4 ms·
Its a problem with the 24/hr newscycle. Back in the day you would hear the news at 6 on your television, or on your radio. Now, due to the constant need for con
by danjoredd 4y ago
Its a problem with the 24/hr newscycle. Back in the day you would hear the news at 6 on your television, or on your radio. Now, due to the constant need for content, news has gotten more extreme. Fox and CNN need something constantly on their channels, news sites need constant content on their websites, etc. The news at 6 is no longer a thing, and that fact feels like it has hurt just about everything
- the_af 4y agoI think the comment you are replying to is saying that "the news" cannot be reported on objectively simply because there is more "news" that can be reported on than any given news organization's available bandwidth (with print papers this is immediately obvious, since the limitation is physical space; but it also affects any other medium). The act of choosing what to report and what to leave out is a subjective act, just like the same photo cropped differently can tell opposite stories! So there is yellow and bad journalism, but even "good" journalism cannot be objective.
- danjoredd 4y agoI agree with them, but local "news at 6" shows tend to feel more balanced when I watch them, because they only have about 30 to 60 minutes to report what they need. Only the most important stuff can be reported, due to the inherent restrictions of the medium. Its not perfect. Like you said choosing not to report something is a bias in itself, and local news shows aren't exempt of this. But also, they have an incentive to report stories that their area will find significant, so I prefer it