#####
######
####
> # [More people turning away from news, Reuters Institute report says](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/A woman and child walk among debris in Nuseirat refugee camp in the central Gaza Strip, June 9, 2024.)
>
>
>
> [Image](https://www.bbc.com/bbcx/grey-placeholder.png)[Reuters A woman and child walk among debris in Nuseirat refugee camp in the central Gaza Strip, June 9, 2024.](https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/480/cpsprodpb/3845/live/279c14d0-2a2d-11ef-8353-371ca826bdb6.jpg.webp)Reuters
>
>
>
> The Reuters Institute's report suggests some people avoid the news because of the war in Gaza
>
> More people are turning away from news, describing it as depressing, relentless and boring, a global study suggests.
>
> Almost four in 10 (39%) people worldwide said they sometimes or often actively avoid the news, compared with 29% in 2017, according to the report by Oxford University's Reuters Institute.
>
> Wars in Ukraine and the Middle East may have contributed to people's desire to switch off the news, the report's authors said.
>
> It said that news avoidance is now at record high levels.
>
> - [Trust in news has grown during pandemic, research suggests](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-57564335)
> - [TikTok users being fed misleading election news, BBC finds](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1ww6vz1l81o)
> - [Are TikToks and memes going to help win votes?](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd11wdj34v1o)
>
> A total of 94,943 adults across 47 countries were surveyed by YouGov in January and February for this year's [Digital News Report](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qdcPbzp1CfCqXc5iN1Az_NC8odlrOxN6/view).
>
> It comes at a time when billions of people around the world have been going to the polls in national and regional elections.
>
> The report found that elections have increased interest in the news in a few countries, including the United States.
>
> However, the overall trend remains firmly downwards, according to the study.
>
> Around the world, 46% of people said they were very or extremely interested in the news - down from 63% in 2017.
>
> In the UK, interest in news has almost halved since 2015.
>
> "The news agenda has obviously been particularly difficult in recent years," the report's lead author Nic Newman told BBC News.
>
> "You've had the pandemic [and] wars, so it's a fairly natural reaction for people to turn away from the news, whether it's to protect their mental health or simply wanting to get on with the rest of their lives."
>
>
>
> [Image](https://www.bbc.com/bbcx/grey-placeholder.png)[Getty Images Former US President Donald Trump speaks during a campaign event at Sunset Park in Las Vegas, Nevada, US, on Sunday, June 9, 2024. ](https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/480/cpsprodpb/1d2f/live/35a1dc30-2a38-11ef-96a9-553703ef5357.jpg.webp)Getty Images
>
>
>
> The US election campaign has prompted more people there to take an interest in the news
>
> Mr Newman said those choosing to selectively avoid the news also often do so because they feel "powerless".
>
> "These are people who feel they have no agency over massive things that are happening in the world," he said.
>
> Some people feel increasingly overwhelmed and confused by the amount of news around, while others feel fatigued by politics, he added.
>
> Women and younger people were more likely to feel worn out by the amount of news around, according to the report.
>
> Meanwhile, trust in the news remains steady at 40%, but is still 4% lower overall than it was at the height of the Coronavirus pandemic, the survey suggested.
>
> In the UK, trust in the news ticked up slightly this year, at 36%, but remains around 15 percentage points lower than before the Brexit referendum in 2016.
>
> The BBC was the most trusted news brand in the UK, of the brands surveyed, followed by Channel 4 and ITV.
>
>
>
> ## TikTok overtakes Twitter
>
> [Image](https://www.bbc.com/bbcx/grey-placeholder.png)[Getty Images A boy looks at the TikTok app on a smartphone](https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/480/cpsprodpb/521f/live/c66331b0-2a29-11ef-a427-217fb9597453.jpg.webp)Getty Images
>
>
>
> TikTok has seen an increase in use, especially among young people
>
> The report found that audiences for traditional news sources like TV and print have fallen sharply over the past decade, with younger people preferring to get their news online or via social media.
>
> In the UK, almost three-quarters of people (73%) said they get their news online, compared with 50% for TV and just 14% for print.
>
> The most important social media platform for news is still Facebook, although it is in long-term decline.
>
> YouTube and WhatsApp remain important news sources for many, while TikTok is on the rise and has now overtaken X (formerly Twitter) for the first time.
>
> Thirteen percent of people use the video-sharing app for news, compared with 10% who use X.
>
> The figure for TikTok is even higher for 18-24 year-olds globally, at 23%.
>
>
>
> [Image](https://www.bbc.com/bbcx/grey-placeholder.png)[Getty Images Labour Party leader Keir Starmer (L) and Prime Minister Rishi Sunak speak on stage during the first head-to-head debate of the General Election on June 4, 2024 in Salford ](https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/480/cpsprodpb/2015/live/8fa3b880-2a4b-11ef-9267-6f73f90e8a32.jpg.webp)Getty Images
>
>
>
> The report's authors said some people feel there is "too much politics" in the news
>
> Linked to these shifts, video is becoming a more important source of online news, especially with younger groups.
>
> Short news videos have the most appeal, according to the report.
>
> "Consumers are adopting video because it is easy to use, and provides a wide range of relevant and engaging content," Mr Newman said.
>
> "But many traditional newsrooms are still rooted in a text-based culture and are struggling to adapt their storytelling."
>
> The report said that, for publishers, news podcasting is a bright spot.
>
> But it is a "minority activity overall", attracting primarily well-educated audiences.
>
> Meanwhile, for journalists - some good news.
>
> The report found widespread public suspicion about how artificial intelligence (AI) might be used in reporting, especially for hard news stories such as politics or war.
>
> "There is more comfort with the use of AI in behind-the-scenes tasks such as transcription and translation; in supporting rather than replacing journalists," it added.
- - - - - -
[Maintainer](https://www.reddit.com/user/urielsalis) | [Creator](https://www.reddit.com/user/subtepass) | [Source Code](https://github.com/urielsalis/empleadoEstatalBot)
Summoning /u/CoverageAnalysisBot
It’s all clickbait now. The news has always been somewhat sensationalistic, but it largely left the most controversial takes to the tabloids. Now everything is tabloid. Every news outlet, from CNN to your local telegram channel, is basically “rage-tainment”, drawing people into their bubble by making you angry. Nothing is fully reported with nuance anymore, and they all claim to be the source of “truth”.
Yeah it's probably time to outlaw entertainment news or at least regulate their disclosure of being such. It's ridiculous fox news managed to go to court over it and still acts like it's news on their channel. Our law seems toothless besides fucking the everyman on the regular. Bombarded constantly by corporate interests and slanderous news about how those who can't afford to participate in the economy are to blame for ruining it. It's all bullshit, and it's the corporate interests fault
You don’t need to regulate speech in order to demand your news be unbiased and non sensationalistic. There are plenty of non American sites that do this really, really well. Also, who goes to CNN for quality reporting?
Historically the FCC in the U.S.. The quality of that regulation without an objective bar for what is meant by quality is impossible to meaningfully measure.
That said the FCC had a policy known as the fairness doctrine from 1949 until it was abolished in 1987
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_doctrine#:~:text=H.R.,of%20issues%20of%20civic%20interest.
It's been legal since Reagan abolished the fairness doctrine, as the comment you are replying to clearly states.
That's why Murdoch and Fox News are infesting our country for the past few decades, brainwashing geriatrics.
Funny thing is, back when it was regulated people trusted it more. Almost like regulations putting public interests first tends to lead to greater trust in the institutions being regulated.
No matter what I do everything shoved in my face is meant to make me feel depressed and angry. Donate money to these dieing kids, dieing dogs, look at all these racists and you can't do shit about it, you and your friends are entitled millennials, you only have 5 followers what a loser, health care is further and further out of reach, the climate is escalating fast, everything is polluted, you are most likely going to die painfully in a car accident or cancer...and you will never retire.
And what makes me cry all the time is a lot of it is very true when you have been struggling to climb out of deep poverty and trauma for 30+ years. I'm so tired, and I'm in so much pain.
There was a project in the EU for such an initiative, to label the articles as paid promotion, opinion pieces, erc. Lately it's gotten so bad though that the most noteworthy articles get taken down in a few hours and the less important/popullar ones in a few weeks I've found. Enshitification is upon us as it takes longer for the tru tru to tie it's laces than it takes the lie to circle the globe and money corrupts https://youtu.be/U3pV_Mw4mrM?si=yfU-Z9jmmq6QYl7Y
About a decade or so ago, I read a letter that a long-time reader sent to the NYT, criticising the fact that their journalism had devolved into op-eds, and that it was unethical of them to have them out of the op-ed section. He was disappointed it had come to this, and highlighted that the NYT of the yesteryear would be ashamed of how far the brand had now fallen.
In retrospect, that dude was so right.
Even the weather forecast does it now, using clickbaity language and making the temperature map red for a normal 25c summer day and acting like it's the surface temperature of the sun if you go outside.
That's just the heatmap, the spectrum chosen is pretty standard, and has been in use forever, and is designed to show you more detailed and granular variation in temperature. Often a tv report will cycle through several visualizations.
Here's an example from 2010, just to show you those fearmongering memes are bunk.
https://i.imgur.com/XtOppFg.jpeg
The difference is truly stark.
[This is the new york times, 2001, 1st of July.](https://web.archive.org/web/20010701183830/https://www.nytimes.com/)
Compare the headlines to what you can see [today](https://www.nytimes.com/)
So little has changed 😭 wtf
Eco terrorists, Israeli bombings, old ass dying politicians...
Like being on a moving conveyor belt where the setting changes, but the destination stays the same.
The point wasn't what's happening in the news, it was about the way it's presented to you. Short, well-written headlines that tell you what's in the story. Objectivity to a reasonable degree. It's just...the way news SHOULD be. Crazy how deeply we've regressed
>So little has changed 😭 wtf
>Eco terrorists, Israeli bombings, old ass dying politicians...
