FedEx Freight | Canadian Balls...

If it contains "spin," it's not news coverage -- it's opinion. Most consumers have a hard time discerning between the two. Media literacy is at an all-time low, and your social media boogeyman has played a huge role. Not because they've censored information (a relatively recent phenomenon) but because they have monopolized the advertising market that supported local newsrooms while providing little to no oversight of libelous and downright false information that has spread on their platforms.

The "agenda" thing always gets me just like the "radical leftists" thing I hear so much. I never attended an "agenda" meeting, unless you count the work session before the city council's monthly meeting, where they set the agenda for the meeting that immediately followed.
Agenda: when (almost) every talking head on network news recites the same obscure phrase about a specific topic & every democrat able to get to a microphone recites the exact same lines, we have an agenda. An agenda called Democrat "talking points".

This is not a new phenomena, just more obvious than before.
 
It probably won't amuse you to know I spent the first decade and a half of my professional life as a reporter and editor.

I must have missed all those meetings where the radical leftists told me what I was supposed to report. Same with my colleagues at other media outlets. Guess we were too busy working?
With so many of the independent newspapers all the across the country having stopped publishing and with so many of the remaining newspapers being owned by centralized corporations, you have to admit it may be harder for them to be objective. Most people understand the political "slant" of a particular paper but there are fewer or even no papers with opposing views in the same area anymore. Sad that it's gotten to be that way.
 
With so many of the independent newspapers all the across the country having stopped publishing and with so many of the remaining newspapers being owned by centralized corporations, you have to admit it may be harder for them to be objective. Most people understand the political "slant" of a particular paper but there are fewer or even no papers with opposing views in the same area anymore. Sad that it's gotten to be that way.
Here's a little example of what I'm talking about. I can remember all these newspapers in the NYC area back in the 1960's. It was great to read the differing views in many of them. It's a real shame that those days are gone.

"New York in the 1960s was a city of news junkies. Even though 10 newspapers fed that appetite, some New Yorkers who read two papers every morning were heard to complain that there was only one in the afternoon. Today, there are only three papers in New York—the Times, the Post, and the Daily News, (The Wall Street Journal is customarily considered a business publication, not a general newspaper.), but of course, one’s media appetite is fed digitally. Back in the 60s, though, there were few other options."

 
With so many of the independent newspapers all the across the country having stopped publishing and with so many of the remaining newspapers being owned by centralized corporations, you have to admit it may be harder for them to be objective. Most people understand the political "slant" of a particular paper but there are fewer or even no papers with opposing views in the same area anymore. Sad that it's gotten to be that way.
There's a huge difference in the political "slant" of an opinion page and the objectivism of the news coverage in the rest of the paper. Back when my state had competing "liberal" and "conservative" papers in every city (so called because of their opinion pages), their coverage of local news stories was pretty similar...because good reporters and editors are adult enough to recognize that their political opinions don't have anything to do with objective facts.

Gannett has done much to ruin the newspaper industry, and social media has aided and abetted in the wholesale murder of print journalism. But they're still employing a lot of individual journalists and editors who understand how to be objective -- just, not nearly enough of them to cover local news like the papers used to before Gannett bought them.
 
There's a huge difference in the political "slant" of an opinion page and the objectivism of the news coverage in the rest of the paper. Back when my state had competing "liberal" and "conservative" papers in every city (so called because of their opinion pages), their coverage of local news stories was pretty similar...because good reporters and editors are adult enough to recognize that their political opinions don't have anything to do with objective facts.

Gannett has done much to ruin the newspaper industry, and social media has aided and abetted in the wholesale murder of print journalism. But they're still employing a lot of individual journalists and editors who understand how to be objective -- just, not nearly enough of them to cover local news like the papers used to before Gannett bought them.
I'm not referring to opinion pages exclusively in determining "slant" of a newspaper. It's human nature to be somewhat affected by the political leanings of the newspaper's owner(s), i.e., the reporters' bosses. And not all reporters, like any other categories of workers, are necessarily "good" or "adult enough". We're not necessarily talking of blatant or obvious political slants in the reporting but certain subtleties in articles have frequently occurred.
 
