Is the Mainstream Media Really Fair and Balanced?
Mainstream media and Wikipedia often try to emphasize an impartiality. They say they are "fair" and "balanced". They say they "don't pick sides". Is that the case? Maybe sometimes.
source
What about the side of truth vs. falsity?
They say, they are the "real news" while alternative media is not "real news". Donald Trump is even pointing to the media and calling them out for fake representation of information, which they deny.
*How can they purport to present "real news" in reality, if their concern is for impartiality, neutrality and presenting "both sides" when they can't both be right? Don't they dig deep enough, backtrack history, and find the root causal source? Maybe they don't have the time, ok. True. Have you noticed how they avoid making judgments in news reports that are controversial or cause conflict to the status quo? They just support that narrative though...
Why don't they actually talk about all information regarding global climate change science if they are indeed doing as they purport: to represent both sides? They are failing to represent truth in reality by omitting real evidence because it goes against the status quo being projected for everyone to accept as a reality.
In the news programs, the news presenter or reporter is allegedly impartial, neutral, presenting both sides of the information, except when it's to uphold the status quo narrative that keeps people entrenched into a false perception of reality.
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.
If you present both sides blindly, in 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, they just present both sides. Sometimes they do investigative stories and explain things honestly, true. Those are few and far between nowadays, compared to the pre-internet journalism and media.
The news (and Wikipedia) don't present 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". Or the one presenting the information knows otherwise, yet still projects it into other people's consciousness for them to accept a false version of reality as "reality".
Some 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, like the Whitehorse and President. Then people gobble it up under that fallacious appeal to authority and experts or personal political attachment that has them favor one side over the other almost all the time.
"He's the president, he wouldn't lie. Obama is great. Clinton is great. Bush was bad. Trump is bad."
The news ends up just being a selective information dump, where they tell you things and claim they are telling you the "real" news not the "fake" news. But then the another format is used as well, where they present information that conflicts, leaving it up to us to be confused if we don't investigate ourselves.
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, but then they don't.
We have become lazy and complacent in our collection of information, instead choosing to be fed what to be believe. 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 investigation. 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, and it wasn't, most would believe it anyways.
So 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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
To ignore the conflict, 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.
So in the end we are sharing information, and trying to get down to the reality of things as they are in are. We can present information to people who are wrong. Eventually the person who is wrong will either: 1) see they are wrong by it being demonstrated to them; 2) not be interested in learning, and they will remain in denial, ignorance and rejection of reality even when it is demonstrated from the ground up. At that point, it's 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...
source
Thank you for your time and attention! I appreciate the knowledge reaching more people. Take care. Peace.
If you appreciate and value the content, please consider:
Upvoting 
, Sharing 
or Reblogging 
below.
me for more content to come!
Please also consider supporting me as a Steem Witness by voting for me at the bottom of the Witness page; or just click on the upvote button if I am in the top 50:
@krnel
2017-01-29, 5pm
@KrNel, your post has been chosen by @STEEMNEWS.ONLINE as one of today's promoted posts for its excellent content. We've upvoted, resteemed and published it through Facebook & Twitter.
As the author of a SNO featured article, you've been awarded one TRAIL coin. Please stop by the SteemTrail Discord server to learn more about how to claim your TRAIL coin. You will need an Open Ledger account to do so.
STEEMNEWS.ONLINE is the @SteemTrail for #news and watches the #steemnews tag most closely. Please consider supporting excellent news articles by making steemnews.online one of your operators on Streemian, in addition to steemtrail.
Thank you for your hard work and contribution of excellent content to Steemit.
If you would rather not be promoted by STEEMNEWS.ONLINE, please inform us by replying to this comment and we will honor your request.
media is a way of starting point. It can be of med-way news in politics or people. They have half the knowledge and the rest is generated philosophy or we can say predictions. They clam to say they know the fact but it turns the opposite way and remains a blog. We need to decide whether we should keep the trust or not. Media is more attracted to the glamorous world to built popularity.
See the forest for the trees. It's realistic to think people in power have a larger agenda in mind for themselves, but even while being "controlled" or edited by people above them, usually the individuals seem to be trying. Trust should be earned, but everyone should remember to give chances of trust.
Some thoughts not necessarily related to your post but made me think about, but It is weird when words like "media" or "governement" tossed around as thought it is just one person or entity, I feel people forget even when swayed by thoughts from above them, we all have choice and as individuals we should all try and keep seeking out truths.
"The power of doublethink" !! I love it! 😊😊
Excellent post. Really touches base on what people need to hear and the reality of what is going on ..
Thanx for sharing.
I addressed some FAKENEWS purveying by CNN and Wash Post in today news wrap.....
TLR Weekend News Wrap Op Ed Video- 29 Jan 2017
Hah, of course it isn't.
It has no reason to be.
If the media was truly fair and balanced, it'd be boring, and it would make no money because people don't want boring. And people in 2017 have the attention span of a rock, so if a news article doesn't offer an instant reward, the consumer clicks away. Same with grabbing magazines and newspapers at stores and stands, etc.
But contrary to popular belief, this isn't really the media's "fault", per se. The current media is simply a monster created by the very people who complain about it.
What gets rewarded, gets repeated.
In other words, its the consumers that have made clickbaity bullshit profitable, and yet they are dumb enough to demand something else than what they themselves are constantly rewarding.
See, people have this illusion that a media outlet has a goal other than maximizing profits. As if "integrity" is something that a media outlet aspires to achieve just because. It will attempt so if there is a profit to be made.
But there isn't, not right now.
And it's the people's fault; the consumers create the environment in which companies operate.
