The news was never really where trustworthy.
It is news, and news is a network of organized stories. They are not the United States Constitution describing a process of basic separation between basic principles and legal precedent. The moto of news revolves around the freedom of Speech and freedom of Press which limits any trust by admission. What makes this worse is education is then used to imply otherwise, yet the education skips the understanding that free means there is no self-value.
Why again are we asking about media Trust as a value. Trust is a word used to describe a place to store self-value. Its value is it tells stories that may need to be told. Liked or not. The removal of self-value actual takes work and is often just substituted with a claim of non-biased. For reader effect.
Look back in time, in the days of Adams and Jefferson, print shop newspapers had sides that they leaned on.
People made up outright slander that was harder to fact check then than it is to now.
Back then you could challenge a slanderer to a duel sure, but point is we've always had to take our news with some salt.
We live in a world where we have to fact check everything. That doesn't mean that you can't trust the news media in any capacity. Fact reporting on things that have happened tends to be factual, even in biased sources.
The problem lies in people not being able to differentiate between biased sources and obviously fake news. If you use news media properly (listening/reading/searching multiple sources) then news media can overall be trusted.
I only say yes to balance out the repeated votes in the no section. If you have an opinion, please only vote once, and do not post so many times. You are skewing the poll, and people are just trying to see the opinions of others. I realize I'm doing it too, and it's probably wrong, but I'm just trying to balance it out.
Long ago, the media stood for something besides a political side. They worked to get both sides of an issue to let the people decide what is right. With the exception of rags like the Enquirer, you could trust what media sources said was the truth. Those times appear to be over.
For many years now, the media has gone from reporting news that is factual to reporting news that supports the liberal agenda. Sure, people in the media will have political opinions as everyone does. The problem is when, not only do media sources unite under one side but when that opinion effects their ability to do their job of reporting the facts.
Tho it has been more noted since the 2016 election, it has been an issue long before that. One case that jumps to mind is the shooting death of Michael Brown. The first and main person they interviewed was Dorian Johnson who claimed Brown was shot in the back as he surrendered (hands up). They also interviewed people who knew brown that called him a "gentle giant". These stories were repeated for weeks causing many people to form a conclusion of the officers guilt. It was only later on that we knew Dorian Johnson lied as no bullets entered Brown's back. We also saw footage of he (Johnson) with Brown robbing a convenience store with Brown using violence against the store owner. So much for the "gentle giant". Thing is, this reporting came all too late as people still rioted and used phrases like "hands up". The refused to accept the courts ruling that acquitted the officer saying "No just, no peace" and the media supported this. The idea that the only way to make things right is to punish someone who is shown to be not guilty.
As I said, recently, it has become more apparent. When Obama was president, the news had regular updates on any progress made in the battle against the Taliban/ISIS but when Trump was president, you would never know that we not only were making progress but putting an end to their military forces. Since when is war not newsworthy? Sure, the media may make some honest mistakes. It happens. Thing is, sometimes they report things they know are false. When news of the memo first came out, there was worry that it may reveal sources and methods. An honest concern that was relieved when reports came out that such things were not in the memo. That still didn't stop some news networks from bringing it up as a concern and that it should be stopped because of it. Now, we have the Democrat's memo that actually contained sources and/or methods yet the media wants to ignore that and pushes the narrative that it's release is halted because of political reasons. Funny thing is, the republicans voted in favor of the democrat's memo release. I could go on but not enough words.
It's quite clear to all but the intellectually challenged that the mainstream media are largely an arm of the DNC save for FOX News which leans toward a more moderately Conservative position. Therefore it's safe to say all print media, radio or TV is untrustworthy.
The late Walter Cronkite though a Democrat refused to allow his politics to determine his delivery of the news however the one exception was the disgrace which became known as Vietnam. He went on to explain doing so meant once identified as one or the other instantly precluded anyone on the other side from having any faith in the broadcast.
He was so right !
The media today are parrots for the DNC, GOP and Wall Street . If that isn't enough consider that only six companies own every news media outlet in the US and the picture gets muddier.
Why should anyone trust a monopoly be truthful about anything?
