Fakenews from HuffPo

[Bengalzona]

(12-21-2016, 03:17 AM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: So while the current debate (between DILL and SSF) has me riveted!  I am curious as to what some of you think are legit news organizations? I'll create a list of the main stream media (as I think it is anyway, and tell me what you think...partisan, bipartisan, left, right, nonpartisan, and regardless partisanship whether it's legit or fake.

CNN
FOX NEWS
NSNBC
BREITBART
HUFFPO
WASHPO
ABC
NBC
NPR
BBC
USATODAY
NY TIMES
LA TIMES
CINCY ENQUIER
WALL STREET JOURNAL

I know there's more, but we'll start with that.

CNN - legit - my right-wing friends claim it is left-leaning (personally, I don't know)

FOX NEWS - partisan right - the TV news is generally legit, the radio is often not legit
NSNBC - I don't watch, my right-wing friends unanimously claim it is partisan left (but I'm not sure that they watch either)
BREITBART - partisan right - 50% legit, 50% fake
HUFFPO - partisan left - 50% legit, 50% fake
WASHPO - left leaning, but generally legit
ABC - don't know, don't watch
NBC - don't know, don't watch
NPR - nonpartisan, legit
BBC - nonpartisan, legit
USATODAY - nonpartisan, legit (but if you are reading this for news, you are just as well off reading a marquis in Times Square... not much content)
NY TIMES - left leaning, but generally legit
LA TIMES - No idea
CINCY ENQUIER - No idea 
WALL STREET JOURNAL - nonpartisan, legit

I wonder how many people who judge media outlets have actually viewed them and how much they have viewed them if they have? I have a feeling that many people just go by what they hear from others ("Everyone knows you can't trust THAT rag!!!"). Admittedly, I have to plug my nose when I see something from Breitbart. But I have seen it and have seen some legit news reporting from it (not enough that I would ever trust it). I rate it and HuffPo about the same. 

But this "blaming the media" business is all just a game anyway. Media bias was around at the founding of the country. But back then there was no social media to fuel the "blaming the media" game. Instead, they had what used to be known as 'conventional wisdom'. You knew a paper was going to report something one way or another just from their track record. People seek that CW today. Unfortunately, most are too lazy to judge for themselves. They would rather trust another media outlet to tell them, and then converse with like-minded friends through social media to have their own bias re-affirmed. 

The current "blaming the media" rage was born during the Watergate Scandal and Vietnam. A lot of people on the right at the time felt the media should "stand behind the President and the war, regardless". This was meant to mean only printing or broadcasting stories of the President and the war in a good light. The media at the time, which was bound by FCC rules from the late 60's, published and broadcast the facts of the war and the ongoing case instead. This was a betrayal in the eyes of the right, which had hoped that a WWII-style propaganda blitz would win support for both the war and the President. Since the media did not do what the Right wanted, pretty much all media was lumped into a "can't trust the mainstream left" category. Ironically, mainstream media at the time may have been been the most unbiased it has ever been in our history. The complaint was actually that the media didn't have a bias.

Right wing rage smoldered for about 15 years until Ronald Reagan, in one of his last acts as President, had the FCC rules changed. This allowed for the creation of purely partisan media outlets starting in the early nineties. Radio led the way since newspapers and network TV at the time still tried to conform to the old FCC rules. Rush Limbaugh became "the Voice of the Right" in the nineties. Rupert Murdoch and Richard Ailes launched Fox News in 1996 as a partisan TV network. Partisan left media would follow. The growth of the internet and social media later only fueled the partisanship. Fox's viewing audience was 97 million in 2015.