Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/there-really-was-a-liberal-media-bubble/

Interesting read from fivethirtyeight on media echo chambers, and why they happen.

Was?

And water is wet lol. Our media is 95% left leaning. Have you seen much about Uranium One or even the Debbie Wasserman Schultz scandals on CNN or MSNBC? Oh I do know they talked about Hilary whining the story was nothing. Good on them. Great stuff.

And nope: nobody come show me one article on CNN or something about it. This would be plastered 24/7 across all media if it was Republicans.

The whole "Story of 2016" series from 538 - of which there are 11-12 parts - is an excellent post mortem on the election and various forces that surrounded it. Simply reading the headline(s) and shrugging as if it were common knowledge won't produce the nuanced complexity of the full rationale behind it. A lot of it speaks less to the particulars of this election, but more about how we produce and consume our information in general, which is applicable across a much broader range of topics.

Originally posted by Surtur
Our media is 95% left leaning.


^

Good lord...

If you want to whine over the number used okay, we can just say a majority of our media leans left. Did you disagree?

Hmm, that might depend on what you define as "media". If you count just like the big TV stations and news stations, then yeah it's true. But if you expand that to count things like websites like infowars or Breitbart, and talk radio, then it may not be as cut and dry. There are tons of conservative talk radio shows and they get absurd ratings. Think I remember reading somewhere that Limbaugh gets something like 20 million listeners or something.

Originally posted by BackFire
Hmm, that might depend on what you define as "media". If you count just like the big TV stations and news stations, then yeah it's true. But if you expand that to count things like websites like infowars or Breitbart, and talk radio, then it may not be as cut and dry. There are tons of conservative talk radio shows and they get absurd ratings. Think I remember reading somewhere that Limbaugh gets something like 20 million listeners or something.

^ Bingo

Originally posted by BackFire
Hmm, that might depend on what you define as "media". If you count just like the big TV stations and news stations, then yeah it's true. But if you expand that to count things like websites like infowars or Breitbart, and talk radio, then it may not be as cut and dry. There are tons of conservative talk radio shows and they get absurd ratings. Think I remember reading somewhere that Limbaugh gets something like 20 million listeners or something.

Mainstream media.

Yeah even then, I'm not sure what the term actually includes anymore. What defines mainstream these days seems to be always changing. To me it seems "mainstream media" is just another catch-all term for "liberal media".

But really, what's "mainstream" should mean what gets the most viewers/listeners/readers. And that does not seem to really be liberal channels/publications anymore. When Fox News is the most popular cable news network, when Breitbart/Drudge are the most popular political/news websites, and when Limbaugh/Hannity is the most popular political radio talk show host, it kinda causes bewilderment to not include them in the "mainstream".

Originally posted by BackFire
Yeah even then, I'm not sure what the term actually includes anymore. What defines mainstream these days seems to be always changing. To me it seems "mainstream media" is just another catch-all term for "liberal media".

But really, what's "mainstream" should mean what gets the most viewers/listeners/readers. And that does not seem to really be liberal channels/publications anymore. When Fox News is the most popular cable news network, when Breitbart/Drudge are the most popular political/news websites, and when Limbaugh/Hannity is the most popular political radio talk show host, it kinda causes bewilderment to not include them in the "mainstream".

Lol, are we now going to say our MSM isn't mostly left leaning? Okay then. You do that. The reason is because Breitbart and stuff is popular? Okay. Nice.

Originally posted by Surtur
Lol, are we now going to say our MSM isn't mostly left leaning? Okay then. You do that. The reason is because Breitbart and stuff is popular? Okay. Nice.

^

Look how you act when someone counters your biased views with facts, you cover your ears and scream foul. Grow up.

Originally posted by Robtard
^

Look how you act when someone counters your biased views with facts, you cover your ears and scream foul. Grow up.

Lol my views are biased? I'm sorry but "because Breitbart is popular" isn't a reason.

I don't care how popular they are, people don't truly take Breitbart seriously. Same for InfoWars. What dipshits follow are the CNN's, the NY Times, those types of shitbags.

Pokemon is popular too, doesn't mean it is taken seriously.

Well as I said, if you just count the TV sations ABC, NBC and the like with CNN and MSNBN, along with classical newspapers like the NYT and WAPO, then yes, of course, those institutions are left-leaning. Not denying that.

