I am in withdrawal these days as CNN was really for years my "go-to" source for what is going on in the U.S. (If not for analysis - which I got from multiple sources as is wise.)
But now I am left wondering if even the factual reporting isn't either biased or filtered, or both.
Journalism has always been a fine line. I mean, journalists are human too. They all have their leanings. But at some point they are supposed to put that aside - even if putting out a story can be damaging to the side they are more sympathetic to.
At this point, especially in the U.S., the focus of many journalists has shifted to "winning the battle" as opposed to "making the facts known".
In the Current Events thread, when I said this I was told that the media weren't a social service, that they were a business that has to make money.
I do get all of that, but historically a neutral perspective on the part of the media was a selling point and therefore good for business. People wanted just the straight facts and (I assume) analysed them themselves.
It could very well be that the straight unbiased facts are no longer good for business and that people just want to be fed their own views repeatedly in their "side's" echo chamber.
Assuming this is even true, I am not sure that this is a positive evolution.
__________________
The Last Word.
|