It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Can any news be unbiased?

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 22 2020 @ 03:06 PM
link   
Hi Guys,

As the title says, can any news source be unbiased?

The obvious answer is no. Journalists have their own political philosophies, owners have their own motivations and very few people have the ability to separate actual facts from beliefs.

For a news/media outlet to be truly unbiased it would need to give fact only, not opinion or commentary . If they did this most people would have no idea what the facts actually meant to them. Because they do provide commentary people have a greater understanding of current issues.

If a news outlet was only to give facts, even then it couldn't be unbiased. It would still be constrained by time and would have to choose which facts to present.

I've been on this site for years, seldom posting but always lurking. Recently. With what's happening in USA it's become interesting, not what's posted but how MSM is portrayed. I've seen it loads, people saying don't read the MSM as it's all BS then providing what you should be reading only for it to be just as biased.

Social media is currently getting a hard time for encouraging people to live in echo chambers, however, think back to before social media, I very seldom saw people buying newspapers of different political leanings.

My point is we are all living in echo Chambers unless we involve ourselves in opposing viewpoints with open minds. I don't see that in here, the language used when describing 'the other' tells you all you need to know about how open minded some people are.

While we have these polar views we all lose.

Neitzche said it best, 'there's no such thing as reality, only perception'.

I agree with this statement, but think that by educating ourselves we can move closer to reality than perception. That if we don't want to reduce the power of a vote we have a responsibility to educate ourselves before using it.

The bit really a point to this post, just thought it might start an interesting conversation.




posted on Nov, 22 2020 @ 03:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Jykan

Over time, media centralization and reduction in resources devoted to journalism have made the media more dependent on public relation firms controlled by special interests to get their information.

By some counts there are 20,000 more public relations agents working to doctor the news than there are journalists writing it.

- Paraphrased from "Manufacturing Consent" from source Mark Dowie, Toxic Sludge


Factoring this into the equation... I'd say NO... the news cannot be unbiased. Because it's washed several times before it gets to the people reporting it.


edit on 22-11-2020 by MarkOfTheV because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2020 @ 03:25 PM
link   
Yes news can be unbiased. Let's say it's snowy outside, maybe even blizzard like conditions. Then on a highway there is a terrible multicar collision.

The news of that situation can be reported as such:

Today on 11/22/20, there was a multicar accident with multiple injuries and 2 fatalities. Officials say that the weather conditions contributed to the accident.

How same news is reported by the overall majority left wing news:

Today on 11/22/20, there was a multicar accident with multiple injuries and 2 fatalities. Officials say that the carelessness of Republican lawmakers not funding the "better roads bill" earlier in the year have led directly to the death of two wonderful human beings that had their whole lives in front of them. Officials are saying that this is yet another reason why mass transit programs need further funding as well. There was also ice on the road. These icy conditions are caused by what scientist say is the result of global climate change.
edit on 22-11-2020 by Fools because: .



posted on Nov, 22 2020 @ 03:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Jykan

I think another problem is the mix of news people consume shifting with the advent of the internet.

Pre 9/11 and 24/7 news, and before we all had phones in our pocket most people would watch local news, read local papers, and maybe catch 60 minutes or some other national programming here and there.

Naturally local news would be more curtailed for things that pertained to the community. Now instead of things being presented in that manner, everything is delivered through a national lens.

We're losing the power of community and state. We're losing a sense of empowerment, personal responsibility, and regional focus.

It's not just a cat and mouse of trying to get everything we want at a national level, and as most of us know, it's not only impossible, but it's foolish to have those in charge know that's the expectation.



posted on Nov, 22 2020 @ 03:32 PM
link   
Yes they can, used to be that way pretty regularly even on the main channels (pre-24 hour), when the only talking head was the anchorman/woman while the rest were actual reporters who fed the facts back to the studio.

least thats how I remember it, once we started seeing more talking heads and less in the field reporters it became who resonated with the target audience the best not who was the best at their job.



posted on Nov, 22 2020 @ 04:13 PM
link   
Making news factual is more important that worrying about bias.

