Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Not the Washington Post.
And a lot of npr!! I listen to npr all the time, but some of the reporters are incredibly biased. I can barely listen to The Daily - so many dramatic pauses, horrible sound effects and ridiculous one sided questions. Michael Barbara is single handedly turning me back to the Republican Party.
I do listen to BBC and Al Jazeera.
I'm not a fan of Barbaro either, but fwiw, he's with the NY Times.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Not the Washington Post.
And a lot of npr!! I listen to npr all the time, but some of the reporters are incredibly biased. I can barely listen to The Daily - so many dramatic pauses, horrible sound effects and ridiculous one sided questions. Michael Barbara is single handedly turning me back to the Republican Party.
I do listen to BBC and Al Jazeera.
Anonymous wrote:Not the Washington Post.
Anonymous wrote:I know many many journalists. None of them are pushing an agenda. They do all tend to skew left. Why? Because when you TALK to people all day long about their problems, you start to realize the many many ways that society has failed. You see the human toll of every single headline. Yes, real journalists, who are not doing it for "entertainment" and have a shred of empathy might start unbiased, or in the middle, but they don't stay there.
Progress is GOOD. Being a progressive is a human value. The news covers PEOPLE and people want empathy for their challenges. That alone makes most people, who are not rich white men, lean left.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:No such thing as unbiased news. It is all opinion and spin with sprinkled in facts. You just have to be able to easily separate out the facts.
Very Orwellian.
There are actual facts and there is reporting on the facts. The idea that we live in a post-fact world is part of the MAGA platform to get everyone to not trust our institutions.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I know many many journalists. None of them are pushing an agenda. They do all tend to skew left. Why? Because when you TALK to people all day long about their problems, you start to realize the many many ways that society has failed. You see the human toll of every single headline. Yes, real journalists, who are not doing it for "entertainment" and have a shred of empathy might start unbiased, or in the middle, but they don't stay there.
Progress is GOOD. Being a progressive is a human value. The news covers PEOPLE and people want empathy for their challenges. That alone makes most people, who are not rich white men, lean left.
100% of the worlds problems are directly the fault of cisgender white males.
Anonymous wrote:I know many many journalists. None of them are pushing an agenda. They do all tend to skew left. Why? Because when you TALK to people all day long about their problems, you start to realize the many many ways that society has failed. You see the human toll of every single headline. Yes, real journalists, who are not doing it for "entertainment" and have a shred of empathy might start unbiased, or in the middle, but they don't stay there.
Progress is GOOD. Being a progressive is a human value. The news covers PEOPLE and people want empathy for their challenges. That alone makes most people, who are not rich white men, lean left.
Anonymous wrote:I know many many journalists. None of them are pushing an agenda. They do all tend to skew left. Why? Because when you TALK to people all day long about their problems, you start to realize the many many ways that society has failed. You see the human toll of every single headline. Yes, real journalists, who are not doing it for "entertainment" and have a shred of empathy might start unbiased, or in the middle, but they don't stay there.
Progress is GOOD. Being a progressive is a human value. The news covers PEOPLE and people want empathy for their challenges. That alone makes most people, who are not rich white men, lean left.
Anonymous wrote:Reading multiple sources traces out common truth, and shows that there are multiple interpretations that an outsider can't ascertain with accurate confidence.
Anonymous wrote:Does it even exist anymore? I’m not sure if it ever really did, but at least in the past there was more of an effort to try.