That's my point, they're implicitly making allegations but hiding behind the technicality of "just sharing what they've heard".

It is desperately sad that people have become convinced that the MSM is the issue and not the fake news, fabrications, and propaganda spread on YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, and by the Trump administration. And that's not directed at you, just in general. Of course we can and should expect the biggest journalistic sources to be more reliable and more objective, but when half the country gets the majority of their news from blatantly fake or propagandistic news sources via the president, Facebook, and Twitter, the occasional inaccuracies of MSM are completely trivial.

This post was edited by Voyaging on Mar 19 2017 07:23pm

I'm not. I'm conflating the largest media conglomerates (namely Comcast, GE, Time Warner, and CBS) with the center-right Democratic Party.

The most relevant journalism usually comes from the public outlets like PBS, PRI, NPR. And, of course, the most neutral and must-watch-to-have-a-grasp-of-reality is C-Span.

This post was edited by inkanddagger on Mar 19 2017 09:59pm

I've never watched C-SPAN is it actually really good?

Washington Journal is one of the best news shows on the air.

Also, I watch Congressional hearings all day long/leave them on in the background so I can listen while I work. C-Span is the only TV I watch mostly. It's mostly just pure live-feed.

I'll check it out. The only things I've ever heard about C-SPAN are jokes that it's super boring. Though that explains the state of most television news; they report whatever the most people are likely to watch. It's no different than the awful popular music industry or Hollywood.

I like PBS and NPR is okay but both are left leaning. I watched the election night coverage on PBS and as it was becoming more clear that Trump won, they could not hide their sulky moods. Literally the anchors sitting there speechless almost in tears, meanwhile giving the impression that they are objective on lookers. Even some of their news analysts like Brooks and Shields, who i find fairly intelligent and head and shoulders above in objectivity compared to their comrades at CNN, they are still pretty left on the spectrum.

And lol at the people here trying to shame others for being independent minded. Just because some of us critically think about the "news" that's put out there and form our own opinions doesn't make us somehow less informed or subjective. Question everything, look for cause & effect of certain "news", ask yourself who benefits, as yourself who owns these news companies. Blindly believing anything and just accepting something because it's covered by all on main street isn't always the wisest.

Dude even Fox was devastated on electing night. StI'll doesn't mean they can't be objective. Objective doesn't mean neutral, and neutrality isn't really something to strive for.

Their reaction during the election night isn't the only thing i'm basing my analysis on. I've watched enough of their Newshour to be somewhat familiar to which candidate they have favorable dispositions. That in itself has an inherent bias, show me something that's not neutral and isn't biased at the same time. Sounds like an oxymoron.

This post was edited by ofthevoid on Mar 19 2017 10:51pm

Being neutral isn't something to be proud of. Neutrality means calling everything 50/50. Being objective means calling it as it is, which means taking a side when it's obvious.

Anyway I don't really mind having a favorable candidate as long as they are fair to the other side. Even TYT gives trump credit when he takes a good position. Funny though that trump has flipped on most of his most popular positions after the election.