News Media Distortion Examples

Brookswood said:
Sadly, the NY Times, Washington Post, CNN, and MS NOW are just as bad as Fox. They simply manipulate their stories to favor a different group of extreme partisans. "No wonder our country is so screwed up." Indeed.
Click to expand...
The problem with that statement is, you can't back it up with facts. There is no equivalent to Fox "news" propaganda except for maybe something in N. Korea or Russia, but nothing in the U.S.
 
Last edited:
GoodEnuff said:
You know, a headline that leads you to think one thing, yet later in the article the real info is stated.

Like this: (Fox News Headline) "Hybrid 'mutant' pig population explodes following 2011 Japanese nuclear accident"

I thought, "This will be about mutations caused by the nuclear radiation. I'll read it."

The subtitle in small print: "After the nuclear accident occurred and humans fled Fukushima, a population of domestic pigs escaped and began breeding with wild boars in the area." Later in the article: "The study showed that lack of human intervention allowed for the wild boar population to increase rapidly. Combined with the ability to breed more often, which was passed down from the pig mothers, also helped the pigs and wild boars' genes mix together more quickly."

Big surprise. Not. I hate when the media does this!
Click to expand...
I see that type of dodge and weave article to be the same as click bait. Some inferred tidbit gets your attention and you click on the article just to find that there is nothing related to the enticing line at all.
 
Like this: (Fox News Headline) "Hybrid 'mutant' pig population explodes following 2011 Japanese nuclear accident"

That's par for the course with that "news" outlet. That's why I eliminated that channel from my cable channel package.
 
Brookswood said:
Sadly, the NY Times, Washington Post, CNN, and MS NOW are just as bad as Fox. They simply manipulate their stories to favor a different group of extreme partisans. "No wonder our country is so screwed up." Indeed.
Click to expand...
Totally disagree. CNN and MSNOW and the New York Times are way better than that freak show. It's not their fault with who they have to constantly mention and disagree with.
 
News media - both traditional and so called Alternative Media - exists to make profit. All of it.

As such, it must serve its audience. Right wing biased media isn't going to suddenly feature positive stories about the left wing, and vice versa. A station with a affiliation with one political party isn't going to run positive stories about the opposing party. Instead, they play to their audience. This is simple economics.

There doesn't exist a news outlet that is dedicated simply to the truth. Even if a station says it is dedicated to truth, there will be owners, talking heads, and perhaps shareholders who will have a bias.

Add in the modern world, where engagement is measured on clicks of a mouse, and they end up trying to get your attention in variously exaggerated ways. Hence the headlines we see.

There is a delusion that news outlets are impartial. I don't know where that came from. They need to generate income to survive, and they do that by finding an audience, and keeping it. The trick is in knowing which bias an outlet has, and not taking things you read literally.
 
RambleTamble said:
The problem with that statement is, you can't back it up with facts. There is no equivalent to Fox "news" propaganda except for maybe something in N. Korea or Russia, but nothing in the U.S.
Click to expand...
Nonsense.

I advise being careful before making “you” statements. IMO, They tend to sidetrack good discussions and often end up engendering hostility where none was present before.
 
Paladin1950 said:
Totally disagree. CNN and MSNOW and the New York Times are way better than that freak show. It's not their fault with who they have to constantly mention and disagree with.
Click to expand...
To make my point clear, I don’t claim they all use the same tactics and methods. I simply claim that all of the have no problem bending, ignoring, or making-up facts to fit their political narrative. IMO, they all do it often enough that I can’t trust what they say.

In regards to our country being screwed up, I should add that I am discussing the political climate.
 
Last edited:
GoodEnuff said:
Interesting, yes. Surprising? No. And as @Oldeagle66 stated, MSN is the same. In fact, I would love for somebody to point me to any news site that isn't. AP doesn't seem to be quite as sensational, or at least they are more subtle about it.

Edited to add: Where's my soap box?!
Click to expand...
Reuters, AP and the Guardian are good, non click-bait sources.
 
I read news from various agencies, both conservative and liberal (if one must use labels). It is interesting to me to hear differing ideas and opinions. It is the sensationalism that makes me crazy. I just want the facts, unadorned.
 
GoodEnuff said:
I read news from various agencies, both conservative and liberal (if one must use labels). It is interesting to me to hear differing ideas and opinions. It is the sensationalism that makes me crazy. I just want the facts, unadorned.
Click to expand...
Remember Roger Mudd. He was a correspondent, but filled in as anchor when Walter Cronkite was absent. I don't remember him ever smiling. He was a fact machine that just seemed to report, with never a hint of bias or commentary. I thought for sure he would take over when Cronkite left for good, but they gave to job to a morning show host, Tom Brokaw, who was a wellspring of personality, probably a better image for the network, but lacked the business only personality of Mudd. I was disappointed. I thought Mudd was the better of the two, but that's just me. Mudd was hired for other positions on other networks, but none as prestigious as the evening news. He more or less fell off the map.
 
JustDave said:
Remember Roger Mudd. He was a correspondent, but filled in as anchor when Walter Cronkite was absent. I don't remember him ever smiling. He was a fact machine that just seemed to report, with never a hint of bias or commentary. I thought for sure he would take over when Cronkite left for good, but they gave to job to a morning show host, Tom Brokaw, who was a wellspring of personality, probably a better image for the network, but lacked the business only personality of Mudd. I was disappointed. I thought Mudd was the better of the two, but that's just me. Mudd was hired for other positions on other networks, but none as prestigious as the evening news. He more or less fell off the map.
Click to expand...
Didn't Ruger Mudd and Walter Cronkite mainly just read the news that other reporters researched?

