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

What I mean by trust, is do you think their corporate owners give them free reign to report the truth? Or do they impose a "tow the line" walled garden where they'll frown on anything that embarresses, say, an affiliate.

Do they take sides in politics? And if so, is it because if bias on the ground, or is it imposes from above?

Is big news simply another form of "propaganda"?


I mean, lets say hyporthetically, we needed a real revolution. Could the media be counted on to back the people in this?

Nope.

Chief journalist at ABC is George Stephanopolous.

President of CBS is David Rhodes who's the brother of a senior Obama admin staffer.

NBC is run by Comcast which is owned by a major Democrat donor.

CBS and Time Warner own CNN


No I don't trust them lol.

I don't see any good reason to trust them, even before going to their notorious bias and agendas.

Originally posted by Kurk
Nope.

Chief journalist at ABC is George Stephanopolous.

President of CBS is David Rhodes who's the brother of a senior Obama admin staffer.

NBC is run by Comcast which is owned by a major Democrat donor.

CBS and Time Warner own CNN


No I don't trust them lol.

Right. And all Murdoch news, too.



It's mostly bias hackery. From both sides.


Don't trust it, either. I try to verify if I get news from "major news" sources.

Originally posted by cdtm
is do you think their corporate owners give them free reign to report the truth? Or do they impose a "tow the line" walled garden where they'll frown on anything that embarresses, say, an affiliate.

Oh they definitely don't give them free reign to report the truth.



Indeed they do take sides in politics. As to why, I think it's a mixture of both the reasons you gave.



Yes, though it's not propaganda 100% of the time. But it's not rare either.



Depends on who wants the revolution, for what reasons and who is in charge at the time. For instance, they'd back a revolution against Trump in a heartbeat lol. Then again Trump could blow his nose and they'd find something about it to complain about.

Let's have a coup d'etait and seize the news outlets

no

Originally posted by cdtm
What I mean by trust, is do you think their corporate owners give them free reign to report the truth? Or do they impose a "tow the line" walled garden where they'll frown on anything that embarresses, say, an affiliate.

Do they take sides in politics? And if so, is it because if bias on the ground, or is it imposes from above?

Is big news simply another form of "propaganda"?


I mean, lets say hyporthetically, we needed a real revolution. Could the media be counted on to back the people in this?

Nope. Although some newspapers have autonomy from their owners. Lord Rothemere owns the Daily Mail including its websites which are currently the biggest news websites in the world and he was, as an example, pro-remain during the Brexit referendum yet the editor of the paper, Paul Dacre was staunchly pro leave and the outlets he ran reflected that.

Another example was the 2015 UK general election and the Sun newspaper (Murdoch owned). The English version was pro Tory party and the Scottish version of the same paper was pro Scottish National Party who are diametrically opposed in almost every political way possible.

Originally posted by jaden101
the Daily Mail including its websites which are currently the biggest news websites in the world Seriously? God, that's depressing.

I trust that it's prolly factually true, I question if there's sh!t they're omitting to mislead.

Regardless, the best news source remains actual newspapers

Originally posted by Scribble
Seriously? God, that's depressing.

It was anyway. Bigger than the NYT website globally.

I hate people.

Originally posted by jaden101
It was anyway. Bigger than the NYT website globally.

I hate people. If you want a nice shot of misanthropy, just go on any DM article and look at the most upvoted comments. It's essentially "most stupid comment wins".

I've found Info Wars to be a fairly reputable and reliable news source. I wish every news outlet was like them.

CBS, NBC, CNN, ABC and MSNBC hate Trump so much they can not and will not report fair on anything he does. It is like the owners and the news anchors have a mental disease. If it was not so bad for the country it would be fun to watch. And if Trump were to win a second term they will all be basket cases.

Now that WILL be fun to watch.

Originally posted by Killjoy12
CBS, NBC, CNN, ABC and MSNBC hate Trump so much they can not and will not report fair on anything he does.
Now that WILL be fun to watch.
That kind of blanket hyperbole is a big reason why this country is so divided and polarized.

And naturally, Fox doesn't make your list.

Originally posted by Killjoy12
CBS, NBC, CNN, ABC and MSNBC hate Trump so much they can not and will not report fair on anything he does. It is like the owners and the news anchors have a mental disease. If it was not so bad for the country it would be fun to watch. And if Trump were to win a second term they will all be basket cases.

Now that WILL be fun to watch.

And when they have nothing legit to complain about they will either make stuff up or talk about petty stuff. We saw an example of both due to his recent trip to Asia. We had the false story about the fish feeding and then we had the stories about his handshake lol.

Originally posted by Surtur
And when they have nothing legit to complain about they will either make stuff up or talk about petty stuff. We saw an example of both due to his recent trip to Asia. We had the false story about the fish feeding and then we had the stories about his handshake lol.
Well, there was actual sh!t to complain about, like say, Trump's EPA disregarding scientists, Trump still supporting "clean coal", ect.

But nah, let's hear about them fishes.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Well, there was actual sh!t to complain about, like say, Trump's EPA disregarding scientists, Trump still supporting "clean coal", ect.

But nah, let's hear about them fishes.

I meant nothing to complain about in terms of the Asia trip. But indeed yes, as you just highlighted, if they couldn't find anything about Asia to complain over there were other legit stories.

But nope, fish and handshakes.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
I trust that it's prolly factually true, I question if there's sh!t they're omitting to mislead.

Regardless, the best news source remains actual newspapers

Not the New Haven Register.

All they are is a mish mash of Washington Post articles, Yale newz (Because that's where a lot of these reporters went, likely), and pandering crap (New Haven is dead, jobs are gone. Here's something for you black people to direct your anger at/remember who to vote for.)

Originally posted by cdtm
Not the New Haven Register.

All they are is a mish mash of Washington Post articles, Yale newz (Because that's where a lot of these reporters went, likely), and pandering crap (New Haven is dead, jobs are gone. Here's something for you black people to direct your anger at/remember who to vote for.)
The Washpo is my go to source for news tbh. I use the Washington journal to get the other side though

Don't forget NPR. Gosh I hate it with a passion.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
The Washpo is my go to source for news tbh. I use the Washington journal to get the other side though

I myself tend to do that as well, in terms of reading stuff from both sides. Even left leaning sources I don't 100% trust I will still at least read. CNN, WaPo, NYT, and some others.

it's all bs

If they're not outrageously biased, they're just blatantly sensationalist. Not very good either way.

Originally posted by SunRazer
If they're not outrageously biased, they're just blatantly sensationalist. Not very good either way.

There's nothing wrong with being biased, we are all biased. There is something wrong with letting that bias stop you from covering important sh!t(ya know, actual fcking policy), or being dishonest because of that bias.

But forced balance is just as bad as bias.

Balanced coverage isn't thesame as objective coverage.