But I did appreciate a lot of the old AP rules that really limited bias.

However, in the Fox News era no one follows those anymore.



posted on Nov, 22 2020 @ 04:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Fools
How same news is reported by the overall majority left wing news:

Today on 11/22/20, there was a multicar accident with multiple injuries and 2 fatalities. Officials say that the carelessness of Republican lawmakers not funding the "better roads bill" earlier in the year have led directly to the death of two wonderful human beings that had their whole lives in front of them. Officials are saying that this is yet another reason why mass transit programs need further funding as well. There was also ice on the road. These icy conditions are caused by what scientist say is the result of global climate change.


Whereas right wing Fox News would say

"Today there was a multicar accident with multiple injuries and 2 fatalities. Officials say that it was an unusual accident and that American roads are the safest in the world and that there is no need for increase in spending. Today we learned that one of the drivers was possibly an illegal immigrant. There was also ice on the road. Which proves that global warming does not exist, because this time last year there was no ice on the roads."
edit on 22 11 2020 by Debunkology because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2020 @ 04:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Jykan

Oh man, what a plethora of things to choose from to make a reply.
I choose this one.


If a news outlet was only to give facts, even then it couldn't be unbiased. It would still be constrained by time and would have to choose which facts to present.


How true, how true. I began to read analysis of media outlets several decades ago and this was at the time a main focus, how the timing constraints cut up the news. For profit driven outlets that were driven by commercials, there could only be a certain amount of time allotted to fit in between the commercials to keep people interested long enough so that they would still be there for the next round of indoctrination, that is, the commercials.

Topics had to be chosen that would titillate a viewer or listener without boring them to death and keep them waiting for more. Tantalize them with snippets of what would come ''after the commercial break'' so that they would not change the channel. And what would that be? Really little more than the snippet itself.

Because we all should know by now that media, especially visual media like TV is only feeding us enough entertainment so that we can then be handed over the the marketers and be programmed into their product.

Even ''free TV'' isn't free. It costs. The the advertisers spend a lot of money to bring the product to them via the sales outlet. The TV is the sales outlet and we, the viewers are the product. ......



posted on Nov, 22 2020 @ 04:29 PM
link   
NOTHING is ever neutral... everyone has a bias. There is nothing wrong with that and it doesn't make one wrong.

Here's the problem: the MSM is nothing more than a blatant stealth propaganda machine masquerading as unbiased 'news'... Because it only PRETENDS to be 'news', people are being conned in droves. This is probably the biggest single reason we now have a US president who is actually on OUR side for the first time in eons being so fiercely hated and attacked.


I am the source for this quote, which was indeed said by CIA Director William Casey at an early February 1981 meeting of the newly elected President Reagan with his new cabinet secretaries to report to him on what they had learned about their agencies in the first couple of weeks of the administration. The meeting was in the Roosevelt Room in the West Wing of the White House, not far from the Cabinet Room. I was present at the meeting as Assistant to the chief domestic policy adviser to the President.

Casey first told Reagan that he had been astonished to discover that over 80 percent of the 'intelligence' that the analysis side of the CIA produced was based on open public sources like newspapers and magazines. As he did to all the other secretaries of their departments and agencies, Reagan asked what he saw as his goal as director for the CIA, to which he replied with this quote, which I recorded in my notes of the meeting as he said it. Shortly thereafter I told Senior White House correspondent Sarah McClendon, who was a close friend and colleague, who in turn made it public.

Barbara Honegger bshonegg@gmail.com
Written 25 Nov 2014

quora.com

originally posted by: zerozero00
a reply to: Sublimecraft

I do believe this is the truth with no exceptions, why would anyone think it not the case? The evidence is there to see everyday of the week on every news outlet in the world " propaganda " that sways public opinion regardless of the situation... Only a small percent of the populace see through the lies and manipulation and see it for what it is, problem being we are accused of being " tinfoil hat wearers" or "conspiracy nutters"...