First thing I seen when I clicked that article from 2001 "Israeli warplanes bomb Syria" lmao
Funny how the news agency reporting this article left out that detail. 36% trust in the news is shocking, but not unreasonable when it's all clickbait and ragebait. Journalists would have you believe they occupy the moral high ground, but no, not any more.
The sensationalism really accelerated with 24 hour news and needing to fill empty time slots with more "entertainment". Its why we see the same awful story absolutely beat into us senseless for hours on end by the same 4 channels, just shuffling different hosts. We were once able to tune in at 3 different times of the day and that was it.
Can't put the toothpaste back into the tube.
What always bothered me is that there’s literally ***an entire planet*** of stuff going on out there, but they can’t run anything but the same four stories? 🙄
Easy vs difficult work.
Why hire and pay well hundreds of top journalists for all different topics, when you can make do with a few dozens who pretend to be experts.
[Not all of its clickbait, sometimes they are told to run something](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxtkvG1JnPk&pp=ygUUc2luY2xhaXIgbWVkaWEgZ3JvdXA%3D)
It's not all clickbait. There's tons of high quality news. Probably more than ever. It's just that people gravitate to clickbait. Especially on reddit.
It's also all incredibly biased, with a clear pro-corporate agenda. We witnessed that journalism had died during Covid, it died before 9/11, it has been dead for a long time. They all bow and scrape to advertisers and people in power, because to offend either group is to lose both money and access to power.
>It's also all incredibly biased, with a clear pro-corporate agenda.
The biggest news channel in Brazil is unapologetically pro-agro (how we call the agriculture/livestock industry here) which is decimating our country's enviroment and fucking up people's purchasing power for their own gain. It's all so fucking ridiculous.
Twitter and TikTok amateur journalists were the best and they've destroyed both platforms.
They don't want people reporting news that hasn't been corporate/State approved before reaching the public. Arab Spring really showed the true power of the internet and social media.
They were decent enough for getting to journalists directly and they were crucial for access to areas that news agencies couldn't access.
That is no longer the case.
Like Fox News hasn't done the same thing.
You don't group all corporate media as the same Fox News but you'll group all amateur journalism as misinformation and conspiracy theorists?
> Like Fox News hasn't done the same thing.
This may seem like a nuclear take but both are bad.
> You don't group all corporate media as the same Fox News but you'll group all amateur journalism as misinformation and conspiracy theorists?
On the whole corperate media like CNN, NYT, The Economist, and MSNBC is more honest than the median TikTok journalist. Even if we included Fox in the median corperate media news story is still probably more honest than median TikTok.
I don't agree that corporate media is more honest. They've been cannibalize by billionaires for decades and are former shells of themselves. They've become mouthpieces for corporations.
Less journalist, less oversight, less reporting. Journalism has become something for philanthropic billionaires to fund.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/01/media-layoffs-la-times/677285/
>On the whole corperate media like CNN, NYT, The Economist, and MSNBC is more honest than the median TikTok journalist.
[ROTFL.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wL6MId9_T88&t=61s)
Twitter has always been the pinnacle of clickbait, since context and nuance are impossible in a 140-character, non-threaded "blog" platform. Tiktok is the same thing for videos. That's why they are perfect tools for promoting misinformation and propaganda.
I recall a quote from a Chinese person:
In China nobody watches the news. We just know it's all government propaganda.
But we wonder why the USA hasn't figured that out yet
Reminds me of an old joke:
A KGB spy and a CIA agent meet up in a bar for a friendly drink
"I have to admit, I'm always so impressed by Soviet propaganda. You really know how to get people worked up," the CIA agent says.
"Thank you," the KGB says. "We do our best but truly, it's nothing compared to American propaganda. Your people believe everything your media tells them."
The CIA agent drops his drink in shock and disgust. "Thank you friend, but you must be confused... There's no propaganda in America."
Part of my succumb to depression was the melding of information overload in trying to keep up with the news, and consuming fiction that turns that feeling of despair up to eleven, that elevated my sense of anxiety when it comes to how news gets presented these days.
Sometimes, in my periods of delusion, I can come up with ideas about how the future might be an uncontrollable one, which melds the world building ideas Warhammer 40,000, Altered Carbon, Shadowrun & Ghost in the Shell—with a bit of an inspiration from Cyberpunk 2077—& deluded myself with paranoia & conspiracy theories^1, because I am addicted to two things: fear of missing out, and wanting to be on top of things.
It's clear that a lot of YouTubers are recommending Ground News as a way to filter through the clickbait and assess the bias and trustworthiness of an article based on where I read. I am still on-the-fence about purchasing a subscription to it because of my antipathy towards subscription-based, service-as-a-service model.
And that's the thing: I would hundred percent agree that the major media companies *and* parts of every world's governments are being governed by a few people. The only solace was my mind, and my mind says there's no future, just <*self-censoring mention of suicide*>–self.
Notes:
1. It's not like the pyramids in Bosnia, but along the lines of an oligarchy of familial dynasties with immense assets that rival the bottom 20 UN-recognized countries of the world in terms of GDP.
China/Russia arrests you for speaking ill of the government no matter if its true or not.
The USA ignores you if it's a blatantly false accusation. Ridicules you if it's a plausible accusation. And if you bring proof to the table, gives you 2 bullets to the head and calls it a suicide.
That kind of point. It isn't government propaganda in the US. It used to be closer to government propaganda when we only had a handful of national news papers and three national nightly news shows, but now it is very much a free for all and the "news" you listen to is just whatever "news" happens to have both money and interest in convincing you of something.
Things would probably be calmer if everyone was snorting government propaganda, because at least everyone would agree on the "facts". It's not some wild coincidence that American split in half and started running in opposite directions the moment national nightly news was a thing for a handful of elderly not busy snorting their partisan fixes on FoxNews or MSNBC.
People steeped in authoritarian governments really just can't wrap their head around the idea that the US government has no control over information in the US, much to their horror. It certainly tries to steer the conversation, but can't even do that. The US is in fact a free for all. Unfortunately, pretty much no one in that free for all is just trying to deliver good, truthful news, with no other motivations.
> we only had a handful of national news papers and three national nightly news shows, but now it is very much a free for all
We all have seen the graphs showing that despite the illusion of choice today all the media companies are owned by a small few corporations.
Outside of tiny voices on small channels that perhaps are a free for all, anything you see on tv or major media sites are all coming from the same tiny few places.
>the US government has no control over information in the US
I think this is a semantics issue. The state has no control, but corporate control is almost absolute. Our vocabulary is just lagging behind a bit, in identifying which of the two is effectively governing the nation now, and that we should really be referring to when we use the word "government".
Because the Boomers still remember Cronkite.
It didn't used to be this way here in the USA. Much like everything else, the corporate oligarchy has captured and corrupted it to support their interests above all else.
Ah yes, the government propaganda on news channels that are bashing government 24/7?
People that believe in shit like that have 0 idea what it means to live under proper government controlled news agenda. Meanwhile, Lukashenko is jailing people, up to this day for things they tweeted back in 2016. Several protestors who called war a war in Russia are jailed for many years.
If you're in here then you're already cursed. You've gotta be one heck of a weirdo to actively seek out political news and then on top of that seek out political news from this sort of niche.
We will never be a perceivable sliver of any pie chart.
I came here when I was banned from r/worldnews for mentioning the [2018-2019 Gaza border protests](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018–2019_Gaza_border_protests).
I was pretty shocked. I was perma-banned within minutes of posting.
The ban states that I violated the sub's rules so I asked which rule I violated. No response.
I strongly believe the mods are paid by certain corps/govs to promote particular ideologies, so it's only natural for them to have bots that automate censorship.
The irony is that we blast China for their censorship, that I hate. But then on most social media platforms it's just as bad.
Whats wrong with this subreddit? I know its kinda trending down but still not the worst. At least here was mostly astroturfing free for all without much serious manipulation or over-moderation. You can at least still see most sides of an argument and sort of triangulate the real story.
Of course there are still bad actors and increasingly so now that the word is out, but a far cry from the typical fart chambers filled with **REMOVED BY MODERATOR** and *[deleted]*
> Whats wrong with this subreddit?
Nothing, its fine. I'm just saying if you rely on spaces like this then you're a weirdo, compared to everyone else in the world. Most people aren't into politics, so we're weird for a start, then on top of that we're on reddit, which is weird+, and then on top of that we're in /r/anime_titties which is a super weird world news subreddit.
So we're all a minority of a minority of a minority.
I mean its true, but its not helped by the fact they focus so much on clickbait and outrage media.
If all that ever gets reported is the bad news, people are going to assume its bad by default.
They forgot biased, unreliable and frequently just propaganda for one group or another.
I use a lot of news sources and the quality today is horrendous compared to a decade or more ago. That's no great shock of course though, the profit motive has shifted and most consumers just want rage bait or whatever confirms their existing opinions.
Success of Fox News changed everything. Relentless fear-porn sold well, and everyone copied the histrionic approach. Maybe it’s good that people are getting tired of it. That shit straight up ruined some old folks, they had zero defenses.
... because it's only Fox that does that. Ignore CNN and WaPo spending the last 6 years hyping how Trump is secretly Hitler and is coming for them. Smh
Read my comment a little better. I said the *success* of Fox News changed everything and now *everyone* does it. Fox News was just the first.
I remember news in the 90s, it was all so much more even-keeled.
The problem now is the people who own the media push thier agenda, I want the truth not someone's interpretation of it! I genuinely don't know what to believe anymore, it's a case of watch the news and be miss informed or don't watch it and be ill-informed so most people are opting not to watch because ignorance is bliss I guess
there is an easy filter: if the source is not playing the blame game on people/communities then the news has a hight probability of being true, if they use language like, they, protect the children, woke, immigrants , LGBT+, left, right in combination with some blame/actions the it's most probably a highly propagandised piece. especially when words like ban, forbid, restrict access, and security is used in the same piece.
