Capitol Hearings: Competing Narratives

[Dill]

(08-02-2021, 07:31 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: 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.

Fox's slogan--"We report: you decide"--seems to embrace a distinction between "fact" and "opinion," and to claim that focus on facts is what drives that channel's programs.  

And I repeatedly hear Trump supporters/defenders who complain about "liberal bias" demanding that news focus on facts,
or that commentary be better labelled, and similar charges that news "consumers" cannot distinguish between fact and opinion.
Hannity frequently reminds us that he is "up front" about the fact that what he is doing is commentary while those commentators at
CNN are not. 

Just as a point of discussion, I'd like to suggest that supposing there is some clear distinction between "facts" on the one side and something called "opinion" on the other may be part of the disinformation problem.  And I'd question that especially if it leads to distinction between sources such that there are some we can "trust" and others we can't, if that then enables a habitual detour around critical analysis. 

I believe there are indeed some sources more untrustworthy than others--Fox commentary being an example--but I would never dismiss any individual news item simply because of the source.* I.e., I would never regard a news item as untrustworthy BECAUSE it came from Fox. Each such item has to be vetted on its own terms, and be deemed untrustworthy for the same reason I might find an item from a trusted source untrustworthy, if its author failed to vet sources adequately or drew conclusions not sustained by evidence presented. 

*Not implying that is what you were doing or promoting. You would not and were not. Just adding a point/question to your point.