Even with this information out in the open the masses still can't see what's in front of them as their belief system would be broken forever and that would be devastating to them, way too much to lose to think that TPTB are controlling them with psychological warfare, propaganda and lies so it's much easier to believe them unconditionally. Ever since I was a teenager I knew the PTB where evil and the last 30 years has only cemented what I had suspected ... We are all being played for the benefit of a few but the game is not fun and no prizes for losing. Time to wake up guys and gals, it's a double speak world where everything we are told is generally the opposite of the truth!!



edit on 11.22.2020 by Murgatroid because: Felt like it...



posted on Nov, 22 2020 @ 04:34 PM
link   
a reply to: MarkOfTheV


Manufacturing Consent" from source Mark Dowie, Toxic Sludge


Yeah, that would be Manufacturing and Consent by Herman and Chomsky in 1988 I think it was. That one was one of the things I mentioned I had been reading a while back. Good book.



posted on Nov, 22 2020 @ 04:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Jykan

To be honest...I don't think you're seeing this quite right.

Currently ALL of the facts are not actually being reported. And they're not being reported by little more than a handfull of media owners......across a narrow bandwidth of media, as I'm sure you can see, that's where the problem comes in.

Things never used to be this way......there used to be broad media ownership which provided broad opinion....and that was OK, everyone understood that, everyone understood and could see the obvious bias in some of the media. Nevertheless the opportunity existed to avail yourself of a broad overview of the facts relatively easily.......that is no longer the case.....and that is a serious problem....particularly because so many people are not paying attention.



posted on Nov, 22 2020 @ 04:41 PM
link   
a reply to: MarkOfTheV

OPppsy.
edit on 30America/ChicagoSun, 22 Nov 2020 16:42:13 -0600Sun, 22 Nov 2020 16:42:13 -060020112020-11-22T16:42:13-06:00400000042 by TerryMcGuire because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2020 @ 04:45 PM
link   
a reply to: myselfaswell

Good points. Consolidated ownership. From my understanding we can chalk a lot of that up to Reagan and his deregulation on corporations followed by ole Slick Willy and his ''Telecommunications Act'' of 1996. Between the two we were all sold down the river.

edit on 30America/ChicagoSun, 22 Nov 2020 16:46:33 -0600Sun, 22 Nov 2020 16:46:33 -060020112020-11-22T16:46:33-06:00400000046 by TerryMcGuire because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2020 @ 04:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Fools
Yes news can be unbiased. Let's say it's snowy outside, maybe even blizzard like conditions. Then on a highway there is a terrible multicar collision.

The news of that situation can be reported as such:

Today on 11/22/20, there was a multicar accident with multiple injuries and 2 fatalities. Officials say that the weather conditions contributed to the accident.

How same news is reported by the overall majority left wing news:

Today on 11/22/20, there was a multicar accident with multiple injuries and 2 fatalities. Officials say that the carelessness of Republican lawmakers not funding the "better roads bill" earlier in the year have led directly to the death of two wonderful human beings that had their whole lives in front of them. Officials are saying that this is yet another reason why mass transit programs need further funding as well. There was also ice on the road. These icy conditions are caused by what scientist say is the result of global climate change.


Meanwhile the general public would be like:

"This horrific crash is awesome. I'm gonna record it with my phone in portrait mode and post it online on as much social media accounts as I can. I'm gonna get so much likes."



posted on Nov, 22 2020 @ 05:00 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Sorry smart guy... nope.

Manufacturing Consent ... there is no "and"


And "Mark Dowie, Toxic Sludge" was the reference for the public relation statement that Herman and Chomsky used. #19 in the Introduction to be exact. Page XVII

Geez... the efforts some people will go just to try and one up to feel "right".



posted on Nov, 22 2020 @ 05:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Jykan

So, we have Fact Checkers that know all the facts.
Let's start a channel that just reports the facts!
We can call it news!



posted on Nov, 22 2020 @ 05:09 PM
link   
Of course the amendment of the Smith-Mundt Act allowed propaganda to be used against US citizens. Now we have 24/7 propaganda from different sources.