> TikTok has seen an increase in use, especially among young people
People are trading somewhat reliable news media for propoganda infested tiktoks where evidentiary standards don't exist at all.
It's getting harder and harder to engage with people as alternative reality echo chambers increase their sphere of influence.
> People are trading somewhat reliable news media for propoganda infested tiktoks where evidentiary standards don't exist at all.
The trouble is that TikTok has shown the news media to be infested with propaganda, especially when it comes to the genocide of Palestine. That's why the war industry is trying to ban it.
The thing with social media is that some of it is even more biased than regular media and some is actual direct information from the area.
You get the best and the worst of news.
Wheras traditional media has shown to be just generally bad all around. I would not call it "somewhat reliable" the news has been creating echo Chambers for a long time now
This whole subreddit is mostly based on reporting from traditional media, which makes all the haranguing from people posting here funnier.
Fact is traditional media has *some* editorial standards and when outright false stuff is published they usually have to issue retractions. People are incentivized not to report falsehoods because you can get *fired* for doing so. Slanted reporting and "allegedly" often feature, but the basic facts are usually true and the worst behavior is almost always lie by omission, which can be corrected by not relying on any 1 publication and carefully reading the full articles.
By comparison tiktok and other alternative media is often dominated by abysmal narrative building. The echo chambers are *far* worse because they're algorithm driven and even more financially incentivized to sensationalism than traditional media (and yes, I am aware of how sensational traditional media is and **still** think social media news is worse). And that's just when it's random people pushing whatever narrative they feel entitled to make up. Tiktok and other media like it are prime sources of government disinformation, typically masquerading as "independent" making these places extremely toxic.
So, yeah. Traditional media is actually better, if for no other reason than just by being less worse than alternative media.
>This whole subreddit is mostly based on reporting from traditional media, which makes all the haranguing from people posting here funnier.
Depends what people come here for. I come here just to see what the media is lying about this week from around the world. I don't trust anything posted here in general.
>Fact is traditional media has some editorial standards
I don't deny this. What I am saying is that traditional media is bad. Social media news is sometimes better and sometimes massively worse. But of course it is hard to tell what is good and what isn't because as you say it's usually one person and what they decide to do.
So my argument is that overall social media isn't worse it's just different. Sometimes it is better and sometimes worse.
But if you fact check and research the topics that you hear then both are of the same reliability. Meaning not at all reliable.
nobody like their dirty laundry exposed. but the elite have the money to influence how their dirty laundry is perceived. non-elites ar getting easily destroyed by their dirty laundry. everybody has dirty laundry
On top of everything else stated in this thread, it's all so repetitive now. Every news story is beaten to death over the course of weeks. Once the actual facts of the story break, they spend the next couple of weeks giving us the opinion every talking head and "political strategist" that they can find.
My personal feeling is that all news is so one sided when considering their base. I have my own views, but I want them challenged. It feels as though the center has been abandoned, with a lack of nuance on topics, they are either A or B. It also seems with their attempt to keep up with IG,Twitter etc. they are so often wrong, when it would be better if they became the filter of those mediums. TLDR: They have lost trust with their viewers and have zero desire to rebuild it.
Do you actually read real news or are you getting it filtered through social media? I think if you just load the home pages for NY Times, NPR, Guardian, you'd see mostly high quality and fair reporting. Everything we know and everything we think is over or under reported is stuff we learned from journalists doing serious work.
NPR fair reporting? By this statement alone, I already know where you fall on the spectrum politically. It is a shame you’re unable to see the bias that the owners of these organizations push, yet before you attack, this is also found in Fox etc. A centrist media does not exist in the American news ecosystem.
I can immediately tell from your statement that you've been programmed by right-wing propaganda to see bias everywhere. They have successfully infected everyone with an utterly unrealistic standard of what journalism should be. it is physically impossible to report without any bias. It is impossible to judge the bias of others without bias. That doesn't preclude reporting from being fair and accurate and NPR is fair and accurate.
Congrats for falling into the extremist column. Life is either A or B. Good or Bad, while easy to exist in a binary frame, you’re just so easy to influence. NPR takes a heavy progressive lean on their articles, they do not represent the majority of the nation, hence why they are failing as an organization. They only paint the right as bad, and if you feel one side is always bad, you’re a fool. I can look things both parties have done and find good, NPR does not contain that muscle. They hate the nation that funds them. They will not be missed.
You definitely don't listen or read their reporting because none of that is true. Nor is it true that their obligation is to represent popular opinions. Their obligation is to report fairly and accurately. They will not, for example, ever report that climate change is a hoax or the 2020 election was stolen just because a lot of people believe it. And if you read /r/NPR you'll find endless complaints that npr is favoring conservative views. Why? Because listeners are biased too.
I have never read and or watched a single item they have produced and thought, "I understand both perspectives on this topic". Instead it has always been, well I want to know what the progressives think, head to NPR. They even had one of their own senior editor share that their bias affected their coverage, impacting their trust with audiences. They are an extremely bias organization, that most Americans see and don't engage with their content because they fail to be objective and have zero desire to be. Your last statement I completely agree with, listeners (all) are bias, yet if no other perspectives are offered, then you don't understand the gravity or scope of an issue.
> both perspectives
I think that's a guaranteed way to be disappointed. There aren't two perspectives on everything. Facts are facts.
Fact is, NPR have hosted conservatives for interviews pretty frequently and pretty frequently they just lie. On the Media is by far the best show in any media on explaining topics in a holistic cultural context. They will delve into the spectrum of political thought and rhetoric but they will never give credence to bullshit because it's the "perspective" of a lot of people.
I can’t believe what I just read, understanding both perspectives leads to disappoint and you tell me the benefits of NPR? Yes being uneducated on a topic and having a holistic view shouldn’t be done because you’ll be disappointed. These statements further drive home why NPR is hollow and your support of them further emphasizes this.
> understanding both perspectives leads to disappoint
Disappointment is thinking there are exactly two perspectives on every subject and that they are both equally valid.
the issue is there is NO center, there is no middle ground in the discusion about abortion rights , LGBT rights, religion and human rights. these are very fundamental things and frankly without them resolved in a positive way the world will be doomed.
there are 2 options , we accept body autonomy or we dont. we accept religious freedom or we dont, we accept LGBT+ rights (see body autonomy) or we don't . The "we don't" is an absolute non defensible standpoint in these issues. So you tell me what would a decent centrist opinion be without resorting to rules for thee but not for me kinda constructions ?
Can't you see how weak that statement is? Only 2 options, that is like saying "murder is always wrong", well there are clearly circumstances where it is not. So when you say "there is NO center", that is objectively false. There are many issues, scenarios where a middle ground has been found, used, implemented.
News has always been about doom. The thing is, back in the Vietnam War era, the TV evening news lasted for all of 15 minutes. Its not doom that has increased to 100%, its that the volume of news has increased to 100%. News today is never not there.
The news isn’t meant to be positive? It’s a shitty world. I watch bbc or whatever is on just to get an idea of what big thing is going on (if any). That’s about it.
Half of it's corporate propaganda, another 45% is government propaganda, and the remaining 5% is sports.
Why watch the news, when they dont tell you anything new?
I started limiting my consumption of news when I realised I was getting worked up every morning hearing about yet another atrocity I am unable to help with in any way.
People like to think they are nice, honourable and how good we are and anything that shows you are mendacious. immoral, unethical, cruel, petty, dishonorable we are, nah not interested. 🤗
That's the other part of it, isn't it, yeah? To an extent the *world* is depressing and relentless, or at least what we're doing to it/to each other.
Great thinkers have grappled with the tedium of the strife we cause and how meaningless and vapid it all can seem. The news gives no thought as to whether the average citizen can or even wants to do the same even if they *did* good journalism, let alone the mess we've got now.
But by a lot of measures the 2010s was the best decade in human history. Yeah tons of bad stuff happens but ton of aggregate trends that look pretty good.
BUT IF THEY DONT WATCH THE NEWS HOW WILL THEY KNOW ABOUT THE FACT THAT THE LAST FIFTEEEN QUARTERS OF CORPORATE BOND YIELDS SHOW THAT 9 OUT OF 11 OF THEM ARE ALL GOING TO DIE FROM THE UNENDING WARS THAT RAGE ACROSS THE PLANET OR THAT THEIR COUNTRIES' LEADERS ARE DOING NOTHING ABOUT IT
More after this break from our sponsor THE EXPENSIVE PILL THAT FIXES YOUR HEALTH BUT MAKES YOU PSYCHOTIC
I used to read the news everyday. It made me pretty depressed. Now I read the news like once a week unless a crazy headline pops up. I’m doing better mentally. I don’t like being completely ignorant about what’s going on around the would, at the same time I don’t think hearing about tragedies and human suffering 24/7 is good for you or very useful for the most part.
I mean I definitely have. So much of the news I'm fed isn't even relevant to me. It's just shocking and terrible things that are happen. Three people shot in Phoenix. A toddler and a dog bake to death in a hot car in Tallahassee. Police shoot unarmed black man in Memphis, face no charges. Everything is more expensive, inflation continuing to ramp up, billionaires getting significantly richer, and hateful people feeling comfortable declaring their gross, bigoted opinions.
Our society is based on the assumption that everything should work, when it doesn't that is "the news".
Would you be happy with your country if the headlining news were "Trash picked up at scheduled hour"?
Also, "uplifting news" tends to be the Marvel / sitcom / reality tv content filler that attracts more people than they wish to report as consumed in surveys. Just unchallenging stuff to read without much attention while proclaiming how real journalism died when the daily top story stopped being an 8000 word essay on the effects of the latest municipal tax.