My point is, what is historically considered mainstream doesn't really match with what's popular anymore. Those networks don't get great viewer numbers, and newspapers are a dying industry, despite enjoying a slight bump because of increased interest in Trump. The word "mainstream" generally means what is popular among the general public. And if these channels and papers are less popular than some other things, then it makes sense to consider and question what should be considered mainstream and what shouldn't.

Times are changing, and the way and places people get their news are also changing, so maybe it's time to reconsider what is included when talking about the mainstream media.

Originally posted by Surtur
Lol my views are biased? I'm sorry but "because Breitbart is popular" isn't a reason.

I don't care how popular they are, people don't truly take Breitbart seriously. Same for InfoWars. What dipshits follow are the CNN's, the NY Times, those types of shitbags.

Pokemon is popular too, doesn't mean it is taken seriously.

See what you did, you just excused people who follow one side as "not being serious about it", while the other side, which happens to be the side you hate, as being "dipshits". Now do you understand how your biased views work and why people don't take you seriously?

Originally posted by BackFire
Well as I said, if you just count the TV sations ABC, NBC and the like with CNN and MSNBN, along with classical newspapers like the NYT and WAPO, then yes, of course, those institutions are left-leaning. Not denying that.

My point is, what is historically considered mainstream doesn't really match with what's popular anymore. Those networks don't get great viewer numbers, and newspapers are a dying industry, despite enjoying a slight bump because of increased interest in Trump. The word "mainstream" generally means what is popular among the general public. And if these channels and papers are less popular than some other things, then it makes sense to consider and question what should be considered mainstream and what shouldn't.

Times are changing, and the way and places people get their news are also changing, so maybe it's time to reconsider what is included when talking about the mainstream media.

Right, and, what percentage of journalists do you feel are conservatives?

I can give you the percentage that identify as republican as recent as 2013, but take a guess first. We'll see how close you come.

Originally posted by Surtur
Right, and, what percentage of journalists do you feel are conservatives?

I can give you the percentage that identify as republican as recent as 2013, but take a guess first. We'll see how close you come.

Well that depends on who you consider a journalist. Do the journalists at Breitbart/Inforwars and the various other conservative websites that get good readership numbers count? Or just the journalists for TV stations or traditional news papers? If we're just counting the latter then yes a significant majority are liberal. If we're counting the former then I have no idea.

For fun, I'll just guess a number of about 85%.

7 percent out of over 1,000 reporters polled. Full time journalists.

Sorry I meant 85% that are liberal, not conservative.

Originally posted by Surtur
7 percent out of over 1,000 reporters polled. Full time journalists.

Originally posted by Surtur
But muh polls!

:0

This was all journalists too, not just political. 7 percent.

Did this only include journalists from the "mainstream media"? Or did it include ones from other less traditional but more popular media sources as well?

Maybe Surtur could just post the source of this poll? Which is funny, as he always says polls suck and are unreliable when they tell him something that goes against his biased views.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2014/05/survey-7-percent-of-reporters-identify-as-republican-188053

Feel free to ignore/dismiss it. I realize Rob will find a reason either way. There will always be "insert reason A" as to why something is different if its the left. I expect it.

Originally posted by Robtard
Maybe Surtur could just post the source of this poll? Which is funny, as he always says polls suck and are unreliable when they tell him something that goes against his biased views.

Actually I've even been weary of polls that don't go against my views, but hey it's cool you tried your best.

^

Proves my point.

Originally posted by Surtur
But muh polls!

Originally posted by Robtard
^

Proves my point.

Well Rob I figured it was worth noting because since you love citing Trumps approval ratings I figured you have more faith in polls than me.

Originally posted by Surtur
Well Rob I figured it was worth noting because since you love citing Trumps approval ratings I figured you have more faith in polls than me.

Did I approve or disprove of the poll you listed? No, I did not. Once again you've invented a position I didn't take and are attacking that because that's all you have in defense of your blatant hypocrisy, which I showed.


Originally posted by Surtur
But muh polls!

I can't help find you whining about hypocrisy funny though.

Anyways, so how do you feel about polls?

Originally posted by Surtur
http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2014/05/survey-7-percent-of-reporters-identify-as-republican-188053

Feel free to ignore/dismiss it. I realize Rob will find a reason either way. There will always be "insert reason A" as to why something is different if its the left. I expect it.

