Ray Pooch Wrote: If you want me to name a wide-reaching news outlet that the right-wing alleges is a mouthpiece for liberal propaganda, that's too easy. The New York Times. The Washington Post. NBC...
Subscription publication, subscription publication, and a publication that doesn't require their journalists to read right wing propaganda.
The two subscription publications you named also bend over backwards to inform their viewers when they are reading opinion pieces. NBC Nightly News doesn't air opinion pieces nor does it force stations to air them.
Ray Pooch Wrote: If you want me to name an organization that liberals like you accept is a mouthpiece for liberal propaganda, that may be impossible.
That's because what partisans mean by "biased" is "doesn't comport with my preformed opinion".
Tell me you understand this basic point.
Please tell me you understand the difference between subscription publications that inform their readers when they are reading opinion pieces, media outlets that don't require their journalists to read propaganda in the guise of journalism, and a national conglomerate requiring local journalists to read propaganda verbatim.
Ray Pooch Wrote: I think it was Noam Chomsky's "war on the 4th estate" that convinced me. Or maybe Jon Stewart's. Or maybe it was just that I took a critical thinking class at college.
Chomsky's and Herman's "A Propaganda Model" is an interesting read, but I'll remind you that it was written a year before the World Wide Web was created and a couple decades before the World Wide Web became the behemoth it is today.
I miss Jon Stewart terribly, but he reached a couple million viewers (at most) every night.
I didn't major in mathematics in college, but isn't two million less than the 72% of Americans, or 235,785,343 people, that Sinclair reaches on PUBLIC (aka tax payer funded) broadcasts each night?
Ray Pooch Wrote: Interesting. Am I living in a fantasy land to expect you personally to "read both sides, check the facts, play the contradictions off against one another and come to the truth [yourself]'? (Please say yes.)
What I do personally isn't what the vast majority of Americans do.
I have online subscriptions to every single major newspaper in the country regardless of their editorial biases. I also understand the differences between a fact checked journalistic article and an opinion piece in a papers editorial section.
The Wall Street Journal's editorial board is shit, but their journalists still write great articles. The Washington Post's and the New York Time's editorial boards are also shit because they bend over backwards to show that they welcome all opinions, but their journalists still write great articles.
As I said earlier - you seem to have fallen prey to Donald's "fake news" diatribes. Journalism and "opinion pieces I don't like" are two entirely different things.
Ray Pooch Wrote: The bottom line is that one side of the political aisle says that FOX, Breitbart, dailycaller et al are biased. The other side says that WashPo, the NYT, MSNBC, CNN and co are biased. To decide which side is really biased you have to read both sides, check the facts, play the contradictions off against one another and come to the truth yourself. Unless you know of another way.
No! A million times NO!
Comparing Brietbart and the Daily Caller to the Washington Post and the New York Times is batshit crazy and you know it. You have to know that, right?
Fox, MSNBC and CNN are 24/7 cable "news" channels that care more about keeping you glued to the TV screen and should never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever (did I say EVER?) be compared to publications like the New York Times and Washington Post.
There isn't an equilibrium when it comes to journalism and opinion pieces. One constitutes facts and the other constitutes opinions.