Cronkite, from what I remember, would do a short opinion segment every once in a while and he would announce that it was his opinion. I'm not sure about Mudd. So it was separate from the news... maybe it was at the end of the broadcast. I know that Cronkite spoke out against the war in Vietnam once it was apparent that it was a lost cause and people were dying for nothing.
 
MACKTEXAS said:
In the AM and PM, I tune into any network such as NBC or CBS, or ABC. If I want a quick text only news fix, I go to NPR which has no ads or popups. I don't implicitly trust or distrust any news site unless it's for the weather report or local news about my community - stories on those issues are generally reliable.
Click to expand...
It's both fascinating and disturbing (to me) that cable news shows have massive audiences while audiences for everyone's local and regular broadcast news stations pale in comparison. The latter report news as accurately as possible, imo. It's as accurate as their news teams and active journalists can gather, either on location or from sources available to them.

But the huge gap in audience size proves (to me) that people prefer sensationalism and political vitriol over listening to a couple of people sitting in a studio news room rattling off whatever facts they were able to gather.

There was a time when the hot competition between news programs was to be the first to report a major event, be first on the scene of a major event, gather the most information, and report the most accurate information.

It also became popular to have someone serious-looking break down news stories that were a bit complicated, either for clarification or to explain how this event might effect specific other events, but they still let their listeners form their own opinions about the event itself.
 
Last edited:
RambleTamble said:
Didn't Ruger Mudd and Walter Cronkite mainly just read the news that other reporters researched?

Cronkite, from what I remember, would do a short opinion segment every once in a while and he would announce that it was his opinion. I'm not sure about Mudd. So it was separate from the news... maybe it was at the end of the broadcast. I know that Cronkite spoke out against the war in Vietnam once it was apparent that it was a lost cause and people were dying for nothing.
Click to expand...
They actually did what I just posted about: they did a segment to break-down news stories that were a bit complicated, either for clarification or to explain how this event might effect specific other events, but they still let their listeners form their own opinions about the event itself.

That was in addition to reporting world news in general.
 
This is the click bait era, not only news headlines, but You Tube as well. For instance a video with the title Actors You
Didn't Know Died in 2026 and the cover photo for the video will show actors and actresses who are still alive. I saw one the other day with Linda Hamilton on it. This should not be allowed since YT has all these darned rules, but that kind of content is common.
 
OneEyedDiva said:
This is the click bait era, not only news headlines, but You Tube as well. For instance a video with the title Actors You
Didn't Know Died in 2026 and the cover photo for the video will show actors and actresses who are still alive. I saw one the other day with Linda Hamilton on it. This should not be allowed since YT has all these darned rules, but that kind of content is common.
Click to expand...
The ones that really irk me have stuff like this in the title: "...then THIS happened" and "[yada yada] and I was shocked!"

Just as bad are ones that stick the name of a celebrity in the title, but have nothing to do with that celebrity. And a lot of the time, it's the name of an extremely popular YouTuber, such as "Joe Rogan was shocked when he heard this!"

The names are interchangeable; could be any popular creator or influencer, and that should be totally against YT rules.
 
Murrmurr said:
It's both fascinating and disturbing (to me) that cable news shows have massive audiences while audiences for everyone's local and regular broadcast news stations pale in comparison. The latter report news as accurately as possible, imo. It's as accurate as their news teams and active journalists can gather, either on location or from sources available to them.

But the huge gap in audience size proves (to me) that people prefer sensationalism and political vitriol over listening to a couple of people sitting in a studio news room rattling off whatever facts they were able to gather.

There was a time when the hot competition between news programs was to be the first to report a major event, be first on the scene of a major event, gather the most information, and report the most accurate information.

It also became popular to have someone serious-looking break down news stories that were a bit complicated, either for clarification or to explain how this event might effect specific other events, but they still let their listeners form their own opinions about the event itself.
Click to expand...
Not to distract from your points; rather, to just add this to my post you're replying to: I do not have cable or any pay TV, so my only access to public news is through network broadcast TV stations such as those I previously named, or the internet. Just wanted to make that known.

If it's announced on the news that we are at war, or someone has resigned a particular government position, or if the stock market has closed at a certain number on Friday - - - and the list can go on, I accept those reports as presented, recognizing the same reports are likely being broadcast on the other networks as well. If I doubt them, they can be checked and verified.

If I hear a broadcaster's opinion stated in the midst of a news report, it's my choice to agree with that opinion or reject it, just as I can accept or reject the opinions of public figures (elected, or otherwise) who speak on news broadcasts. I don't necessarily care for their opinions either, but due to their notoriety, they were granted air time on the news broadcast - so I have little choice except to sit through what they say, or turn off the TV.

The year 2016 is widely recognized as the time when the term "fake news"first exploded into the global mainstream. Most people in our general age group recall other events of that time period which brought the term into vogue and the carryover that continues to influence it's usage today.
 
MACKTEXAS said:
The year 2016 is widely recognized as the time when the term "fake news"first exploded into the global mainstream. Most people in our general age group recall other events of that time period which brought the term into vogue and the carryover that continues to influence it's usage today.
Click to expand...
That's about when I cancelled my cable and bought an antennae, and it worked great.

I've since bought a Roku TV, mainly for its movie streaming and history, nature, and sports channels. Roku TVs are cheap and no subscriptions are required. So, I still don't have cable, and I'm quite happy about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top