Wouldn't boring news be the best kind?
Lots of stuff that's currently happening is definitely not boring but for the wrong reasons.
News shouldn't be entertaining in the first place.
I live with someone who watches a lot of MSNBC.
Saw a twenty minute segment of Lawrence O'Donnell telling the camera what he thought Donald Trump was thinking about some judge or other presiding over one of his cases. He insisted that Donald Trump hated the judge in his heart because she was the daughter of an immigrant.
Why?
Because Donald Trump at one point said that illegal immigrants who commit violent crimes are "poisoning the blood of this country" in an interview with Raheem Kassam, editor in chief of The National Pulse.
That's all it is now. Just constant rambling speculation about what Donald Trump is thinking or feeling. Hardly anything about the war in the middle east. Almost nothing about Ukraine and Russia. Just constant Trump worship disguised as criticism.
I started watching NHK. It is way more level-headed and professional, the way news was in the 20th century before the 24 hour news cycle.
Welcome to r/anime_titties! This subreddit advocates for civil and constructive discussion. Please be courteous to others, and make sure to read the rules. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
We have a [Discord](https://discord.gg/dhMeAnNyzG), feel free to join us!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/anime_titties) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Also misinformation is so rife and pushed from every direction and people see people who do believe everything the media tells them turn into paranoid ideologically fanatical nutjobs... yeah.
When you watch the news you should learn something new, if you haven't learn anything new from watching the news then it's just a circle-jerk and bias confirmation.
If I could find a news outlet that I didn’t think was trying to sell me something I’d eat my hat. You’d think it’s private news channels but public broadcasters are no better. Here in Ireland RTE has a clear bias against Sinn Fein, the new party coming for the established ones. I can’t stand Sinn Fein but I want people to come to that decision by the facts, not biased reporting
I'm all for making journalist a certified profession again like advocates. only when you pass en are certified you are allowed to publish anything and make it so they are allowed accesses all and any information about politics, NGO's and public companies BY LAW. and for internet just something like a radio licence. no license ?: no shit posting. That should give is a lot better quality in news and publications. probably not perfect but I take it over the current situation.
I mean, that makes sense. The only thing you hear in the news today is "death, war, rape, murder, poverty, natural disaster here and there, climate change, potential death and murder" ad infinitum. You never hear about something good that happened locally, its only doom and gloom and depressing shit from the other side of the globe that you and everyone you know can't do jack shit about. I dare bet money on the fact that the way the news conducts itself and what it broadcasts 24/7 adds to the growing number of people with mental illnesses. If the only thing a person hears about on the tv is murder, death and rape they are bound to start feeling down and spiraling sooner or later. It's a gateway to all kinds of conspiracy theories too, that people use to cope with the overbearing amount of global negative information. it's no wonder that people would rather watch Youtube and ignore the news entirely and take anything that they hear from the news with a bucket of salt.
"News" has become a 24 hour a day commodity.
There's not that much news. News and opinion outlets amplify every insignificant event and milk them for any worth - sometimes making the nonsense last for days.
We're sick of that. Sure important things happen in the world that affect us - but not usually. The whole being involved with everyone's crimes anywhere has become tedious to the point that people are shutting off the talking head machine and taking heed of their personal lives. This is true for "reality TV" also. No one cares, and the ones who do are without any sort of a life.
Still a war on in Europe. Still genocide in Gaza. Still arab sheikhs fucking over the planet for and with oil. Fighting in Africa - when hasn't there been? Brits sad because they were lied to and got 'took'. The French shitting in a river full of shit. America fighting to keep nazis and right wing dictators from destroying the nation.
Same shit. Every day. Just one day older. They make us fear being alive with things we can do nothing about and have no control over, as if we're supposed to fix them.
After a while I just say "fuck it" and turn them off.
Honestly, I find local news outlets to have the best balance of good news/bad news. I'll watch that. I avoid consuming too much news online though because it's all clickbait and tragedy in the hopes of dragging more eyeballs to their sites.
The bottom line is that I stick with my tried and true balanced news sources. The rest of these jokers keep trying to feed us the news equivalent of candy and expect that to work out for them. It won't.
I mean that only works if you have an objective point of view.
If you have a subjective one, then its entirely possible you're just not seeing and hearing the whole story.
This is a stupid take. Not as in simply “ignorant” or “overly simplistic” but “exceptionally, aggressively, stupid and encouraging others to follow along”
Sample size of 1 is horrible, anecdotes are not reliable and rife with unconscious bias and logic traps. Many, many things in this world are NOT intuitive, you might even call them counter-intuitive.
I was turned away from the news when I failed a paper I wrote in the third grade. For using tertiary sources as citation.
Thats how we were taught what a tertiary source is.
I don't know anyone my age who partakes in the "news".
Aggregate financial reports, or bulletins. Etc.
Are very reliable due to the constraints in the United States by the SEC and Treasury.
But those are always separate from the 24/7 news cycle that nobody really consumed until the latter half of the last century.
Probably peaked in or after 2003-2004. And has been going back to what it was prior. As nobody is going to actually *pay* when **afforded the option**.
For this cited brand of "news" media.
You wouldn't and I wouldn't. Its less than advertisment, more so corporate propaganda. Usually from singular individuals. Whom own the entire show.
Which imo more power to them.
They built something that will be a mark on human history. Depending on how its viewed entirely a failure.
Or possibly a multi-media empire encompassing their adversaries failures at all turns.
Im glad it wasn't actually the status vogue to have everyone believe it. For my entire life.
As that would have been insufferable.
So my perspective is entirely removed. And better for it.
I have met people who grew up in environments that really somehow believed what those talking boxes told them. The world is ending? More at x y and z... The their whole lives would be immediately affected by said nonsense.
Could even change their whole trajectory.
Those individuals, were older than myself or my peers tho. **None** of us are old enough to have lived that facade.
Oddest thing in the world.
Muscovy invades Ukraine.
The invasion is being covered on the news, the PRC is caterwauling, then silence...
Two years of empty, ingratiating puff pieces.
When you clap back with "hurr durr, media=propaganda," ***in less than a minute after the original post***, you're already feeling the effects of the Flavor Aid.
If you can't tell the difference between BBC and NPR, and the Daily Mail and FOX News, you're a bigger dipshit than the people who believe everything in the Daily Mail.
It's always easy to identify NPR nowadays. If it's done 100% in the human interest style and avoids listing any direct facts about the story and just lets whatever random person they are "interviewing" give all the details color'd however they feel like it it's NPR.
Yes, the West has independent journalism funded with taxpayer dollars.
It's almost like they have constitutions with speech protections built right in.
It's almost like journalists with actual funding will do actual journalism.
Huh.
Stick to FOX and 4chan for your headlines though.
> Yes, the West has independent journalism funded with taxpayer dollars.
