No. of Recommendations: 1
It's the same principles. To take an extreme example, if Reuters or the Wall Street Journal report that the Kremlin is considering pulling troops out of Bahkmut, you might consider that news to be credible based on the source of the reporting; if the newspaper from your local high school reported that news, you'd probably ignore it. That's because Reuters and the WSJ are known to you to have the resources to possibly have that information, have a lot of incentives to get it right, and will probably engage in the type of fact-checking and interrogation of that report to reduce the likelihood that it is incorrect. Your local high school paper will not.
Depends, doesn't it? What if this particular paper was where the kids of State Department officials went to school and it happened to have an awesome Model UN program? What if the article quoted one of the parents, who happened to be a Deputy Assistant to the Secretary?
I will grant your point that most would skip over it if you grant mine that source type does not necessarily imply noncredibility.
They're not doing that. They're telling you that they regard certain sources of information to be no more credible than the local high school newspaper in my example in the previous paragraph.
...while running away from the debate.
Because those sources have an established track record of not engaging in the sort of rigorous interrogation of claims that is required to be a credible news source.
...in theirs, and evidently your, opinions. The problem is I can throw rocks at the so-called mainstream media which a) can be counted on to supply the liberal perspective b) slant facts c) never supply the correct context and d) frame every issue in exactly the same way.
You brought courts into this, so let's use a courtroom example to illustrate how the US media operates: Jim Beam is arrested for shoplifting a bottle of bourbon. In court instead of Innocent until proven guilty, what we would have is Jim Beam having to prove his innocence. "No, your honor, I wasn't even present at the time of the alleged shoplifting". That's such an odd thing to consider given our current legal system but yet that's how the media frames every issue:
Republicans pounce is the way bad news is "reported" when something negatively affects a left wing cause. The fact that democrat X screwed up isn't the story; the story becomes the neanderthal Republicans reaction to it:
On Tuesday, the federally-subsidized abortion provider Planned Parenthood had its worst news cycle since the Supreme Court's decision in Burwell vs. Hobby Lobby. In a candid video filmed over a two-and-one-half hour lunch, Planned Parenthood's senior director for medical services, Dr. Deborah Nucatola, dished about the marketplace for discarded fetal organs and body parts in between delicate bites.
'We've been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I'm not gonna crush that part,' Nucatola told her dining partner. 'I'm gonna basically crush below, I'm gonna crush above, and I'm gonna see if I can get it all intact.' She went on to describe how to best remove a child from a womb and to remove its brains while preserving its body in order to meet the demand for infant hearts, lungs, muscle tissue, et cetera.
Nice. How was this framed in the media?
The Hill led the way: 'Republicans seize on Planned Parenthood video,' the headline read. The critical information, the pitiless discussion of human dismemberment and the value of their precious organs for traffickers, was apparently not as fascinating to The Hill as was the reaction from conservatives to Nucatola's bloodless candor.
This is what passes for "journalism" in the modern era. The framing is the bias. Selective coverage is the bias. Had the FBI planted moles in Joe Biden's campaign team with the express intent to thoroughly investigate him for ties to the Chinese Communist Party there would be no end of 128 point headlines over at NYT and others.
Which is why it's important to dig through articles to extract the actual facts and remove the spin, and that's all I'm saying. Blindly labeling this or that news source as no-good terrible horrible without doing the due diligence isn't an effective tactic.