Wow, that's a really interesting poll. While 7 percent identifying as republican isn't very surprising, I was surprised that only 28 percent identify as Dem, and that there are so many independent ones.

Originally posted by Surtur
I can't help find you whining about hypocrisy funny though.

Anyways, so how do you feel about polls?
The "no you!", was expected since you were cornered.

I have to read the entire poll. But 28% Dem, 7% Rep, 50% Indie and 15% Other sounds reasonable, so I will accept it.

It also shits all over your '95% are Left' and "majority of our media leans left." claims, which is just golden as you've destroyed your own claims.

I think you should be fairly neutral to be a reporter. It's clear when you see the biases of reporting from either side. It's a pain to watch and you can't take either side seriously because all they do is try to make the other side look bad instead of calling it like it is.

Originally posted by Digi
The whole "Story of 2016" series from 538 - of which there are 11-12 parts - is an excellent post mortem on the election and various forces that surrounded it. Simply reading the headline(s) and shrugging as if it were common knowledge won't produce the nuanced complexity of the full rationale behind it. A lot of it speaks less to the particulars of this election, but more about how we produce and consume our information in general, which is applicable across a much broader range of topics. I bet at no point in that series does it admit that fivethirtyeight and other sites as well as TV stations and radio shows etc. spent the whole ****ing year saying "This is the beginning of the end of Trump" and showing obvious bullshit polls that clearly don't represent the public's opinion yet idiots like the ones on this forum kept reaffirming the myth that Hillary would win or even Bernie!

I can't believe people still eat up this shit.

Honestly, I think Bernie could have won, but from what I understand, he was railroaded by his own party. I'm not extremely knowledgeable about Politics though.

Originally posted by socool8520
Honestly, I think Bernie could have won, but from what I understand, he was railroaded by his own party. I'm not extremely knowledgeable about Politics though. Bernie had the same position as Hillary on literally every issue but even more left leaning. His popularity was basically "Not Hillary Clinton" but after Obama had done the same thing 8 years previously I highly doubt he would have won the election.

In fact, I believe he would have lost even harder. Dukakkis style.

Or, and I'm being generous here.....this: http://www.270towin.com/maps/Xx4JV

I figured they would vote for Bernie is because he would have been a less shady Hillary. A big talking point to destroy Hillary was the shady/criminal things she has done.

Originally posted by Surtur
http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2014/05/survey-7-percent-of-reporters-identify-as-republican-188053

Feel free to ignore/dismiss it. I realize Rob will find a reason either way. There will always be "insert reason A" as to why something is different if its the left. I expect it.
Originally posted by Surtur
Actually I've even been weary of polls that don't go against my views, but hey it's cool you tried your best.

you dismiss all polls and have said over and over that you don't care about polls.
now there's a poll which you feel validates your narrative, so you've decided that suddenly polls matter, and not only that but anyone who dismisses it is being intellectually dishonest.

definately the second most amazing act of self-contradiction i've seen today. unfortunately your comment was outshined by afro's beautifully simplistic paradox "We don't ever portray ourselves as a collective".

Originally posted by socool8520
I figured they would vote for Bernie is because he would have been a less shady Hillary. A big talking point to destroy Hillary was the shady/criminal things she has done. Well, considering how badly Trump treated Hillary in the debates, he would have treated Bernie even worse. Bernie would have been an embarassing president. Had the DNC picked him, there would have been lots of people asking for Hillary. Hillary was more popular than Bernie. Trump was more popular than both of them.

Bernie should have never ran imo.

Originally posted by Digi
The whole "Story of 2016" series from 538 - of which there are 11-12 parts - is an excellent post mortem on the election and various forces that surrounded it. Simply reading the headline(s) and shrugging as if it were common knowledge won't produce the nuanced complexity of the full rationale behind it. A lot of it speaks less to the particulars of this election, but more about how we produce and consume our information in general, which is applicable across a much broader range of topics.

Oh yeah, this series is brilliant. It's a "what's wrong with modern day politics" primer, essentially.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
you dismiss all polls and have said over and over that you don't care about polls.
now there's a poll which you feel validates your narrative, so you've decided that suddenly polls matter, and not only that but anyone who dismisses it is being intellectually dishonest.

definately the second most amazing act of self-contradiction i've seen today. unfortunately your comment was outshined by afro's beautifully simplistic paradox "We don't ever portray ourselves as a collective".