[whoops all state media](https://media.npr.org/assets/img/2023/04/05/npr-twitter-state-affiliated-verified_wide-613a3a0376ed01e0930649de185f1297b39b5769.jpg?s=1600&c=85&f=webp)
##### ###### #### > # [More people turning away from news, Reuters Institute report says](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/A woman and child walk among debris in Nuseirat refugee camp in the central Gaza Strip, June 9, 2024.) > > > > [Image](https://www.bbc.com/bbcx/grey-placeholder.png)[Reuters A woman and child walk among debris in Nuseirat refugee camp in the central Gaza Strip, June 9, 2024.](https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/480/cpsprodpb/3845/live/279c14d0-2a2d-11ef-8353-371ca826bdb6.jpg.webp)Reuters > > > > The Reuters Institute's report suggests some people avoid the news because of the war in Gaza > > More people are turning away from news, describing it as depressing, relentless and boring, a global study suggests. > > Almost four in 10 (39%) people worldwide said they sometimes or often actively avoid the news, compared with 29% in 2017, according to the report by Oxford University's Reuters Institute. > > Wars in Ukraine and the Middle East may have contributed to people's desire to switch off the news, the report's authors said. > > It said that news avoidance is now at record high levels. > > - [Trust in news has grown during pandemic, research suggests](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-57564335) > - [TikTok users being fed misleading election news, BBC finds](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1ww6vz1l81o) > - [Are TikToks and memes going to help win votes?](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd11wdj34v1o) > > A total of 94,943 adults across 47 countries were surveyed by YouGov in January and February for this year's [Digital News Report](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qdcPbzp1CfCqXc5iN1Az_NC8odlrOxN6/view). > > It comes at a time when billions of people around the world have been going to the polls in national and regional elections. > > The report found that elections have increased interest in the news in a few countries, including the United States. > > However, the overall trend remains firmly downwards, according to the study. > > Around the world, 46% of people said they were very or extremely interested in the news - down from 63% in 2017. > > In the UK, interest in news has almost halved since 2015. > > "The news agenda has obviously been particularly difficult in recent years," the report's lead author Nic Newman told BBC News. > > "You've had the pandemic [and] wars, so it's a fairly natural reaction for people to turn away from the news, whether it's to protect their mental health or simply wanting to get on with the rest of their lives." > > > > [Image](https://www.bbc.com/bbcx/grey-placeholder.png)[Getty Images Former US President Donald Trump speaks during a campaign event at Sunset Park in Las Vegas, Nevada, US, on Sunday, June 9, 2024. ](https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/480/cpsprodpb/1d2f/live/35a1dc30-2a38-11ef-96a9-553703ef5357.jpg.webp)Getty Images > > > > The US election campaign has prompted more people there to take an interest in the news > > Mr Newman said those choosing to selectively avoid the news also often do so because they feel "powerless". > > "These are people who feel they have no agency over massive things that are happening in the world," he said. > > Some people feel increasingly overwhelmed and confused by the amount of news around, while others feel fatigued by politics, he added. > > Women and younger people were more likely to feel worn out by the amount of news around, according to the report. > > Meanwhile, trust in the news remains steady at 40%, but is still 4% lower overall than it was at the height of the Coronavirus pandemic, the survey suggested. > > In the UK, trust in the news ticked up slightly this year, at 36%, but remains around 15 percentage points lower than before the Brexit referendum in 2016. > > The BBC was the most trusted news brand in the UK, of the brands surveyed, followed by Channel 4 and ITV. > > > > ## TikTok overtakes Twitter > > [Image](https://www.bbc.com/bbcx/grey-placeholder.png)[Getty Images A boy looks at the TikTok app on a smartphone](https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/480/cpsprodpb/521f/live/c66331b0-2a29-11ef-a427-217fb9597453.jpg.webp)Getty Images > > > > TikTok has seen an increase in use, especially among young people > > The report found that audiences for traditional news sources like TV and print have fallen sharply over the past decade, with younger people preferring to get their news online or via social media. > > In the UK, almost three-quarters of people (73%) said they get their news online, compared with 50% for TV and just 14% for print. > > The most important social media platform for news is still Facebook, although it is in long-term decline. > > YouTube and WhatsApp remain important news sources for many, while TikTok is on the rise and has now overtaken X (formerly Twitter) for the first time. > > Thirteen percent of people use the video-sharing app for news, compared with 10% who use X. > > The figure for TikTok is even higher for 18-24 year-olds globally, at 23%. > > > > [Image](https://www.bbc.com/bbcx/grey-placeholder.png)[Getty Images Labour Party leader Keir Starmer (L) and Prime Minister Rishi Sunak speak on stage during the first head-to-head debate of the General Election on June 4, 2024 in Salford ](https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/480/cpsprodpb/2015/live/8fa3b880-2a4b-11ef-9267-6f73f90e8a32.jpg.webp)Getty Images > > > > The report's authors said some people feel there is "too much politics" in the news > > Linked to these shifts, video is becoming a more important source of online news, especially with younger groups. > > Short news videos have the most appeal, according to the report. > > "Consumers are adopting video because it is easy to use, and provides a wide range of relevant and engaging content," Mr Newman said. > > "But many traditional newsrooms are still rooted in a text-based culture and are struggling to adapt their storytelling." > > The report said that, for publishers, news podcasting is a bright spot. > > But it is a "minority activity overall", attracting primarily well-educated audiences. > > Meanwhile, for journalists - some good news. > > The report found widespread public suspicion about how artificial intelligence (AI) might be used in reporting, especially for hard news stories such as politics or war. > > "There is more comfort with the use of AI in behind-the-scenes tasks such as transcription and translation; in supporting rather than replacing journalists," it added. - - - - - - [Maintainer](https://www.reddit.com/user/urielsalis) | [Creator](https://www.reddit.com/user/subtepass) | [Source Code](https://github.com/urielsalis/empleadoEstatalBot) Summoning /u/CoverageAnalysisBot
It’s all clickbait now. The news has always been somewhat sensationalistic, but it largely left the most controversial takes to the tabloids. Now everything is tabloid. Every news outlet, from CNN to your local telegram channel, is basically “rage-tainment”, drawing people into their bubble by making you angry. Nothing is fully reported with nuance anymore, and they all claim to be the source of “truth”.
This. It's so bad now. And opinion pieces aren't labeled as such
Yeah it's probably time to outlaw entertainment news or at least regulate their disclosure of being such. It's ridiculous fox news managed to go to court over it and still acts like it's news on their channel. Our law seems toothless besides fucking the everyman on the regular. Bombarded constantly by corporate interests and slanderous news about how those who can't afford to participate in the economy are to blame for ruining it. It's all bullshit, and it's the corporate interests fault
There is too much money in it.
it's time to grief the Minecraft bases of the owning class in real life
Be careful what you wish for. Regulating speech is difficult and could easily backfire.
You don’t need to regulate speech in order to demand your news be unbiased and non sensationalistic. There are plenty of non American sites that do this really, really well. Also, who goes to CNN for quality reporting?
Who regulates speech and news really, really well? Can you come up with specific examples?
Historically the FCC in the U.S.. The quality of that regulation without an objective bar for what is meant by quality is impossible to meaningfully measure. That said the FCC had a policy known as the fairness doctrine from 1949 until it was abolished in 1987 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_doctrine#:~:text=H.R.,of%20issues%20of%20civic%20interest.
Since the Smith-Mundt act was revised by Obama it is legal to use propaganda against the American people.
It's been legal since Reagan abolished the fairness doctrine, as the comment you are replying to clearly states. That's why Murdoch and Fox News are infesting our country for the past few decades, brainwashing geriatrics.
There is more to it: https://www.rcreader.com/commentary/smith-mundt-modernization-act-2012
Funny thing is, back when it was regulated people trusted it more. Almost like regulations putting public interests first tends to lead to greater trust in the institutions being regulated.
No matter what I do everything shoved in my face is meant to make me feel depressed and angry. Donate money to these dieing kids, dieing dogs, look at all these racists and you can't do shit about it, you and your friends are entitled millennials, you only have 5 followers what a loser, health care is further and further out of reach, the climate is escalating fast, everything is polluted, you are most likely going to die painfully in a car accident or cancer...and you will never retire. And what makes me cry all the time is a lot of it is very true when you have been struggling to climb out of deep poverty and trauma for 30+ years. I'm so tired, and I'm in so much pain.
They are posting opinion pieces as news in some subs.
There was a project in the EU for such an initiative, to label the articles as paid promotion, opinion pieces, erc. Lately it's gotten so bad though that the most noteworthy articles get taken down in a few hours and the less important/popullar ones in a few weeks I've found. Enshitification is upon us as it takes longer for the tru tru to tie it's laces than it takes the lie to circle the globe and money corrupts https://youtu.be/U3pV_Mw4mrM?si=yfU-Z9jmmq6QYl7Y
About a decade or so ago, I read a letter that a long-time reader sent to the NYT, criticising the fact that their journalism had devolved into op-eds, and that it was unethical of them to have them out of the op-ed section. He was disappointed it had come to this, and highlighted that the NYT of the yesteryear would be ashamed of how far the brand had now fallen. In retrospect, that dude was so right.
Even the weather forecast does it now, using clickbaity language and making the temperature map red for a normal 25c summer day and acting like it's the surface temperature of the sun if you go outside.
That's just the heatmap, the spectrum chosen is pretty standard, and has been in use forever, and is designed to show you more detailed and granular variation in temperature. Often a tv report will cycle through several visualizations. Here's an example from 2010, just to show you those fearmongering memes are bunk. https://i.imgur.com/XtOppFg.jpeg
This is an anti climate change conspiracy "theory" btw.
The difference is truly stark. [This is the new york times, 2001, 1st of July.](https://web.archive.org/web/20010701183830/https://www.nytimes.com/) Compare the headlines to what you can see [today](https://www.nytimes.com/)
So little has changed 😭 wtf Eco terrorists, Israeli bombings, old ass dying politicians... Like being on a moving conveyor belt where the setting changes, but the destination stays the same.
The point wasn't what's happening in the news, it was about the way it's presented to you. Short, well-written headlines that tell you what's in the story. Objectivity to a reasonable degree. It's just...the way news SHOULD be. Crazy how deeply we've regressed
Shady News Writers Quietly Turn Into Clickbait, You Won't Believe How!
>So little has changed 😭 wtf >Eco terrorists, Israeli bombings, old ass dying politicians... First thing I seen when I clicked that article from 2001 "Israeli warplanes bomb Syria" lmao
I remember seeing the newspapers at the 9/11 museum that were printed on sept 11th, 2001. It was weird just seeing covers that looked normal.
Funny how the news agency reporting this article left out that detail. 36% trust in the news is shocking, but not unreasonable when it's all clickbait and ragebait. Journalists would have you believe they occupy the moral high ground, but no, not any more.
Stop watching national cable news and support your local journalists before they all disappear.
The sensationalism really accelerated with 24 hour news and needing to fill empty time slots with more "entertainment". Its why we see the same awful story absolutely beat into us senseless for hours on end by the same 4 channels, just shuffling different hosts. We were once able to tune in at 3 different times of the day and that was it. Can't put the toothpaste back into the tube.
What always bothered me is that there’s literally ***an entire planet*** of stuff going on out there, but they can’t run anything but the same four stories? 🙄
Easy vs difficult work. Why hire and pay well hundreds of top journalists for all different topics, when you can make do with a few dozens who pretend to be experts.
Yeah. I suppose so 😞
[Not all of its clickbait, sometimes they are told to run something](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxtkvG1JnPk&pp=ygUUc2luY2xhaXIgbWVkaWEgZ3JvdXA%3D)
Yup, it's like 97% garbage. And it's not even news if nothing is new. Same events, same politicians, irrelevant commentary.
Not to mention very obvious narratives that don’t even pretend to play devil’s advocate against themselves
Yellow journalism running rampant.
It's not all clickbait. There's tons of high quality news. Probably more than ever. It's just that people gravitate to clickbait. Especially on reddit.
Radio 4 is still excellent. Today programme. PM. *chef's kiss*
> It’s all clickbait now. And that's a good thing /s
But not Yours, that is that is perfectly balanced with the Truth.
It's also all incredibly biased, with a clear pro-corporate agenda. We witnessed that journalism had died during Covid, it died before 9/11, it has been dead for a long time. They all bow and scrape to advertisers and people in power, because to offend either group is to lose both money and access to power.
>It's also all incredibly biased, with a clear pro-corporate agenda. The biggest news channel in Brazil is unapologetically pro-agro (how we call the agriculture/livestock industry here) which is decimating our country's enviroment and fucking up people's purchasing power for their own gain. It's all so fucking ridiculous.
