Yes. But news should strive for thruth, not for objectivity. For example, if the president says something that is evidently false, the press IMO has the responsibility to say so, even if this is clearly biased towards the interests of the opposition.
People keep repeating it almost as if there's no way to improve. I think that if we instead of classifying news as real/fake or neutral/biased, we should classify it as honest/misleading. If a story gives a different impression to reality, it's misleading. That can be easily identified sometimes, especially in articles based on numerical data. Has a stock price "plummeted" or fallen by 2 percentage points?
This criterion would only apply to the presentation of the information within a story, not the choice of stories or even the choice of information sources, since there could be too much to choose from. There, traditional honest unavoidable bias would still exist. But without this blatant dishonesty that commonly occurs, people wouldn't be quite so misled.
Yeah, and that's true. Because people are biased. Not saying CNN is the benchmark so. But deriving that all news is bad because of that is going too far.
There's a difference between news that is trying to enlighten vs. trying to convince. When I start to feel like the news is doing the latter, I would call it biased.
Don’t mix up intrinsic human bias with deliberate misinformation (which in the context of big media companies is informally called “bias”). I haven’t derived anything.
Oh it's not a leaked video, it's an interview of an audiovisual technician done by Project Veritas, who are among the most biased and cynically named outfits in journalism. Cynically named (veritas is Latin for "truth") because they don't try to make their message correspond to reality (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-correspondence/), but instead go to great pains to twist, alter, edit and selectively curate reality to fit their message. They're permanently suspended from Twitter. In my mind they are enemies of the truth. They were fertilizing the soil for the Big Lie before the 2020 US elections, spreading their deceitful manure into the minds of the vulnerable. Please watch more of their work.
From MediaBiasFactCheck:
> Project Veritas was created by James Edward O’Keefe III, an American conservative political activist. He produces secretly recorded undercover audio and video encounters, some selectively edited to imply its subjects said things they did not, with figures and workers in academic, governmental, and social service organizations, purporting to show abusive or allegedly illegal behavior by employees and/or representatives of those organizations. Project Veritas primarily targets liberals and liberal organizations.
Meanwhile the person interviewed was a technical director, as I understand it meaning an audiovisual equipment guy, so I don't know why you'd consider him an authority on editorial decisions. That all media has some bias doesn't seem so shocking, but rather mere common sense.
It's amazing how people will go from "mainstream media has bias" to "... but this random guy on Youtube doesn't!" despite the youtuber being far worse. As if they can only handle one level of critical thinking.
My brother used to be a sound technician (and sound engineer on a lot of non-paid projects), and was named technical director on a small TV plateau during a cold epidemic, because his (our) family name came first in the technician list, and the 3 higher ranked/paid employees were sick.
Could be, depends on the organisation. I've met "Executive Directors" at major banks who had a team of 20 people and "Vice Presidents" who were effectively dev team leads with 5 guys working for them in a company of hundreds of thousands.
In the context of a TV news channel, it could be basically anyone. He could be responsible for making sure the weather desk have the correct lighting setup.
> but instead go to great pains to twist, alter, edit and selectively curate reality to fit their message.
The video had long segments without cuts, that seemed to include enough context. Do you have any examples from that video in mind as to how it could have been misleading despite this?
> Meanwhile the person interviewed was a technical director, as I understand it meaning an audiovisual equipment guy, so I don't know why you'd consider him an authority on editorial decisions.
If I recall correctly, he only spoke of his first-hand experiences. So even if he were just a janitor, that would not cast doubt on his claims.
Could you link this out please?