"Who's the Big Guy"

[hollodero]

(04-13-2022, 01:41 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I never did say that, or anything close to it.

Yeah you're right. I should have phrased that differently. Imho it's rather where your line of argueing would lead to in its ultimate consequence.
Or say, in the end I do not need to know about the perfectly unbiased news site and still can call FOX untrustworthy.

(04-13-2022, 01:41 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: What I will offer is that back in the 1990's, when I was taking Journalism classes en route to a Mass Communications degree, our journalism professor stood by one principle.  In a nutshell, that principle was "It's not our job to shape people's opinions.  We are to report the facts/events, and allow the reader/listener to make up their own minds on what to think of it.".

It would be nice to see the entire news media industry start trending back that direction.

Yeah. Imho, there's just no money in that. Which, on the one hand, is a consequence of letting the news market be a free market. We, for example, have a state run news agency (on state run TV). Which is not perfect in any way, but it still sets a certain benchmark the main US media market is missing greatly.
On the other hand, many more people these days are way more set in their often quite one-sided initial belief system and way more people than earlier would refute objective news that don't confirm these beliefs as being biased. Today, one gets confirmation so easily through the internet, and to the consumer this is more pleasant than being challenged. And in the end, media stations where ratings are everything will react to that (by making pleasant confirmation news). Have to from a commercial standpoint, actually.

[Belsnickel]

(04-13-2022, 01:41 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I never did say that, or anything close to it.

What I will offer is that back in the 1990's, when I was taking Journalism classes en route to a Mass Communications degree, our journalism professor stood by one principle.  In a nutshell, that principle was "It's not our job to shape people's opinions.  We are to report the facts/events, and allow the reader/listener to make up their own minds on what to think of it.".

It would be nice to see the entire news media industry start trending back that direction.

The problem is that the end of the Fairness Doctrine in the late '80s followed by the repeal of the corollary rules in 2000 has changed the landscape forever. When you couple that with the increased monetization of news I have a hard time imagining a reversal of the trend any time soon. News orgs lack an obligation to be unbiased in their reporting and because they are increasingly beholden to advertisers they have to answer to shareholders thanks to the consolidation and corporatization of the industry they will trend towards the poles as they look to satisfy advertisers by keeping their readers/listeners/watchers glued to it.

There is a reason I read the AP more than anything. As an independent, non-profit news agency it doesn't have a lot of the hang-ups other agencies have.

[GMDino]

(04-13-2022, 01:41 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I never did say that, or anything close to it.

What I will offer is that back in the 1990's, when I was taking Journalism classes en route to a Mass Communications degree, our journalism professor stood by one principle.  In a nutshell, that principle was "It's not our job to shape people's opinions.  We are to report the facts/events, and allow the reader/listener to make up their own minds on what to think of it.".

It would be nice to see the entire news media industry start trending back that direction.

I  agree with you.  I had the same class for the same major.  Writing "just the facts" is hard, but not impossible.

Unfortunately it also doesn't "sell" when you are filling 24 hours a day every day with "news".  Add in a country completely divided in some segments and "bias" is seen sometime simply because they disagree with the facts.

[Dill]

(04-13-2022, 08:55 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: What I've noticed on here, is that some are quick to bash and denounce anything produced by Fox News, yet they offer no insight or opinions on sources that they would deem to be completely unbiased reporting of the news, even when asked directly.

I'm trying to tease out the implications of the bolded.

People "quick to bash and denounce anything produced by Fox" 

should be offering sources "they deem to be completely unbiased reporting of the news"?  But don't? 

But are there such "completely unbiased" sources?

I am guessing most Fox bashers think not, especially when embedded in a news "market," 

but also because they think completely unbiased news impossible in principle.

They just place more trust in sources that more consistently adhere to journalistic standards. 

That's why they offer no insight into completely unbiased sources.