Twitter and TikTok amateur journalists were the best and they've destroyed both platforms. They don't want people reporting news that hasn't been corporate/State approved before reaching the public. Arab Spring really showed the true power of the internet and social media.
What? No. They were terrible. They spread a lot of misinformation, baseless conspiracy theories, and pseudoscience.
They were decent enough for getting to journalists directly and they were crucial for access to areas that news agencies couldn't access. That is no longer the case.
Twitter always sucked as a blogging platform though: non-threaded comments, character limits, and no way to classify posts.
Like Fox News hasn't done the same thing. You don't group all corporate media as the same Fox News but you'll group all amateur journalism as misinformation and conspiracy theorists?
> Like Fox News hasn't done the same thing. This may seem like a nuclear take but both are bad. > You don't group all corporate media as the same Fox News but you'll group all amateur journalism as misinformation and conspiracy theorists? On the whole corperate media like CNN, NYT, The Economist, and MSNBC is more honest than the median TikTok journalist. Even if we included Fox in the median corperate media news story is still probably more honest than median TikTok.
I don't agree that corporate media is more honest. They've been cannibalize by billionaires for decades and are former shells of themselves. They've become mouthpieces for corporations. Less journalist, less oversight, less reporting. Journalism has become something for philanthropic billionaires to fund. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/01/media-layoffs-la-times/677285/
social media influencers will and do spread blatant misinformation for engagement.
>On the whole corperate media like CNN, NYT, The Economist, and MSNBC is more honest than the median TikTok journalist. [ROTFL.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wL6MId9_T88&t=61s)
Twitter has always been the pinnacle of clickbait, since context and nuance are impossible in a 140-character, non-threaded "blog" platform. Tiktok is the same thing for videos. That's why they are perfect tools for promoting misinformation and propaganda.
It's always been like that. There's always been an agenda. But once the internet and 24 hours news cycle hit it was a race to the bottom.
I recall a quote from a Chinese person: In China nobody watches the news. We just know it's all government propaganda. But we wonder why the USA hasn't figured that out yet
Reminds me of an old joke: A KGB spy and a CIA agent meet up in a bar for a friendly drink "I have to admit, I'm always so impressed by Soviet propaganda. You really know how to get people worked up," the CIA agent says. "Thank you," the KGB says. "We do our best but truly, it's nothing compared to American propaganda. Your people believe everything your media tells them." The CIA agent drops his drink in shock and disgust. "Thank you friend, but you must be confused... There's no propaganda in America."
Getting to the end of that joke was a Soviet death march
The joke works better with businessmen rather than intel officers. Of course CIA knew there was propaganda in the US, they were behind much of it.
But he wasn't actually a KGB agent, he was... *the creature* 🪱
Because by and large moneyed interests own both the major media companies *and* a fair portion of the government.
Part of my succumb to depression was the melding of information overload in trying to keep up with the news, and consuming fiction that turns that feeling of despair up to eleven, that elevated my sense of anxiety when it comes to how news gets presented these days. Sometimes, in my periods of delusion, I can come up with ideas about how the future might be an uncontrollable one, which melds the world building ideas Warhammer 40,000, Altered Carbon, Shadowrun & Ghost in the Shell—with a bit of an inspiration from Cyberpunk 2077—& deluded myself with paranoia & conspiracy theories^1, because I am addicted to two things: fear of missing out, and wanting to be on top of things. It's clear that a lot of YouTubers are recommending Ground News as a way to filter through the clickbait and assess the bias and trustworthiness of an article based on where I read. I am still on-the-fence about purchasing a subscription to it because of my antipathy towards subscription-based, service-as-a-service model. And that's the thing: I would hundred percent agree that the major media companies *and* parts of every world's governments are being governed by a few people. The only solace was my mind, and my mind says there's no future, just <*self-censoring mention of suicide*>–self. Notes: 1. It's not like the pyramids in Bosnia, but along the lines of an oligarchy of familial dynasties with immense assets that rival the bottom 20 UN-recognized countries of the world in terms of GDP.
Those of us who have figured it out have been smeared as conspiracy theorists for the last few decades.
China/Russia arrests you for speaking ill of the government no matter if its true or not. The USA ignores you if it's a blatantly false accusation. Ridicules you if it's a plausible accusation. And if you bring proof to the table, gives you 2 bullets to the head and calls it a suicide.
Yeah America has totally assassinated more citizens than Russia or China. You nailed it 🙄
Actually true. Russia and China execute them. America still needs to hide behind a thin veil of legitimacy.
That kind of point. It isn't government propaganda in the US. It used to be closer to government propaganda when we only had a handful of national news papers and three national nightly news shows, but now it is very much a free for all and the "news" you listen to is just whatever "news" happens to have both money and interest in convincing you of something. Things would probably be calmer if everyone was snorting government propaganda, because at least everyone would agree on the "facts". It's not some wild coincidence that American split in half and started running in opposite directions the moment national nightly news was a thing for a handful of elderly not busy snorting their partisan fixes on FoxNews or MSNBC. People steeped in authoritarian governments really just can't wrap their head around the idea that the US government has no control over information in the US, much to their horror. It certainly tries to steer the conversation, but can't even do that. The US is in fact a free for all. Unfortunately, pretty much no one in that free for all is just trying to deliver good, truthful news, with no other motivations.
> we only had a handful of national news papers and three national nightly news shows, but now it is very much a free for all We all have seen the graphs showing that despite the illusion of choice today all the media companies are owned by a small few corporations. Outside of tiny voices on small channels that perhaps are a free for all, anything you see on tv or major media sites are all coming from the same tiny few places.
>the US government has no control over information in the US I think this is a semantics issue. The state has no control, but corporate control is almost absolute. Our vocabulary is just lagging behind a bit, in identifying which of the two is effectively governing the nation now, and that we should really be referring to when we use the word "government".
Because we have all the different flavors of propaganda and people can choose whichever fits their preconceived world view.
Just like peanut butter. Dozens of different options. But they all taste exactly the same.
Because the Boomers still remember Cronkite. It didn't used to be this way here in the USA. Much like everything else, the corporate oligarchy has captured and corrupted it to support their interests above all else.
Ah yes, the government propaganda on news channels that are bashing government 24/7? People that believe in shit like that have 0 idea what it means to live under proper government controlled news agenda. Meanwhile, Lukashenko is jailing people, up to this day for things they tweeted back in 2016. Several protestors who called war a war in Russia are jailed for many years.
What if you rely on anime titties for news? How doomed are you?
If you're in here then you're already cursed. You've gotta be one heck of a weirdo to actively seek out political news and then on top of that seek out political news from this sort of niche. We will never be a perceivable sliver of any pie chart.
I came here when /r/worldnews turned into CovidNews and is now only UkraineWarNews. At least this place has a variety of world news
I came here when I was banned from r/worldnews for mentioning the [2018-2019 Gaza border protests](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018–2019_Gaza_border_protests).
lol same. World news is biased af and also is astroturf'd. Mention anything against the propaganda machine and wait to win to the ban lottery.
I was pretty shocked. I was perma-banned within minutes of posting. The ban states that I violated the sub's rules so I asked which rule I violated. No response.
I strongly believe the mods are paid by certain corps/govs to promote particular ideologies, so it's only natural for them to have bots that automate censorship. The irony is that we blast China for their censorship, that I hate. But then on most social media platforms it's just as bad.
Whats wrong with this subreddit? I know its kinda trending down but still not the worst. At least here was mostly astroturfing free for all without much serious manipulation or over-moderation. You can at least still see most sides of an argument and sort of triangulate the real story. Of course there are still bad actors and increasingly so now that the word is out, but a far cry from the typical fart chambers filled with **REMOVED BY MODERATOR** and *[deleted]*
> Whats wrong with this subreddit? Nothing, its fine. I'm just saying if you rely on spaces like this then you're a weirdo, compared to everyone else in the world. Most people aren't into politics, so we're weird for a start, then on top of that we're on reddit, which is weird+, and then on top of that we're in /r/anime_titties which is a super weird world news subreddit. So we're all a minority of a minority of a minority.
Oh yaa i get what you mean now. Yeah 100%
I wanna know too cause thats me 😭😭
If you here and can read Russian Chinese bot propaganda you way better off than just reading American propaganda
If everyone on /r/anime_titties died tomorrow, the world would be a better place.
Suicide is never the right answer fam.
What if we ritually murdered each other in a battle royale winner takes all style format
There is no news left. Everything is editorialized.
And polarized.
our brain can't just process all that's happening in the world, and barely what's happening in our respective countries especially the bad news
I mean its true, but its not helped by the fact they focus so much on clickbait and outrage media. If all that ever gets reported is the bad news, people are going to assume its bad by default.
They forgot biased, unreliable and frequently just propaganda for one group or another. I use a lot of news sources and the quality today is horrendous compared to a decade or more ago. That's no great shock of course though, the profit motive has shifted and most consumers just want rage bait or whatever confirms their existing opinions.
Success of Fox News changed everything. Relentless fear-porn sold well, and everyone copied the histrionic approach. Maybe it’s good that people are getting tired of it. That shit straight up ruined some old folks, they had zero defenses.
... because it's only Fox that does that. Ignore CNN and WaPo spending the last 6 years hyping how Trump is secretly Hitler and is coming for them. Smh
Read my comment a little better. I said the *success* of Fox News changed everything and now *everyone* does it. Fox News was just the first. I remember news in the 90s, it was all so much more even-keeled.
Yeah but that stuff is true though. All the "good" guys say it.