I never said polls matter. I did give a poll though. You can take from it what you will.

Did you want to whine some more?

i take from it that most reporters are politically independent and that there are slightly more democrats than republicans. is that what you intended to convey? of course it wasn't.

What does independent mean though? That's an honest question. Doesn't everyone tend to lean one way or the other? Not so far as to be radical like say Antifa or Neo Nazis, but generally, you have a majority of things from one party you agree with over the other.

if they identified with and voted for white nationalists then that would also count as independent. in this context its just a way of saying that they're not in for either of the 2 main parties. i mention context because iirc there is/was a political party identified as "independant" in name.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
i take from it that most reporters are politically independent and that there are slightly more democrats than republicans. is that what you intended to convey? of course it wasn't.


Originally posted by Surtur
Our media is 95% left leaning. .

Originally posted by Surtur
we can just say a majority of our media leans left.
He then proceeds to post a poll that destroys his own claims.

wonder if he'll address it and admit his error? my money is on either 'shit the bed more', complete avoidance of the thread, or a fun new alternate topic.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
if they identified with and voted for white nationalists then that would also count as independent. in this context its just a way of saying that they're not in for either of the 2 main parties. i mention context because iirc there is/was a political party identified as "independant" in name.

I definitely wouldn't want to be an Independent if that's who I get lumped in with. Lol But I guess every party has their psycho groups.


You're correct. There is an independent party, but I thought they still had ideas that were in line with the two major parties.

Originally posted by Robtard
He then proceeds to post a poll that destroys his own claims. 95% is a majority.....and he posted a poll that disagreed with the narrative as an anomaly....so his claim was justified.......... ........................................

nope. the media is not 95% left leaning. it was a lie and now you're doubling down on a lie. nice.

Originally posted by Foxsteak
95% is a majority.....and he posted a poll that disagreed with the narrative as an anomaly....so his claim was justified.......... ........................................

According to the poll he sourced as proof, the majority (50.2%) of reporters identify as "independent", that's not inline with his claims

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
nope. the media is not 95% left leaning. it was a lie and now you're doubling down on a lie. nice. Well that is an ambiguous statement-- I don't know how much is left leaning but.......................

Originally posted by Robtard
According to the poll he sourced as proof, the majority (50.2%) of reporters identify as "independent", that's not inline with his claims It's this "independent" part. Perhaps he views "independents" as left leaning?

Originally posted by Foxsteak

It's this "independent" part. Perhaps he views "independents" as left leaning?

You're stretching to justify his clearly false claims:

Originally posted by Surtur
If you want to whine over the number used okay, we can just say a majority of our media leans left. Did you disagree?

The majority leans "Independent", at 50.2%

Originally posted by Robtard
You're stretching to justify his clearly false claims:



The majority leans "Independent", at 50.2% Yes. "Independent."

I'll go with your narrative.

Yes. That's not "Left leaning" as fact.

It's okay. You win. We have an "independent" leaning bias in the media.

Originally posted by Foxsteak
It's okay. You win. We have an "independent" leaning bias in the media.

According to that poll posted.

Originally posted by Robtard
According to that poll posted. Do you believe the media is "independent" leaning?

That poll looks actually reasonable overall. Wouldn't mind seeing the locations they polled though, could show some clear bias.

Sure, polls are inheritly biased.

Do you think the media is mostly "independent"?

https://www.thoughtco.com/independent-american-party-3303291

The topics this article lists as Independent beliefs are not the one that I hear 50.2% of the time. lol

I wonder what they mean by independent. Not being funded/influenced by a political party maybe?

i'm not asking this to use against you.

Rob, did you come to the states from uruguay or somewhere around there? you in so cal?

Originally posted by socool8520
https://www.thoughtco.com/independent-american-party-3303291

The topics this article lists as Independent beliefs are not the one that I hear 50.2% of the time. lol

I wonder what they mean by independent. Not being funded/influenced by a political party maybe? Possibly students.

Originally posted by socool8520
https://www.thoughtco.com/independent-american-party-3303291

The topics this article lists as Independent beliefs are not the one that I hear 50.2% of the time. lol

I wonder what they mean by independent. Not being funded/influenced by a political party maybe?