The news media purposely cherrypicks stories because they are for-profit. That's why they cover controversial topics almost exclusively. The blatant political bias needs to be regulated. The FCC should crack down on media outlets claiming to be "news". You shouldn't be able to call yourself a news show unless you simply present the facts and are non-profit. For opinions and bias, there can be a separate show for that that doesn't call itself news.
Not only do most mainstream news sources today have a strong left wing bias (especially a problem with organizations such as BuzzFeed and the Huff. Post), many news organizations have been caught on multiple occasions writing stories that are blatantly false for ideological gains (stories were then retracted by the sites). Due to the sheer amount of fabricates stories that have been written by mainstream news, I take everything they say with a mountain of salt.
Trust is becoming very expensive comodity these days, Augmented news or even blatant lies with flashy headlines gets more attention that means more ad revenue, Its simple. Truth and integrity aren't even on second place. Im pretty young (26 years), But Im sure this has been issue for ages. Everything is about money today and that mean, Politicans can easily get themself propaganda machine. I think some news media are even existentialy dependent on it. I think that, Because when some news media is lying and pushing some political agenda, Eventualy people realize that and stop using that media outlet. Yet some still do it even thought they get so many less viewers. Which means they are definitely paid to do that. Which should be ilegal.
News broadcasters learned a long time ago that news reports can generate lots of money, and are now driven to sensationalize reports to drive up viewer statistics. Opinion reports dominate over facts, and exaggeration or extrapolation of the truth is the new normal. And of course, don't let the truth get in the way of a good story.
The psychology of it is ultimately the driving force behind it all: people are attracted to and have a cognitive bias towards this negative style of news reporting. Blame our amygdala - or at very least the news broadcasters who take advantage of our bias to increase their advertising revenue.
Neutrality Bias - What is a neutrality bias? A neutrality bias is when you place neutrality over objectivity. Pretending an issue is 50/50 rather than placing facts and critical thinking to force an answer against the person being objectively wrong. News isn't meant to be fair, it's meant to be objective to the facts.
Sensational bias - Appealing to peoples emotions, news since it requires click bait or appeal to some kind of agenda by creating over exaggerated like ISIS and Ebola are examples of a sensational bias.
Establishment bias - Accepting or Respect of the current administration regardless of the actions of the current establishment whether it be a democrat or republican (Not necessarily liberal or conservative). As Obama for an example was promoting a war in Syria to fight Assad even when the overwhelming majority Americans disagreed with the war. News Networks also have can have partisan leaning (Again not necessarily ideological leaning but establishment party leaning.)
I think Kyle from (Secular Talk's Video on "The Myth Of The Liberal Media") would accurately reflect my views on media.
I don't know how to state my idea. But, I just wanna say that news media nowadays are being worsen. Many news just confusing and all about political and religion issue that never be neutral. If this still happen so we will never know what's really happened in the world nowadays. It's pretty insane.
There really was a car accident. Bt the terrorists is just an attention grabber. Those words are meant to grab your attention. They add details in that make no sense. And yet it works. The headlines mean everything; since that is the first thing you read about. "A blood donor saves a life." isn't going to get much attention. "Devastating plane crash kills hundreds!". That is going to get attention. No one cares about kind things people do. People care about devasting things other people do. Bombings, car accidents, hijacks, those types of things. And the media knows it. They use it to manipulate us, to grab us in the article. So yeah, CNN uses false advertising.
The "News Media" never really was trust-worthy. The reason this platform was ever seen as valid was because a large audience consumed the information presented by the corporations, thus giving them "credibility." They are great because we make them great. Now, what source do you use to find information? Books, history textbooks, journals, first-person accounts of events, civilian journalism. Perception not interpretation. The only source "News Media" can EVER be claimed as is at least a secondary-source, the majority of the information presented is tertiary; meaning the accurate report is diluted to every level of "account." Actual journals. While may be illustrated to be bias, are more frequently accurate because it is the account of individuals actual participatory within the story, thus it is GENUINE information. If there are advertisements and sponsors, then there is an agenda infused into the report.