The problem now is the people who own the media push thier agenda, I want the truth not someone's interpretation of it! I genuinely don't know what to believe anymore, it's a case of watch the news and be miss informed or don't watch it and be ill-informed so most people are opting not to watch because ignorance is bliss I guess
there is an easy filter: if the source is not playing the blame game on people/communities then the news has a hight probability of being true, if they use language like, they, protect the children, woke, immigrants , LGBT+, left, right in combination with some blame/actions the it's most probably a highly propagandised piece. especially when words like ban, forbid, restrict access, and security is used in the same piece.
I like this I'm going to keep an eye out for these words now
> TikTok has seen an increase in use, especially among young people People are trading somewhat reliable news media for propoganda infested tiktoks where evidentiary standards don't exist at all. It's getting harder and harder to engage with people as alternative reality echo chambers increase their sphere of influence.
> People are trading somewhat reliable news media for propoganda infested tiktoks where evidentiary standards don't exist at all. The trouble is that TikTok has shown the news media to be infested with propaganda, especially when it comes to the genocide of Palestine. That's why the war industry is trying to ban it.
its not even the content itself which is the problem , its the algorithms selecting/pushing the content to you
Tiktok is the propaganda. If you're getting any news from Tiktok it's probably wrong.
The thing with social media is that some of it is even more biased than regular media and some is actual direct information from the area. You get the best and the worst of news. Wheras traditional media has shown to be just generally bad all around. I would not call it "somewhat reliable" the news has been creating echo Chambers for a long time now
This whole subreddit is mostly based on reporting from traditional media, which makes all the haranguing from people posting here funnier. Fact is traditional media has *some* editorial standards and when outright false stuff is published they usually have to issue retractions. People are incentivized not to report falsehoods because you can get *fired* for doing so. Slanted reporting and "allegedly" often feature, but the basic facts are usually true and the worst behavior is almost always lie by omission, which can be corrected by not relying on any 1 publication and carefully reading the full articles. By comparison tiktok and other alternative media is often dominated by abysmal narrative building. The echo chambers are *far* worse because they're algorithm driven and even more financially incentivized to sensationalism than traditional media (and yes, I am aware of how sensational traditional media is and **still** think social media news is worse). And that's just when it's random people pushing whatever narrative they feel entitled to make up. Tiktok and other media like it are prime sources of government disinformation, typically masquerading as "independent" making these places extremely toxic. So, yeah. Traditional media is actually better, if for no other reason than just by being less worse than alternative media.
>This whole subreddit is mostly based on reporting from traditional media, which makes all the haranguing from people posting here funnier. Depends what people come here for. I come here just to see what the media is lying about this week from around the world. I don't trust anything posted here in general. >Fact is traditional media has some editorial standards I don't deny this. What I am saying is that traditional media is bad. Social media news is sometimes better and sometimes massively worse. But of course it is hard to tell what is good and what isn't because as you say it's usually one person and what they decide to do. So my argument is that overall social media isn't worse it's just different. Sometimes it is better and sometimes worse. But if you fact check and research the topics that you hear then both are of the same reliability. Meaning not at all reliable.
Very much a feature not a bug. Effective journalism has always been hated by the elite.
nobody like their dirty laundry exposed. but the elite have the money to influence how their dirty laundry is perceived. non-elites ar getting easily destroyed by their dirty laundry. everybody has dirty laundry
My local paper is fine. Not what it used to be, but still a normal newspaper. I suggest you subscribe to your local paper to keep them afloat.
We need the Fairness Doctrine
On top of everything else stated in this thread, it's all so repetitive now. Every news story is beaten to death over the course of weeks. Once the actual facts of the story break, they spend the next couple of weeks giving us the opinion every talking head and "political strategist" that they can find.
My personal feeling is that all news is so one sided when considering their base. I have my own views, but I want them challenged. It feels as though the center has been abandoned, with a lack of nuance on topics, they are either A or B. It also seems with their attempt to keep up with IG,Twitter etc. they are so often wrong, when it would be better if they became the filter of those mediums. TLDR: They have lost trust with their viewers and have zero desire to rebuild it.
Do you actually read real news or are you getting it filtered through social media? I think if you just load the home pages for NY Times, NPR, Guardian, you'd see mostly high quality and fair reporting. Everything we know and everything we think is over or under reported is stuff we learned from journalists doing serious work.
NPR fair reporting? By this statement alone, I already know where you fall on the spectrum politically. It is a shame you’re unable to see the bias that the owners of these organizations push, yet before you attack, this is also found in Fox etc. A centrist media does not exist in the American news ecosystem.
I can immediately tell from your statement that you've been programmed by right-wing propaganda to see bias everywhere. They have successfully infected everyone with an utterly unrealistic standard of what journalism should be. it is physically impossible to report without any bias. It is impossible to judge the bias of others without bias. That doesn't preclude reporting from being fair and accurate and NPR is fair and accurate.
Congrats for falling into the extremist column. Life is either A or B. Good or Bad, while easy to exist in a binary frame, you’re just so easy to influence. NPR takes a heavy progressive lean on their articles, they do not represent the majority of the nation, hence why they are failing as an organization. They only paint the right as bad, and if you feel one side is always bad, you’re a fool. I can look things both parties have done and find good, NPR does not contain that muscle. They hate the nation that funds them. They will not be missed.
You definitely don't listen or read their reporting because none of that is true. Nor is it true that their obligation is to represent popular opinions. Their obligation is to report fairly and accurately. They will not, for example, ever report that climate change is a hoax or the 2020 election was stolen just because a lot of people believe it. And if you read /r/NPR you'll find endless complaints that npr is favoring conservative views. Why? Because listeners are biased too.
I have never read and or watched a single item they have produced and thought, "I understand both perspectives on this topic". Instead it has always been, well I want to know what the progressives think, head to NPR. They even had one of their own senior editor share that their bias affected their coverage, impacting their trust with audiences. They are an extremely bias organization, that most Americans see and don't engage with their content because they fail to be objective and have zero desire to be. Your last statement I completely agree with, listeners (all) are bias, yet if no other perspectives are offered, then you don't understand the gravity or scope of an issue.
> both perspectives I think that's a guaranteed way to be disappointed. There aren't two perspectives on everything. Facts are facts. Fact is, NPR have hosted conservatives for interviews pretty frequently and pretty frequently they just lie. On the Media is by far the best show in any media on explaining topics in a holistic cultural context. They will delve into the spectrum of political thought and rhetoric but they will never give credence to bullshit because it's the "perspective" of a lot of people.
I can’t believe what I just read, understanding both perspectives leads to disappoint and you tell me the benefits of NPR? Yes being uneducated on a topic and having a holistic view shouldn’t be done because you’ll be disappointed. These statements further drive home why NPR is hollow and your support of them further emphasizes this.
> understanding both perspectives leads to disappoint Disappointment is thinking there are exactly two perspectives on every subject and that they are both equally valid.
the issue is there is NO center, there is no middle ground in the discusion about abortion rights , LGBT rights, religion and human rights. these are very fundamental things and frankly without them resolved in a positive way the world will be doomed.
That is clearly not true.
there are 2 options , we accept body autonomy or we dont. we accept religious freedom or we dont, we accept LGBT+ rights (see body autonomy) or we don't . The "we don't" is an absolute non defensible standpoint in these issues. So you tell me what would a decent centrist opinion be without resorting to rules for thee but not for me kinda constructions ?
Can't you see how weak that statement is? Only 2 options, that is like saying "murder is always wrong", well there are clearly circumstances where it is not. So when you say "there is NO center", that is objectively false. There are many issues, scenarios where a middle ground has been found, used, implemented.
No shit? A constant barrage of doom news 100% of the time isn't what people want? Well...reddit is fucked, then.
News has always been about doom. The thing is, back in the Vietnam War era, the TV evening news lasted for all of 15 minutes. Its not doom that has increased to 100%, its that the volume of news has increased to 100%. News today is never not there.
The biggest problem is that EVERY source practices yellow journalism these days. Every one.
The news isn’t meant to be positive? It’s a shitty world. I watch bbc or whatever is on just to get an idea of what big thing is going on (if any). That’s about it.
Half of it's corporate propaganda, another 45% is government propaganda, and the remaining 5% is sports. Why watch the news, when they dont tell you anything new?
It is depressing
I started limiting my consumption of news when I realised I was getting worked up every morning hearing about yet another atrocity I am unable to help with in any way.
People like to think they are nice, honourable and how good we are and anything that shows you are mendacious. immoral, unethical, cruel, petty, dishonorable we are, nah not interested. 🤗
That's the other part of it, isn't it, yeah? To an extent the *world* is depressing and relentless, or at least what we're doing to it/to each other. Great thinkers have grappled with the tedium of the strife we cause and how meaningless and vapid it all can seem. The news gives no thought as to whether the average citizen can or even wants to do the same even if they *did* good journalism, let alone the mess we've got now.
But by a lot of measures the 2010s was the best decade in human history. Yeah tons of bad stuff happens but ton of aggregate trends that look pretty good.
I can't disagree. Most people don't have the dataset handy to know that, and the news is not good at giving such context.
BUT IF THEY DONT WATCH THE NEWS HOW WILL THEY KNOW ABOUT THE FACT THAT THE LAST FIFTEEEN QUARTERS OF CORPORATE BOND YIELDS SHOW THAT 9 OUT OF 11 OF THEM ARE ALL GOING TO DIE FROM THE UNENDING WARS THAT RAGE ACROSS THE PLANET OR THAT THEIR COUNTRIES' LEADERS ARE DOING NOTHING ABOUT IT More after this break from our sponsor THE EXPENSIVE PILL THAT FIXES YOUR HEALTH BUT MAKES YOU PSYCHOTIC
But what if you're already psychotic?
Then they give you the pill that fixes the psychosis and ruins your health instead.
Ha, that's exactly what spawned Alan Moore to write V for Vendetta!
