08-02-2021, 07:31 AM
(08-01-2021, 07:54 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: Wasn't Rachel Maddow forced to do the same thing?
I may have the details mixed up. I'm not sure if that was her position, or if it was the judge's ruling. But I'm pretty sure one or other got the case thrown out because of almost identical logic (This is exaggerated entertainment, not scrictly the facts.)
In all seriousness, all the major networks have news shows and then they have the entertainment shows. Fox and MSNBC have the more blatantly biased entertainment shows and the bias in their news shows lies more in their choice of stories and people to cover and how much time they spend on them than on the editorializing. They also make liberal use of "correspondents" that are usually just partisan actors, but because they aren't the actual news people, they can get away with saying whatever.
The issue is that the viewers don't understand all of this. The average viewers of these channels can't differentiate between what is news and what is editorializing. It's the same problem we see with print news or news on the web. The average person is unable to differentiate between fact and opinion. All of this being said, a good general rule of thumb in all of this is that a written story on the websites for these channels will be a little more trustworthy than their on air stuff.
I'll still stick to the wire agencies, though.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
