I think this is why some people have made whole successful careers in sub-niches of curated news: John Oliver, Fareed Zakaria, etc. etc.
When you watch something that one of them makes, they (or someone connected to them) have creative control over the curation, and it gets attached to their reputation.
So, if I hear something on CNN, I have near zero indication about its quality. As a result, I don't read or watch CNN literally ever, unless some other curated source refers it to me for some reason.
But if I watch John Oliver or Fareed Zakaria, I know there's going to be a much higher than usual standard for quality of curation, analysis, interest/relevance, etc.
While I don't necessarily agree that either of those examples are free from having an agenda, I would absolutely agree that they present a clearer picture and are of a higher quality than CNN or most news outlets in their comprehensiveness.
What I find concerning is the way, through omission or contrivance, these 'full picture' opinion news media organizations can manipulate the storyline for their agenda and also leave you feeling fully informed. Zakaria and Oliver being in reality organizations and not a sole, independent report. NPR being the most notable version with a distinct slant on the news. To the extent that through a day's listening, a recognizable story arc is defined. Often with tension and resolution, so that the audience feels they have challenged their beliefs, but have ultimately been proven correct in their presuppositions.
Oh, I just reread what I wrote. I didn't mean to suggest they were neutral sources! Just that they were examples of when you watch something they make, you know what you're getting! That was supposed to be analogous to the opinion section in a newspaper or something.
> To the extent that through a day's listening, a recognizable story arc is defined. Often with tension and resolution, so that the audience feels they have challenged their beliefs, but have ultimately been proven correct in their presuppositions.
Good observation. Even if there's nothing nefarious going on, this is not a great situation.
When you watch something that one of them makes, they (or someone connected to them) have creative control over the curation, and it gets attached to their reputation.
So, if I hear something on CNN, I have near zero indication about its quality. As a result, I don't read or watch CNN literally ever, unless some other curated source refers it to me for some reason.
But if I watch John Oliver or Fareed Zakaria, I know there's going to be a much higher than usual standard for quality of curation, analysis, interest/relevance, etc.