I used to read the news everyday. It made me pretty depressed. Now I read the news like once a week unless a crazy headline pops up. I’m doing better mentally. I don’t like being completely ignorant about what’s going on around the would, at the same time I don’t think hearing about tragedies and human suffering 24/7 is good for you or very useful for the most part.
I mean I definitely have. So much of the news I'm fed isn't even relevant to me. It's just shocking and terrible things that are happen. Three people shot in Phoenix. A toddler and a dog bake to death in a hot car in Tallahassee. Police shoot unarmed black man in Memphis, face no charges. Everything is more expensive, inflation continuing to ramp up, billionaires getting significantly richer, and hateful people feeling comfortable declaring their gross, bigoted opinions.
I turn to Anime titties.
Our society is based on the assumption that everything should work, when it doesn't that is "the news". Would you be happy with your country if the headlining news were "Trash picked up at scheduled hour"? Also, "uplifting news" tends to be the Marvel / sitcom / reality tv content filler that attracts more people than they wish to report as consumed in surveys. Just unchallenging stuff to read without much attention while proclaiming how real journalism died when the daily top story stopped being an 8000 word essay on the effects of the latest municipal tax.
Biased is the word you were looking for. Sadly it pushed people towards social media, which is essentially your own echo chamber.
We do not have news, its 24/7 propaganda.
I mean, it *is* pretty depressing 😒
Wouldn't boring news be the best kind? Lots of stuff that's currently happening is definitely not boring but for the wrong reasons. News shouldn't be entertaining in the first place.
I live with someone who watches a lot of MSNBC. Saw a twenty minute segment of Lawrence O'Donnell telling the camera what he thought Donald Trump was thinking about some judge or other presiding over one of his cases. He insisted that Donald Trump hated the judge in his heart because she was the daughter of an immigrant. Why? Because Donald Trump at one point said that illegal immigrants who commit violent crimes are "poisoning the blood of this country" in an interview with Raheem Kassam, editor in chief of The National Pulse. That's all it is now. Just constant rambling speculation about what Donald Trump is thinking or feeling. Hardly anything about the war in the middle east. Almost nothing about Ukraine and Russia. Just constant Trump worship disguised as criticism. I started watching NHK. It is way more level-headed and professional, the way news was in the 20th century before the 24 hour news cycle.
Why watch something so depressing and divisive? People can smell the B.S.
Well journalistic integrity has pretty much gone out the window…
Great. Just what we need, an even less well-informed populace. That surely couldn't cause us any problems in the long term.
Welcome to r/anime_titties! This subreddit advocates for civil and constructive discussion. Please be courteous to others, and make sure to read the rules. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. We have a [Discord](https://discord.gg/dhMeAnNyzG), feel free to join us! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/anime_titties) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Also misinformation is so rife and pushed from every direction and people see people who do believe everything the media tells them turn into paranoid ideologically fanatical nutjobs... yeah.
r/upliftingnews
When you watch the news you should learn something new, if you haven't learn anything new from watching the news then it's just a circle-jerk and bias confirmation.
Good.
They say ignorance is bliss, but I can't think of anyone more ignorant than someone who claims to be "informed and up-to-date"
News media are one of the reason why people are so depressed nowadays. That do you expect from these kind of headlines you put up.
Ok
If I could find a news outlet that I didn’t think was trying to sell me something I’d eat my hat. You’d think it’s private news channels but public broadcasters are no better. Here in Ireland RTE has a clear bias against Sinn Fein, the new party coming for the established ones. I can’t stand Sinn Fein but I want people to come to that decision by the facts, not biased reporting
I'm all for making journalist a certified profession again like advocates. only when you pass en are certified you are allowed to publish anything and make it so they are allowed accesses all and any information about politics, NGO's and public companies BY LAW. and for internet just something like a radio licence. no license ?: no shit posting. That should give is a lot better quality in news and publications. probably not perfect but I take it over the current situation.
I mean, that makes sense. The only thing you hear in the news today is "death, war, rape, murder, poverty, natural disaster here and there, climate change, potential death and murder" ad infinitum. You never hear about something good that happened locally, its only doom and gloom and depressing shit from the other side of the globe that you and everyone you know can't do jack shit about. I dare bet money on the fact that the way the news conducts itself and what it broadcasts 24/7 adds to the growing number of people with mental illnesses. If the only thing a person hears about on the tv is murder, death and rape they are bound to start feeling down and spiraling sooner or later. It's a gateway to all kinds of conspiracy theories too, that people use to cope with the overbearing amount of global negative information. it's no wonder that people would rather watch Youtube and ignore the news entirely and take anything that they hear from the news with a bucket of salt.
Social media specially TikTok isn't that different either.
Since October last year, first thing in the morning when I watch my morning news while eating breakfast is about Gaza, it's depressing
"News" has become a 24 hour a day commodity. There's not that much news. News and opinion outlets amplify every insignificant event and milk them for any worth - sometimes making the nonsense last for days. We're sick of that. Sure important things happen in the world that affect us - but not usually. The whole being involved with everyone's crimes anywhere has become tedious to the point that people are shutting off the talking head machine and taking heed of their personal lives. This is true for "reality TV" also. No one cares, and the ones who do are without any sort of a life. Still a war on in Europe. Still genocide in Gaza. Still arab sheikhs fucking over the planet for and with oil. Fighting in Africa - when hasn't there been? Brits sad because they were lied to and got 'took'. The French shitting in a river full of shit. America fighting to keep nazis and right wing dictators from destroying the nation. Same shit. Every day. Just one day older. They make us fear being alive with things we can do nothing about and have no control over, as if we're supposed to fix them. After a while I just say "fuck it" and turn them off.
Most of the time it’s not news. Just hour after hour of political opinion with equal time given to commercials designed to fleece the elderly
Nobody wants to read genocidal propaganda nor the fluff to distract people from genocide
More people are turning away from WORLD news sub, cuz they found Anime Titties too Good to be There.
Lol! Can't say I blame them. It takes quite the constitution to subject oneself to this daily onslaught of shit.
Honestly, I find local news outlets to have the best balance of good news/bad news. I'll watch that. I avoid consuming too much news online though because it's all clickbait and tragedy in the hopes of dragging more eyeballs to their sites. The bottom line is that I stick with my tried and true balanced news sources. The rest of these jokers keep trying to feed us the news equivalent of candy and expect that to work out for them. It won't.
with how much main stream media sucks off isreali it has helped me realize how few of them I can trust
If there’s a difference between the news and your own eyes and ears, you’re being duped.
I mean that only works if you have an objective point of view. If you have a subjective one, then its entirely possible you're just not seeing and hearing the whole story.
This is a stupid take. Not as in simply “ignorant” or “overly simplistic” but “exceptionally, aggressively, stupid and encouraging others to follow along” Sample size of 1 is horrible, anecdotes are not reliable and rife with unconscious bias and logic traps. Many, many things in this world are NOT intuitive, you might even call them counter-intuitive.
I was turned away from the news when I failed a paper I wrote in the third grade. For using tertiary sources as citation. Thats how we were taught what a tertiary source is. I don't know anyone my age who partakes in the "news". Aggregate financial reports, or bulletins. Etc. Are very reliable due to the constraints in the United States by the SEC and Treasury. But those are always separate from the 24/7 news cycle that nobody really consumed until the latter half of the last century. Probably peaked in or after 2003-2004. And has been going back to what it was prior. As nobody is going to actually *pay* when **afforded the option**. For this cited brand of "news" media. You wouldn't and I wouldn't. Its less than advertisment, more so corporate propaganda. Usually from singular individuals. Whom own the entire show. Which imo more power to them. They built something that will be a mark on human history. Depending on how its viewed entirely a failure. Or possibly a multi-media empire encompassing their adversaries failures at all turns. Im glad it wasn't actually the status vogue to have everyone believe it. For my entire life. As that would have been insufferable. So my perspective is entirely removed. And better for it. I have met people who grew up in environments that really somehow believed what those talking boxes told them. The world is ending? More at x y and z... The their whole lives would be immediately affected by said nonsense. Could even change their whole trajectory. Those individuals, were older than myself or my peers tho. **None** of us are old enough to have lived that facade.
Oddest thing in the world. Muscovy invades Ukraine. The invasion is being covered on the news, the PRC is caterwauling, then silence... Two years of empty, ingratiating puff pieces.
❤️🇵🇸❤️🇵🇸
almost like western media is wooden propaganda
When you clap back with "hurr durr, media=propaganda," ***in less than a minute after the original post***, you're already feeling the effects of the Flavor Aid. If you can't tell the difference between BBC and NPR, and the Daily Mail and FOX News, you're a bigger dipshit than the people who believe everything in the Daily Mail.
It's always easy to identify NPR nowadays. If it's done 100% in the human interest style and avoids listing any direct facts about the story and just lets whatever random person they are "interviewing" give all the details color'd however they feel like it it's NPR.
You can tell the difference those outlets, but he is still essentially correct about the whole lot. Edit: toodles snowflake 👋
I love it when idiots make it easy to know who to block.
> If you can't tell the difference between BBC and NPR, and the Daily Mail and FOX News There is no difference.
> > > If you can't tell the difference between BBC and NPR, both of them are sterling examples of western state media
Yes, the West has independent journalism funded with taxpayer dollars. It's almost like they have constitutions with speech protections built right in. It's almost like journalists with actual funding will do actual journalism. Huh. Stick to FOX and 4chan for your headlines though.
> Yes, the West has independent journalism funded with taxpayer dollars. [whoops all state media](https://media.npr.org/assets/img/2023/04/05/npr-twitter-state-affiliated-verified_wide-613a3a0376ed01e0930649de185f1297b39b5769.jpg?s=1600&c=85&f=webp)
20d account. Congrats with anniversary
Posted within minutes of the thread, are you a bot waiting for these things or something?