We all know that the media is biased and there really isn't such a thing as actual news these days. I don't know exactly how it got started but it probably has a lot to do with the fact that basically all media is controlled by just a small group of people and since they own the joint, they can do whatever they want with it.
The mentality of the people at the top is obviously going to extend to everyone that they hire and then those middle managers are going to continue this trend with everyone they hire. It should come as no surprise that at the end of it all we have a group of people that all have a similar ideology.
Finding truly unbiased news is likely impossible: The only thing I have found that comes even close is The Economist and lately they have been showing signs of attempting to capitalize on the partisanship dollar as well, which is a shame. In the meantime identifying media bias has never been as fun and easy as it is from allsides.com
src
AllSides doesn't actually author anything as far as I can tell but rather they will gather stories that were written about the same events and lay it out for you to see how different the "news" is depending on the bias of that particular news organization happens to be. The vitriol that is part of our daily news cycle is fully on display in one easy to use place.
This one kind of made me laugh because it just seems so crazy to me that Covid, and how it is approached as a pandemic, or if it even is a pandemic, seems to have somehow gotten divided down political lines. Just look at those headlines! The AP isn't exactly a centrist publication anymore but there was a time that it was although they go more and more to the left as the years go on. However, looking at the above their headline is obviously the one that is the least filled with the organization's opinions and likely contains the most facts. I don't know, I didn't read the article.
Something that would be a bit more obvious as far as political bias concern is concerned would be a Joe Biden interview and how this "court packing" situation has come to the forefront and is something I find completely ridiculous because it would involve and almost impossible number of steps in order to make it happen in the first place.
Did he actually dodge the question? I would assume so because he is a politician and for everyone out there reading this you need to face a harsh reality: Even the politicians that you like are going to give half answers to just about anything in order to give themselves the necessary "wiggle room" to appeal to a very broad audience and also to submit to the whims of the donors that got them to that position in the first place. This is at the very heart of fundraising and the massive amount of money involved in getting elected to higher office all but guarantees that you will not be able to have a rock-solid statement on just about anything.
I do find it amusing that 3 different sources that all have access to the exact same interview are able to omit certain parts of it in order to get it to come to the conclusion that they want. Whether or not it even happened is up to the reader to determine by finding the raw transcript on their own but even then it doesn't matter because politicians this election year have been outright lying about statement they have made in the past even though they are aware of the fact that it is on the record already.
The reason why they don't have to worry about this is because the press will bury the lie for them if not doing so would result in it actually providing useful insight to potential voters. It's all a completely ridiculous and is why less than 20% of the population (in USA) believes that the media is actually telling the truth.
You still aren't going to get the truth by going to allsides.com but I recommend you do, if for no other reasons than to see a daily dose of just how full of poo poo the media in the United States and likely around the world, is.
Allsides.com sounds entertaining, I'll have to check it out.
I'm not sure there ever was such a thing as an unbiased media but the biases of the past seemed deferent and less overt. I get the sense that the biases that would have been obfuscated by news organizations in the past so as to appear "accurate" or "truthful" are now seen as virtues. I think they target their audiences with what they want to hear because that sells better than facts and they make it obvious so that the different audiences can easily find the narrative they like the best.
Your second statement is exactly what is going on right now. Rather than create an audience with a different approach they cater to what an already existing prejudice is and then make their stories around exactly that. It isn't journalism but rather it is pandering.
Allsides probably has their own biases as well but at least it is useful to see the stark contrast of stories about exactly the same topic and how two opposing networks or media outlets are able to come to completely opposite conclusions using the same information.
"Allsides probably has their own biases" Truth, but that really begs a philosophical question. Is it possible to create anything that is truly unbiased or is anything that we create going to be colored in some degree or another by our biases? I think the act of consuming news requires some level of critical thinking along with a willingness to hear message that we don't agree with so that have more material to sift through in our effort to find the cornels of truth. Of course, that process colors the information with our own personal biases.
ah this should be fun. I just went and had a look at it and it is pretty alarming how varying the headlines are by the leanings of the publications. I see myself using this a lot. Thanks.