Indeed, and if you had to place their beliefs as closer to the left or right, to which would you?

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
wonder if he'll address it and admit his error? my money is on either 'shit the bed more', complete avoidance of the thread, or a fun new alternate topic.

He waiting for the page flip, standard MO

But then would they really be reporters?

It depends on the news outlet. Isn't Fox news considered right with CNN considered left?

Hannity is not as good as Glenn Beck in the lulz department.

He got BTFO by Trump though..........

Originally posted by Foxsteak
Hannity is not as good as Glenn Beck in the lulz department.

He got BTFO by Trump though..........

Beck's another shitlord

Originally posted by socool8520
It depends on the news outlet. Isn't Fox news considered right with CNN considered left?

Indeed. And if 50% are independent and only 7 percent are Republican...we still see far more liberal representation than conservative lol. Far more.

This is if Independents(whatever the hell that is) are mostly liberal though. This seems to me like a cop out for a majority of reporters.

Originally posted by Robtard
Beck's another shitlord Beck is a shitlord but he supported Hillary and Obama.

He's the biggest shitlord if I ever knew one.

Originally posted by socool8520
This is if Independents(whatever the hell that is) are mostly liberal though. This seems to me like a cop out for a majority of reporters. This is what I would call...........thinking.

Originally posted by socool8520
This is if Independents(whatever the hell that is) are mostly liberal though. This seems to me like a cop out for a majority of reporters.

We could just as easily say "Independents are mostly Conservative" and it would be just as silly since we don't have the proof. Surtur's looking for anything to justify his clearly incorrect claim and then bungling himself with a poll that didn't support it.

Originally posted by socool8520
This is if Independents(whatever the hell that is) are mostly liberal though. This seems to me like a cop out for a majority of reporters.

If 50% are independent and we take them at their word, we have 28% liberals. 4 times more than the conservative number.

Originally posted by Foxsteak
Beck is a shitlord but he supported Hillary and Obama.

He's the biggest shitlord if I ever knew one.

We get it, Clinton and Obama are bad.

really tho...what the phuck is a conservative or liberal now any way? I consider myself very conservative but modern conservatives would call me liberal in a lot of ways. My interpretation of conservative is gov stays out of people's business...like marriage, abortion, etc.

Originally posted by Robtard
We could just as easily say "Independents are mostly Conservative" and it would be just as silly since we don't have the proof. Surtur's looking for anything to justify his clearly incorrect claim and then bungling himself with a poll that didn't support it. Actually I made the argument that independents are liberal leaning. Surtur is saying 28% > 7%

4 times more libs than conservatives certainly does explain a lot, I have to say.

Originally posted by Robtard
He waiting for the page flip, standard MO
lol what a retard

I do love it how you cucks get so triggered over page flips.

Anyways, so when a media outlet does decide to lean one way or the other, seems more often it leans left. Shitty and disturbing.

Originally posted by Surtur
Our media is 95% left leaning.

still not going to admit your obvious error/lie? you're a sniveling ass.

PAGE FLIP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by Foxsteak
Actually I made the argument that independents are liberal leaning. Surtur is saying 28% > 7%

He's questioning the validity of his own poll now

Rob...did you see the page flip?

Originally posted by Foxsteak
Actually I made the argument that independents are liberal leaning. Surtur is saying 28% > 7%

semantics. "independant" in this context refers to all other parties besides dem and rep. it has nothing to do with "the independant party'.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
semantics. "independant" in this context refers to all other parties besides dem and rep. it has nothing to do with "the independant party'.

Indeed, so which party is the most represented in the media, to you?

Originally posted by Surtur
Rob...did you see the page flip?

I see you being #triggered because you fisted yourself in here and then found that my hand was already up your ass when I grabbed it and shook it

Originally posted by Surtur
Indeed, so which party is the most represented in the media, to you?

oh how cute. you're gonna continue avoiding your own lie and deflect. such integrity. so mature. wow.

Originally posted by Raisen
really tho...what the phuck is a conservative or liberal now any way? I consider myself very conservative but modern conservatives would call me liberal in a lot of ways. My interpretation of conservative is gov stays out of people's business...like marriage, abortion, etc.

I think this where the party declaration has a negeative connotation argument is starting to have credibility. Now when someone is called conservative/liberal or their party nomenclature, people tend to think about the far leaning psychos of each group, when in reality most are probably barely leaning one way.