Shown Here: Introduced in House (05/10/2012) Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 -

Amends the United States Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948 to authorize the Secretary of State and the Broadcasting Board of Governors to provide for the preparation and dissemination of information intended for foreign audiences abroad about the United States, including about its people, its history, and the federal government's policies, through press, publications, radio, motion pictures, the Internet, and other information media, including social media, and through information centers and instructors. (Under current law such authority is restricted to information disseminated abroad, with a limited domestic exception.)

Authorizes the Secretary and the Board to make available in the United States motion pictures, films, video, audio, and other materials prepared for dissemination abroad or disseminated abroad pursuant to such Act, the United States International Broadcasting Act of 1994, the Radio Broadcasting to Cuba Act, or the Television Broadcasting to Cuba Act.

Amends the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1986 and 1987 to prohibit funds for the Department of State or the Board from being used to influence public opinion or propagandizing in the United States. (Under current law such provision applies to the United States Information Agency [USIA].)

Applies such prohibition only to programs carried out pursuant to the United States Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948, the United States International Broadcasting Act of 1994, the Radio Broadcasting to Cuba Act, and the Television Broadcasting to Cuba Act.

States that such provision shall: (1) not prohibit the Department or the Board from providing information about its operations, policies, programs, or program material, or making such information available to members of the media, public, or Congress; (2) not be construed to prohibit the Department from engaging in any medium of information on a presumption that a U.S. domestic audience may be exposed to program material; and (3) apply only to the Department and the Board and to no other federal department or agency.


Source



edit on 22/11/20 by spirit_horse because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2020 @ 07:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Jykan

Of course news can be objective. And, yes, it is possible to discern fact from opinion. It's not a matter of ability or possibility... it is a matter of will and desire.

Which applies to both the news provider AND the news consumer. The echo chambers would not exist -- on any "side" -- unless people chose to live in those echo chambers.



posted on Nov, 22 2020 @ 08:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Jykan

When all the facts are presented to you, not interpreted for you but presented to you.

When all argument's are presented to you, not placed as facts but as argument's.

So only when you see, know and hear it yourself.

Otherwise you are hearing what others are saying.

We live in the age of the cult of personality not of substance.

In the old days politicians were elected on there promises and held accountable at the next election on how they kept there world or not and how good they were not on how good they were in front of a camera or at lying and twisting and squirming inside your brain.

Ban them from the TV and RADIO and make them only allowed to present there case in print.

Politicians, unelected corrupt power mongering behind the scenes international politicians own the media just as the communists did in there communist nations.

There is no truth to be had in them except that you also accept there lies and there interpretation's.

News is overtaken by propaganda, propaganda is used to control and so the electorate are controlled not informed and the media is not free but a tool of control just as organised religion was corrupted to that very purpose in the past these day's those same entity's have switched to using media as there method of controlling the masses of society.

IF we ever truly knew the truth most politicians and those that own and control the media would be hanging from street light's.

BUT ONLY if we were the very animals they want us to be, in a more sane version we would lock them up and throw away the key, since most of them are sociopaths in secure mental facility's were they belong for the sake of the safety of the rest of us.

OR seeing them for what they really are we would simply never allow them near to the reigns of power, perhaps not even allow them behind the wheel of a car because any power is a drug to them and they mostly can never have enough of it.

So the News, mixed bag, some is truth, some is lies, some is twisted beyond all measure as a means of masking it's true value and of manipulating you.

There is no truly independent press, there never can be in this world.

The best you can hope for is to try to pick the truth out of the babble that we are fed on a regular basis in all western nations which is well nigh impossible.

The TRUTH shall set you free, they don't want you to be free they want you under control, persuaded (bound) to there point of view and that is there power, the TRUTH does not belong to anyone but interpreting it?.

edit on 22-11-2020 by LABTECH767 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2020 @ 09:01 PM
link   
a reply to: MarkOfTheV


Well aren't you so defensive this evening? I attempted to ask a question and my dyslexia kicked in and it came out ''that would be'' rather than my intended ''would that be''.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join