132

[Mik]

Hard to argue a lack of bias. What is worse than bias though is that these outlets print without research. Fake news indeed.

[mark]

Private entities. Your choice to read or listen to them or not.

A big nothing.

[Mik]

Bullshit. Journalists have a sacred obligation to validate what they report.

[Jolly]

@mark said in 132:

Private entities. Your choice to read or listen to them or not.

A big nothing.

As long as they proclaim their bias up front. Newspapers routinely did this in the old days. For example, papers like the Natchez Democrat.

[Doctor Phibes]

@Mik said in 132:

Bullshit. Journalists have a sacred obligation to validate what they report.

Yeah, and politicians have a sacred obligation to serve the people they represent.

Good luck with that.

[Mik]

You get what you accept.

[Doctor Phibes]

The capitalist argument is that the market will decide, and biased media will go bust.

Alternatively, you legislate and have some level of quasi-government control over what the media says. I trust the government less than I trust the media.

Personally, I prefer the British media to the US. There's obviously still bias but it's not nearly as blatant.

[mark]

@Mik said in 132:

You get what you accept.

I accept none of it.

So, why did I get it?

[Mik]

Because too many people accept, even encourage, it.

[Jolly]

@mark said in 132:

@Mik said in 132:

You get what you accept.

I accept none of it.

So, why did I get it?

Saddle sores?

[Aqua Letifer]

@Mik said in 132:

Bullshit. Journalists have a sacred obligation to validate what they report.

They do that and they're not going to be able to keep the lights on.

I'm not defending the practice, just pointing out the financial reality. If you're not first, no one's going to read your article, see your ads, and in effect, keep you employed. It'll only change once enough of us demand something else.