A 'Fair' and 'Balanced' Media?

We are told the mainstream media reports on issues in a fair and balanced way. They give us the information to think about and make up our own minds. That they are the "real news" source. Are the mainstream media and other sources like so-called "fact-checking" sites such as Wikipedia, Snopes and Politifact impartial? They say they "don't pick sides". Is that really the case?

_{Made by @krnel, from Source, Source}

Is picking the truth vs. falsity being impartial? What about when a bias or consensus trance disqualifies opposing information that people could think about? Are the "authoritative" sources to simple be trusted with the information they spoon feed us as being "fair", "balanced" and "impartial"?

They say they are the "real news" while alternative media is not "real news", to not trust it as it's not the trustworthy news like they are. That they don't produce fake news, while the alternative independent media does. Yet, they do. Donald Trump has even pointed to the media and called them out for fake news presentation of information, which they of course deny.

How can they purport to present "real news" in reality, if their concern is for impartiality, neutrality and presenting "both sides" when both sides can't both be right? If they dig deep enough, backtrack history, and find the root causal source, is that root source true or simply trusted to be true? Have you noticed how they sometimes avoid making judgments in news reports that are controversial or cause conflict to the status quo? They just support that narrative, and at as if they are impartial and presenting a fair and balanced story while all it does is support the "official" mainstream "authoritative" narrative.

Why don't they actually talk about all information regarding an issue if they want to be fair and balanced if they are indeed doing as they purport: to represent both sides? They are failing to represent the info fairly and balanced. If the consensus or mainstream narrative doesn't support something, then they are omitting potential truth because it goes against the status quo being projected for everyone to accept as a reality. That's fine if they only want to support a certain angle. But they shouldn't claim it's fair, balanced or impartial.

Is this even something that should be done, to be giving out all claims of truth on any and all sides? If they want to make a case for one thing, ok, then make that case, but then it's not fair and balanced or impartial. If not, then give the info out and let people decide for themselves. When they do present both sides, that means truth and lies are mixed in through a representation of both sides, which can't both be true if they indeed conflict or contradict. So we need to judge for ourselves, but many of us don't. We accept the information being streamed into our consciousness. How much of the news is really getting us to think for ourselves, vs. telling us what happened for us to accept?

If you present both sides blindly, in an attempt to be neutral, "balanced" and "fair", then you aren't presenting truth, you are only presenting information with no determination of what is actually happening. Even if multiple sources conflict, then just present both sides. Sometimes the news does investigative stories and explain things honestly to conclude one side as true.

The news (and Wikipedia) don't always represent reality or truth that can actually be discerned. They present information about anything that has a source that has "authority" in the eyes of others to get it accepted as "reality".

many people do try to offer a presentation of information honestly. But it can be false in many cases because they are trapped in the current condition and normalized acceptability of the standard narrative fed by institutions and political mouthpieces. Then people gobble it up under that fallacious appeal to "authority", "experts" or personal political attachment and bias that has them favor one side over the other almost all the time, regardless of what is true or based in principles of truth. Preferences and opinions reign instead of principles.

"He's the president, he wouldn't lie. Obama was great. Clinton was great. Bush was bad. Trump is bad." Or "Bush was great. Obama was bad." Or "Trump is great. Obama was bad." Or "Bush was bad, so was Obama, but Trump is great."

The news ends up just being a selective information dump, where they tell you things and claim they are telling you the "real" news, of course not the "fake" news, they wouldn't dare do that to us, the trusting audience... Sure, there can be a lack of information, and they just present information as it comes in. That's understandable. But there is still a lack of real judgment about the actual real reality of the situation. So the viewer or reader is left gather more information on their own, but then they don't.

We have become lazy and complacent in our collection of information. Instead of trying to find the truth, we're choosing to be fed what to believe is "true". That is easier to do, and requires less effort, time, energy and thinking.

People will often judge information, not critically, but emotionally. To judge based on what they want, desire or prefer to be true, rather than investigating to find out what is true.

The news admits they do investigations in some work called 'investigative reporting', while in the majority of reports, they don't investigate, they just report, i.e. repeat information without real investigation as to what is the truth. And that information often comes from establishment sources that uphold the standard false perception of reality.

In one sense, this reporting of both sides is a positive, because of how blindly trusting people are of the news. If the news only told one version (the accepted mainstream version) and told people something was a certain way (even though it wasn't), most would believe it anyways. But it's often just one version that's being fed to us to consume and accept.

When they present so-called "balanced" information, or one-sided status quo confirming narratives, we need to recognize that we have the capacity within us (or to develop that capacity) to be able to discern the contradictory information and determine what is a more accurate representation of reality, based on reality itself -- not how the information makes us feel, or how much we want, wish or desire it to be true.

It's understandable that it takes time to investigate, so normally most of the news is busy just reporting what is happening. Sometimes it's really just what is happening, and there isn't much to argue or debate about, but often times there is one side that is true, and another that is false. Sometimes both sides can be wrong, or both sides can also be misrepresented by reporting information "as is" when they receive it from whatever source is giving it to them.

And if it's just reporting or regurgitating information that complies with the standard mainstream narrative, then it's not "real" news about reality. It's both real and unreal news, since they are not vetting it, they are only reporting information (true or false), not investigating it.
No wonder people are left confused by the media, yet think they have a congruent, integrated understanding of reality as their worldview.

Double-think was aptly noticed by George Orwell. People hold contradictory information that is used at their convenience to justify certain positions, yet they never integrate these contradictions to notice them as such, and correct their misconceptions.

Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.
- George Orwell, 1984

_{Made by @krnel, from Source}

Why does any of this matter? The importance of truth to determine the quality and condition of our lives.

If your default position is to just present all "points of view" or "perspectives" and leave it at that, as if it's simply "everyone has their own opinion", you get nowhere and people remain confused and in contradiction internally, but also in contradiction with others because everyone is in their own false internal perception of reality without the common objective reality to unite them in truth.

This is what post-modernism and subjectivism does. "All opinions are just as valid as any others." This is what ignorance does. It keep us uninformed about the territory of reality, where we're unable to truly relate on that common basis and get on the same page of understanding about issues honestly.

War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.

_{Made by @krnel, from Source}

To ignore the conflict of information presented, not care for truth, and just believe whatever the fuck we want, is not a solution for humanity or the world. If we want truth, we need to get down to the definition of terms that are used to reference reality, so we can establish a common grounding in reality to define what we are talking about. Then we can reflect back onto reality to prove a truth in existence.

Did the Syrian fake news chemical attack happen earlier this year? No. But the media was all over that story as if it was true and real news.

So in the end we are sharing information, and trying to get down to the reality of things as they are. We can present information to people who are wrong. Eventually we can get on the same page about things in reality that are true and can be shown to be such. Sometimes people don't want to hear how they accept something wrong or false. Then it's often time to walk away and not waste your time on someone who doesn't want to learn to see their errors. Time is precious. Go spend your time and attention on those who are more receptive to learning.

The mainstream media presents us with information. They do investigative reporting, and regurgitation of the status quo falsity, but we each need to discern what is happening ourselves. If we don't, then we get "1984" and accept what the "authorities" and "experts" tell us about "reality", as they allegedly "watch over" us and "guard" us for our own good.

---

Thank you for your time and attention. Peace.

---

_{If you appreciate and value the content, please consider: Upvoting, Sharing or Reblogging below.
me for more content to come!}

---

_{My goal is to share knowledge, truth and moral understanding in order to help change the world for the better. If you appreciate and value what I do, please consider supporting me as a Steem Witness by voting for me at the bottom of the Witness page.}