Originally posted by Robtard
I see you being #triggered because you fisted yourself in here and then found that my hand was already up your ass when I grabbed it and shook it

Well Rob I wouldn't think it's possible to fist yourself if someone else already has their fist up your ass, but then you do seem to know what you're talking about when it comes to fisting dudes so.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
oh how cute. you're gonna continue avoiding your own lie and deflect. such integrity. so mature. wow.

LOL! Did you feel you were mature or have integrity? Say yes, please say yes. Tell me you legit thought this about yourself.

Originally posted by Surtur

LOL HAHAHAHA LOLOLOL (personal attack diversion) (no concession of obvious lie)


you're pathetic

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
semantics. "independant" in this context refers to all other parties besides dem and rep. it has nothing to do with "the independant party'. I'm not saying it has anything to do with the Independent party. I merely asked Rob if those who told the pollster they were "independent" are left leaning. He seems to be soaked in killermovies drama though.

Originally posted by Robtard
He's questioning the validity of his own poll now Does this refer to me or Surtur?

Ohhh but that's not what I said silly.

Originally posted by Foxsteak
I'm not saying it has anything to do with the Independent party. I merely asked Rob if those who told the pollster they were "independent" are left leaning. He seems to be soaked in killermovies drama though.

Does this refer to me or Surtur?

I have to think he meant me but since the numbers I was using(the 28) came from the poll...I dunno how that is questioning the validity but...well okay.

why don't you just say "lol i trol u" and we can move on like you obviously want.
that's the standard routine for fallacious asshats who shit the bed and refuse to own it.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
why don't you just say "lol i trol u" and we can move on like you obviously want.
that's the standard routine for fallacious asshats who shit the bed and refuse to own it. You are the one trolling................

Originally posted by Foxsteak
You are the one trolling................

nope, i'm not peddling false claims about the media being 95% left-leaning, and then avoiding concession when called on it.

try harder for your special friend.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
nope, i'm not peddling false claims about the media being 95% left-leaning, and then avoiding concession when called on it.

try harder for your special friend. He made a claim and you are baiting him and saying things like he shit the bed. Almost all of your posts are flames.

that's nice. whatever you need to do to avoid the point.

ANYTHING to avoid having to be like:

Originally posted by Alternate Universe Mature Surtur
whoops my bad. i did shitty math based on incomplete data.

never give up!

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
that's nice. whatever you need to do to avoid the point. The point being you disagree that the media is 95% left leaning. Got it.

no he asserted that based on a poll that he misunderstood. therefore he was flat wrong. tryhard much harder.

I honestly give up.

judging by your flattering post history in my honor, i doubt that very much.

from the sourced article:

^ That's exactly what I thought. Which is why I said it was a copout

I think it would have better saying that they preferred not to say since their actually is an independent party.

-bill oreilly

Originally posted by Robtard
It also shits all over your '95% are Left' and "majority of our media leans left." claims, which is just golden as you've destroyed your own claims.

https://media1.tenor.com/images/e3fa38600a7561e3d61f9c9d3b5229aa/tenor.gif

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
https://media1.tenor.com/images/e3fa38600a7561e3d61f9c9d3b5229aa/tenor.gif

What does your personal life have to do with this Adam?

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
-bill oreilly

Bill Clinton.

Nevermind....

Originally posted by socool8520
I think you should be fairly neutral to be a reporter. It's clear when you see the biases of reporting from either side. It's a pain to watch and you can't take either side seriously because all they do is try to make the other side look bad instead of calling it like it is.
No. You don't have to be neutral, you just have to be factual, honest, and choosing your coverage based on the importance of a story, not whether you still have to meet a quota of news from either side.

Forced neutrality is just as bad as bias.

Balanced coverage does not equal objectivity or fairness.

Hence why Vox and the Washington Post are >>>>CNN

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
No. You don't have to be neutral, you just have to be factual, honest, and choosing your coverage based on the importance of a story, not whether you still have to meet a quota of news from either side.

Forced neutrality is just as bad as bias.

Balanced coverage does not equal objectivity or fairness.

Hence why Vox and the Washington Post are >>>>CNN The reporters have prewritten questions, the editors pick the parts to broadcast, usually based on which advertisers are sponsoring the programme.