of credible sources. And I don't generally watch or read opinions.
- mandmandam 5y ago
  > Real news is not subjective. There is no agree or disagree. That's not actually remotely true. People Are Subjective, and "real news" is written by people, and often about people. For one example, they gave Sanders less coverage than Clinton in every single week of the Dem primary; about 2/3 overall. Their visuals, style, tone and presentation are meticulously crafted to give the impression that they're trustworthy and patriotic; that things are simple. That really ought to give you a clue that they're selling you something. Tip of the iceberg: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNN_controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNN_controversies
  - tootie 5y ago
    You're confusing editorial bias with inaccuracy. When CNN says there's a fire in California there's probably a fire in California. That list of very subjective allegations of bias or mistakes out of what's probably tens of thousands of stories they run per year. And I'm fully aware it is a for profit business run by fallible human beings. What I'm saying is that it's a fundamentally ethical and reliable source. One that almost always gets their facts straight but is not able to cover every angle. That's why I read a variety of sources. I'm not comparing them a mythical platonic ideal media organization. I'm comparing them to outlets that are willing to push blatant falsehoods like birtherism or vaccine denial while giving "equal time" to climate deniers or the Laffer Curve economists. Fox was run for decades by a guy who loved conspiracy theories and was not bothered by colluding with politicians on one side and not the other. OAN and Newsmax are worse. And on top of that a lot the hatred towards CNN is based purely on politically motivated lies. Trump hated them and told his supporters to hate them for spurious reasons. He would accuse them of lying about "the Russia thing" without citing an actual bad report as a way to distract from the factual reporting that made him look bad. Spreading mistrust of the media was part of his playbook to control what people believe and it worked extremely well.
    - mandmandam 5y ago
      Fundamentally ethical and reliable? Wow. It says a lot that Fox and OAN are your basis of comparison. Search CNN.com for Donziger and see how many results you get. I'll save you the effort; it's ZERO. Here's a CNN page full of facts on the kids in border camps - https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2021/04/politics/biden-administration-border-crisis/ https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2021/04/politics/biden-a... People will read that, and think to themselves, oh what an even handed tone. What a large number of facts, and nice graphic breakdowns. But the crucial context is missing - who is running those camps, and what are their contracts like? Those people are making money hand over fist, on the back of the misery of children in tin-foil blankets drinking water out of toilets. Same with their "fast facts" section on Assange - an exercise in misinformation. The information might be "factual", but it's carefully selected to give a particular impression. Crucial information isn't there, such as the US' key witness admitting he gave false evidence, or Nils Melzer's observations. Yes, a search for Nils Melzer yields TWO articles - compare to a search for 'Kardashian', which yields 1,700 hits. There are more stories about the Kardashian's shoe line than the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture. A search for 'Chomsky' yields 7 result; none seem to be about him or his observations. Yes, SEVEN, the single digit number. 'Zizek' yields ONE (and 'Žižek 'yields zero). 'Snooki' yields 116. That's not News bud; not any more than Fox. That's entertainment. If you want to learn about a fire in California there are hundreds of ways to do it, and they're probably mostly better than CNN.

tootie 5y ago

Real news is not subjective. There is no agree or disagree. News outlets running stories on climate denial, election lies, covid denial are driving an agenda of untruths. Most of my point of view is driven by an aggregate of credible sources. And I don't generally watch or read opinions.

mandmandam 5y ago
> Real news is not subjective. There is no agree or disagree. That's not actually remotely true. People Are Subjective, and "real news" is written by people, and often about people. For one example, they gave Sanders less coverage than Clinton in every single week of the Dem primary; about 2/3 overall. Their visuals, style, tone and presentation are meticulously crafted to give the impression that they're trustworthy and patriotic; that things are simple. That really ought to give you a clue that they're selling you something. Tip of the iceberg: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNN_controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNN_controversies
- tootie 5y ago
  You're confusing editorial bias with inaccuracy. When CNN says there's a fire in California there's probably a fire in California. That list of very subjective allegations of bias or mistakes out of what's probably tens of thousands of stories they run per year. And I'm fully aware it is a for profit business run by fallible human beings. What I'm saying is that it's a fundamentally ethical and reliable source. One that almost always gets their facts straight but is not able to cover every angle. That's why I read a variety of sources. I'm not comparing them a mythical platonic ideal media organization. I'm comparing them to outlets that are willing to push blatant falsehoods like birtherism or vaccine denial while giving "equal time" to climate deniers or the Laffer Curve economists. Fox was run for decades by a guy who loved conspiracy theories and was not bothered by colluding with politicians on one side and not the other. OAN and Newsmax are worse. And on top of that a lot the hatred towards CNN is based purely on politically motivated lies. Trump hated them and told his supporters to hate them for spurious reasons. He would accuse them of lying about "the Russia thing" without citing an actual bad report as a way to distract from the factual reporting that made him look bad. Spreading mistrust of the media was part of his playbook to control what people believe and it worked extremely well.
  - mandmandam 5y ago
    Fundamentally ethical and reliable? Wow. It says a lot that Fox and OAN are your basis of comparison. Search CNN.com for Donziger and see how many results you get. I'll save you the effort; it's ZERO. Here's a CNN page full of facts on the kids in border camps - https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2021/04/politics/biden-administration-border-crisis/ https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2021/04/politics/biden-a... People will read that, and think to themselves, oh what an even handed tone. What a large number of facts, and nice graphic breakdowns. But the crucial context is missing - who is running those camps, and what are their contracts like? Those people are making money hand over fist, on the back of the misery of children in tin-foil blankets drinking water out of toilets. Same with their "fast facts" section on Assange - an exercise in misinformation. The information might be "factual", but it's carefully selected to give a particular impression. Crucial information isn't there, such as the US' key witness admitting he gave false evidence, or Nils Melzer's observations. Yes, a search for Nils Melzer yields TWO articles - compare to a search for 'Kardashian', which yields 1,700 hits. There are more stories about the Kardashian's shoe line than the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture. A search for 'Chomsky' yields 7 result; none seem to be about him or his observations. Yes, SEVEN, the single digit number. 'Zizek' yields ONE (and 'Žižek 'yields zero). 'Snooki' yields 116. That's not News bud; not any more than Fox. That's entertainment. If you want to learn about a fire in California there are hundreds of ways to do it, and they're probably mostly better than CNN.