not really, the media has to make money too and what better way than to create controversy, factual or not. left and right wing media are equally as bad, i will turn down cnn just as soon as i will fox news. personally i think the internet can be a great resource for finding unbiased facts and information and making rational conclusions without the need for a middle man if you look hard enough.
Yes, to an extent, but one cannot rely on just the internet. In the future the true history will become even more hard to sort if books and other sources keep changing. Sent from my iPhone using Grasscity Forum
I watch more neutral news like BBC and Al Jazeera America. Typical CNN/NBC/whatever is really biased and likes to report before confirming and Fox news is... Well Fox news.
I don't. In fact I might be too skeptical.. That box that sits in the corner of the room looking all innocent is one of the most powerful psychological weapons, but it can also be used for good. I just don't think that is what it's being used for.
Not really. If i here or see something on tv that seems like bullshit or just interests me, i will conduct my own research and find out what is true JESUS GOT SHOT IN THE FACE
As much as i would trust the neighborhood crack head when she talks about being abducted by aliens and getting taken to their planet.(true story)
All I watch is Mr. Pickles soo... :uts on a goats mask:: Sorry bout the goat omega . I clean table ... I clean mouth ... You breathe deep
The media has always been biased to one degree or another, but I do not believe they sit in a room conjuring up stories. I think they hire people who feel the way they do like anywhere and it just sorta breeds itself. Its impossible to be non biased on anything. Having a opinion on things is what makes things great.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird http://russia-insider.com/en/germany_politics_media_watch/2014/10/17/02-55-08pm/our_exclusive_interview_german_editor_turned_cia#
I'm surprised this isn't in politics, but no, I don't trust them. Too few independent voices and too little indication of who they are actually speaking for. We change channels or read different publications and assume they are independent when in fact most of the time they are not due to media consolidation. Just for example take News Corp into account, a listing of their major holdings can be found at the following link. http://www.cjr.org/resources/?c=newscorp# All of those media sources, all of those publications, they are all run out of the same set of corporate offices in the end. We think we're getting differing views on things when in fact we're just getting similar stories from related sources. Another example, this one a group called "National Amusements". They own controlling interest in both Viacom and CBS Television, between the two of those they control everything in BOTH of the following links. http://www.cjr.org/resources/?c=cbs http://www.cjr.org/resources/?c=viacom Media consolidation is deeper than most people realize, and more meaningful. Even if you totally ignore any suggestion of intentional bias it's not healthy for a democracy to have so much of its media filtered through so very few sources in the end, simple management choices and others will lead to an unintentional 'bias'. In the end almost everything we see, hear or read comes from perhaps 6 to 8 corporate offices which are probably more interested in profits and investor sentiment than in your opinions, or mine. And no, I don't trust that.
The Mainstream Media - as shown on Television - No. Why Should I? The News stations are bought, paid for, and filtered by the government.