I'm not referring to opinion pages exclusively in determining "slant" of a newspaper. It's human nature to be somewhat affected by the political leanings of the newspaper's owner(s), i.e., the reporters' bosses. And not all reporters, like any other categories of workers, are necessarily "good" or "adult enough". We're not necessarily talking of blatant or obvious political slants in the reporting but certain subtleties in articles have frequently occurred.
I used to work a factory job where I would buy both the Post and Daily News, it was the 90s and early 2000s, so no smart phones....they both certainly had slants in the news coverage.....not so much local non political but on everything else....I liked getting both perspectives......
 
I used to watch CNN then Fox in hopes that 1+5 / 2 = 3.

At some point I realized that Fox + CNN = Mind Manipulation
 
Here's a little example of what I'm talking about. I can remember all these newspapers in the NYC area back in the 1960's. It was great to read the differing views in many of them. It's a real shame that those days are gone.

"New York in the 1960s was a city of news junkies. Even though 10 newspapers fed that appetite, some New Yorkers who read two papers every morning were heard to complain that there was only one in the afternoon. Today, there are only three papers in New York—the Times, the Post, and the Daily News, (The Wall Street Journal is customarily considered a business publication, not a general newspaper.), but of course, one’s media appetite is fed digitally. Back in the 60s, though, there were few other options."

Grew up with the Daily News, NY Mirror, and Hudson Dispatch in the morning. Jersey Journal in the evening. I guess that explains a lot!
 
I'm not referring to opinion pages exclusively in determining "slant" of a newspaper. It's human nature to be somewhat affected by the political leanings of the newspaper's owner(s), i.e., the reporters' bosses. And not all reporters, like any other categories of workers, are necessarily "good" or "adult enough". We're not necessarily talking of blatant or obvious political slants in the reporting but certain subtleties in articles have frequently occurred.
Subtlety is a lot different from radical leftist agenda, as has been alleged here and in the conservative media ecosystem forever now. Journalism isn't full of perfect workers. Neither is trucking. But most of us try to do things right. I say that as someone who worked closely with plenty of journalists and who now works closely with many truckers and dock workers.

Where I get suspicious is when an outlet constantly tells me the majority of reporters are part of some great conspiracy to hide the "truth" from me and everyone else. Here in the real world, we know it very seldom works that way because, even if they fool a majority of people for a while, to borrow from Lincoln, nobody can keep the lid on it for long.
I used to watch CNN then Fox in hopes that 1+5 / 2 = 3.

At some point I realized that Fox + CNN = Mind Manipulation
That's true for almost all cable news, and a great many online "news" sites that get shared here on TB on the regular.

It's important to remember, just because the slant agrees with you, doesn't mean you're not being misled. Too few people on both sides realize that.
 
Oh, NPR dedicated yet more airtime and website space to the story today.

Ottawa trucker convoy blocks key Canadian border crossing as standoff drags on


I can't paste the whole story, but go read it. It seems pretty much down-the-middle to me. It includes links to past coverage, including the interview with the Ottawa councilman I heard earlier.
I was looking for the part where they actually talked to the truckers but all I got was Gub speak. NPR towing the party line, as usual.
 
I'm not referring to opinion pages exclusively in determining "slant" of a newspaper. It's human nature to be somewhat affected by the political leanings of the newspaper's owner(s), i.e., the reporters' bosses. And not all reporters, like any other categories of workers, are necessarily "good" or "adult enough". We're not necessarily talking of blatant or obvious political slants in the reporting but certain subtleties in articles have frequently occurred.

There's blatant things to. For example, Hunter Biden's laptop. Totally ignored by most news networks. Had it been Don Jr's laptop .........well you know.
 
Top
AdBlock Detected