posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 04:49 AM
Every form of media can come out biased; TV, internet, newspaper, they are all doing the same thing. Gather as much information as you can on a story
and write it up. Then that story has to go through an editor or news director so that anything that could legally damage the medium is taken out or
softened to prevent lawsuits and sources for inflammatory stories can be checked. Plus you're on a deadline so often times you really don't get a
whole lot of time to dig. Now with so much advertising driving media, there are more and more stories that could be taken out due to loss of revenue
in ad dollars and not just lawsuits.
There are differences of course in the audience that each form of media can reach, I'm willing to bet that the older generations prefer print media
and the younger generations prefer the net while TV has a hold on both groups. I could be off base on that assumption, but that's my guess anyway.
I'll agree with the op in the belief that most people stateside tend to rely on TV as the major source of credible news even though it may not be as
reliable as they think.
The root of the problem today in my opinion is a serious loss of credibility and investigative reporting. Credibility is everything in journalism,
I've worked with some great journalists and some really lazy ones. The good ones take the time to get the full story and check their bias at the
door. The lazy ones... well, they don't always report the full and accurate story. There seem to be way more of the lazy ones out there now and many
of the people at the top are making sure that nobody makes too many waves. The lazy ones are fine with that since they don't want to dig too deep
anyway and the real investigative types tend to be the ones that are shown the door or hit on something that they cannot report and start to become
biased themselves. Then you have to deal with the competition factor, nobody wants to get scooped. That's why you end up with everybody clamoring to
report something and screwing up the details. Kinda like election night, 2000 was a banner year. Everybody kept calling the election prematurely cause
they all wanted to be first.
I think the internet is great, it allows people to get their stories out without editors standing in the way as much, but then the reader has to take
it upon themselves to check the sources and not believe everything that you read since a lot of internet news sites can be based on opinion or agenda
just like the big dogs.
As far as volume of news sources, it's a toss up these days, with local tv stations and newspapers going digital I can find information from around
the globe at my fingertips. But volume doesn't mean anything. Just because there may be 10 newspapers in my town and 4 tv stations doesn't mean that
the newspapers are better at reporting, in fact the smaller ones are generally more pointed in their stance. You need to find the sources that you can
trust, the individuals who are really out there doing their jobs. Even then, every other person at that media group could be the worst journalist
You always have to ask what is really going on here? No one will ever report a story that could cause massive fallout from important people unless
everyone else does to. If you could tip the scale toward reporting everything (that is true with proof of course) no matter what kind of trouble it
might land you in, then you would have a return to good journalism. I don't see that happening any time soon when reporters get banned from the white
house for asking real questions. Real journalists are a dying breed but they are still out there.
Keep reading and watching, the truth IS out there... it's just getting harder to find.