Another masterpiece of thoughts and guess what : I don't have the answer ! I am damn confused and dizzy and just pick out my own articles I intuitively believe . Am I right ? Am I wrong ? I asked that same question in one of my previous posts. I continue to research on my own ....
With the Internet a lot of media has come. Some blogs grown larger then local media which means there the 'free open internet' is working.
But if you consider a lot of news outlet secretly publish sponsored content and even false stories, there is a risk in this rise too.
I am forever fearful of becoming the cynic. 'It has forever been thus', I hear echoing from the elders. But has it? Why is the NYT, WP, CNN perpetrating crap about Syria? Is the value of winning the story war that great? Wall Street seems to be the driver - money and power. The Economist was set up with a constitution to ensure the objectivity in its reporting. The structure has been mortally wounded.
Thank you @krnel for a great post.
By the way, cognitive dissonance is the phrase - the ability to hold two opposing views simultaneously.
Cognitive dissonance is state of distress brought about through input (or recollection) of contradictory information. It's linked to double-think. But in double-think, someone can have no distress and hold them nonetheless. Yup news used to have standards of keeping the government in check, and now they toe the globalist agenda. Thanks for the feedback.
Interesting wording, as I think news has written out standards that while just like anyone in any job does not have to follow the rules, at the least most larger news media outlets do have a process of vetting information. Unfortunately for every 19 credible stories, there is that 1 that is bullshit or opinion. At the least there is a process in place that does require some sort of checking information. There is no right side, times are very weird right now.
When describing that they toe the line, what are their payoffs?
Right , my point precisely what's up with the Aleppo dramas , check @son-of-satire 's post from 2 days ago, not on the Syria topic but very close to this one , also check the comedians I've mentioned you will like the results of cynics :) . Christopher Hitchens would be the biggest that comes to mind , he was a true marvel to behold :|
The Hitch is/was one of my heroes - Kissinger, Clintons, Mother Theresa - what a great brain and a terrible loss to these kinds of debates. I have been writing about Syria quite a lot and got to Page 1 on a Google search for Soros the other day. Amnesty International yesterday etc. I have some good sources!
It's sad to hear it's still going, so much shit :|
Sometimes it's good to leave people to figure out the whole puzzle and find the pieces themselves , but I have to agree that with most media It's a bunch of bullshit, we all know it , I for one never read anything , and always take a grain of salt with the articles and such , I like well sourced, even then you never know :D , Last time i did some research was on the #Aleppo crysis where , dunno much bs there, there were claims for so much lies , shot videos , and so on on , so much drama on twitter(back then it was my first post so I wane t share it a bit :) )
The sad part is that we aren't even given the full picture of the sides, just a warped wrapped and presented one , to go with a narrative that suits the "promoter" , There is hope but not much unless people start respecting each other and thinking for themselves(not egoistically , but more rationally) that way we can talk out the issues and set the sky as a limit for what we can achieve :| Happy New Chinese Year of the Rooster ! :D , many bitcoins and happy memories :D
Also if you can drop by my posts,
Banner Saga3 - 3DFreelance Contests
And i have 2 upcoming but It will be hard to get them done tonight(already AM)
Would love to hear your thoughts on my upcoming ones , probably not much interest in the current one , it was just the most ready one and I have some replies and threads to finish up with now :D
Cheers !
Also Bill Hicks and George Carlin and you are immune to madness :)!
https://steemit.com/life/@son-of-satire/how-social-media-s-predictive-algorithms-are-perpetuating-division-of-the-people
Also on the same topic !
I hope that too, but it's "egotistically". That's what we want to avoid; The egotistical, the egocentrical, the irrational. Well who reasons? The ego. So it's not entirely true that we want to remove the egoism, but we want to remove the scewed, short sighted and unreasonable view on reality that is "egotism" or "egocentrism".
Happy new year! =)
!!!! true that :) it's good to know what drives you , most people just like the fancy colors and the strong experiences , that's why marketing works, people are driven and then given stimuli for the action they have committed, but rarely do they think about the long term or other aspects.
It's all dependant on what type of people we are raising in our society. In todays societies, the focus more often than not is on making people into "consumers" rather than "producers", but in a rational society and a functioning economy as Rand pointed out, producers and consumers ought to be the same people.
Our current culture (our combined social system of education) teaches us from a young age, that the majority is and will never be able to rise above being "workers" and "consumers" and that the only thing we can do about it is to increase the political power those groups wield over the "employers" and "corporations". The cycle gets worse as you get to start working for "the man" and realize just how hard reality is even outside of the schools filled up with bullies and useless homework.
The same mentality is then perpetuated throughout all of society and nothing ever really changes unless someone is willing to break the pattern of strikes/tax evasion and colluding for higher salaries/subsidies, to in fact invent a whole new market place where new ideas can be aired, tried and adopted based on their own merits.
This isn't really a new thing though. That's why some of the traditional Anarchists (unlike me, who is an Anarcho-Capitalist), while I disagree with their political theory and many of the causes they identify, make some very valid points. This is what keeps happening again and again throughout history and we have yet to invent better ways that will help us not to fall into the same trap all over again.
Long ponder/rant there. But this is why I'm so enthusiastic about Cooperative Agorism; Outbuilding the current system that's built on the states power of conscription. Not simply tearing it down in a reactonary manner, thus just destroying the good that's still there and creating a power vaccum to be filled again, but to actually make those supporting institutions that we would want to replace with peaceful alternatives, and that we would want to see in a future free society, anew.
/Thomas Hägg
/ Thank you , I would add nothing so you have made a great point.
Now only to translate this in the real world :)
Thank you. That's what we're working on here =)