They hide under "Freedom of the press". I don't understand why the FCC ( Federal Communications Commission) or the Supreme Court doesn't place rules on them.

I didn't say tell them what to say, only how they present it. As I said allow the people to make up their own minds. When you hide facts you skew a persons perception of things. You can make them think something is good is totally bad for them.
How about "Fact check" ? When presenting breaking news or an opinion piece they must show you the evidence that backs what they say.....
Brzrkr

"they," "them," who are they and who defines who they are? Are they you? Could they be me? Be careful what you wish for, and realize the implications of its misuse. This year you want the government to force the media to report unbiased facts, next year you could be guilty of a crime for giving someone bad directions to the pharmacy. Fact checking is YOUR job.

 

Hola strantor
We the media sounds impressive but most of us around the globe, hardly could give valid testimony of relevant events other than a car crash or an idiot trying to steel money at the grocery. And, even then, the majority starts making for poor witnesses two days after the event.

Worth to note that with the very few exceptions applied to what we had to live, all what we learnt in any historic context reached you through your first-line relatives, few friends, laboral environment or otherwise the press in its many forms.
History books, to me, formal as they use to appear, are close to a dignified variety of press basically with a different tempo (and agenda).

Good point. I will ponder this and come back (assuming this thread isn't immediately locked or deleted) and give this the thoughtful reply it deserves. My gut reaction is that you're right but I don't have anything to fill in the void that would be left by my accepting it.

 

Show me an example from the NY Times, Washington Post, or Wall Street Journal where they have done this.

Russia, Russia, Russia comes to mind
Brzrkr

 

i don't trust media, if i have time and see same content on opposing news networks, maybe there is something to it. bias is not welcome but i can tolerate if they clearly STATE that their bias is left/right or whatever. however any news network should be penalized harshly for sharing anything that cannot be backed up. even more so if they are making up stories and staging things. anyone else who wants to post comedy, gossip, fashion, UFO speculations, snake oil marketing trends etc is fine but - shall not be allowed to claim news network title.

 

Russia, Russia, Russia comes to mind
Brzrkr

Point me to a news article where they knowingly misstated the facts.

Bob

 

Point me to a news article where they knowingly misstated the facts.

Bob

This is not a new thing. It's not about ideology, it's all about making money.
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1993-02-10-mn-1335-story.html

Unfortunately even sites like EE Times will print total garbage to get page clicks.
https://www.eetimes.com/software-wont-fix-boeings-faulty-airframe/#

 

The first example was clearly malfeasance on the part of NBC. Yes, this does happen, and most likely, when a mainstream pub does this, they will be caught at it like NBC was.

The second example, I am not so sure about. It seems to be correct on the facts, i.e. the flight characteristics of the plane were changed, and these were compensated for by software. I do not think these facts are disputed. The rest of it is opinion about whether or not that should be allowed, and whether it can be fixed. I do not see any purposeful misrepresentation of fact here.

Bob

 

Point me to a news article where they knowingly misstated the facts.

Bob

CNN is supposed to be news network and unbiased at that, but it was red handed more than once making up stories and using own people to stage things like the interview that was debunked by own anchor "isn't that our camera guy?".
but it is not just about making story, any story that cannot be backed up by facts (independently verifiable) does not belong to news.

 

@BobTPH
Just type in your browser "FBI lied to fisa court 17 times" and you'll get your answer. Look up Carter Page and FBI surveillance. Look up Christopher Steele and who paid for the dossier. Look up where FBI agent/lawyer changed Carter Page "was" working for us (CIA) to "was not" in email.
I hope pointing someone to articles/news doesn't count as political.
All news is political that's why I was saying it's hard to post in this thread without some form of pointing it out.
All this was in the Horowitz hearing. If you don't believe me, fact check me.
The whole time you were being told one thing by the "Lame" street media they were leaving out the proof/facts none of it was true.
Brzrkr

 

I trust reporters and news people who consider themselves to be journalists and follow the ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists. https://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

I trust reporting from WSJ, NYT, Washington Post, and a host of others. I don't trust the National Inquirer (who some seem to think actually prints real news). I trust news from the major networks (ABC, CBS, NBC), but I'm skeptical of anything from FOX, local news is mostly trustworthy. There are some MSNBC hosts who have stretched the truth, but I get my news from enough sources that I know when someone is saying something contrary to more credible sources.

People I don't trust are Hannity, Limbaugh, Ingraham, Fox and friends, Carlson, and the like. Hannity has on occasion classified himself as a journalist - he isn't. He's an entertainer, who doesn't have expertise in anything, and can lie all he wants, because lying is considered a First Amendment right.

 

@dl324
So are you saying you trust CNN, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, NBC and the BBC?
(Insert one thousand laughing emoji's here)
Can you please elaborate on just what any of them lied about?
Brzrkr

 

So are you saying you trust CNN, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, NBC and the BBC?

For the most part.

 

@dl324
Sorry I was editing and I don't think I was finished when you replied.
I'm just curious, What do you think they lied about?
Brzrkr

 

The first example was clearly malfeasance on the part of NBC. Yes, this does happen, and most likely, when a mainstream pub does this, they will be caught at it like NBC was.

The second example, I am not so sure about. It seems to be correct on the facts, i.e. the flight characteristics of the plane were changed, and these were compensated for by software. I do not think these facts are disputed. The rest of it is opinion about whether or not that should be allowed, and whether it can be fixed. I do not see any purposeful misrepresentation of fact here.

Bob

“It’s a faulty airframe. You’ve got to fix the airframe [and] you can’t fix the airframe without moving the engines” back and away from their current position.
The root problem with the engine-forward design is “once this thing pitches up, it wants to keep pitching up,” said Travis. “That’s a big no-no,” he continued, because pitch-up on an aircraft increases angle of attack.

This part is a misrepresentation of fact. The aircraft is aerodynamically stable in the entire flight envelope without MCAS. There is no faulty air-frame. The 737 Max is not CLOSE to being unstable in any flight condition within it's approved flight envelope. MCAS is not an anti-stall or stall prevention system, but rather (poorly) designed to produce an identical stick force gradient as that found in the NG.

 

I think Ronald Reagan stated it pretty well, "Trust but Verify". Without going into philosophy and religion, one man's truth can be another man's lie. It's only history if you write it down and if someone doesn't agree with your version of the truth then he will either write down his refutation of events or it becomes the truth. Then there is the very old argument of Nature versus Nuture. Were we born with it or did we learn it by experience? Bottom line is I agree with the man from Missouri, Show Me but I don't believe everything I see.

 

What do you think they lied about?

I don't recall any outright lies from reputable sources. Lots of lies on FOX if you listen to Hannity, Carlson, etc. Rush Limbaugh is also full of sh**.

The only thing I can recall is Joe from Morning Joe exaggerating something. I don't know if he's considered a journalist, but he used to be a GOP US representative, so that makes him someone that you need to verify.

If you get your news from multiple sources, the misinformation and lies are pretty easy to identify.

 

Mod: Thread Closed, number of Reports regarding content.