> We rely on journalists to sift through information and give us a balanced story based on their perception of the truth.
We rely on journalists to sift through information and give us the truth, period. I don't want a balanced story, and such 'balance' tends to be struck between reality and what appears to be lunacy.
Actually, I think anyone who reads a single article and takes it for truth is a fool. If something peaks your interest then you need to research more, there are different truths based on your perspective (exactly as you have pointed out).
Newspapers are too much of a propaganda machine, with the ease of the internet research is only a click away and you can make up your own mind.
I don't want a balanced story, and such 'balance' tends to be struck between reality and what appears to be lunacy.
Apologies, I shouldn't have used the word 'balanced' as apparently it has been debased so much by its use in a Fox News slogan that the original meaning has been lost.
I didn't mean a sort of false balance which parrots two opposing sides of a political debate, no matter how insane both sides are, I meant the sort of balanced reporting which tries to verify facts, reports not just what was said but what was done, reports and verifies the claims of all parties involved in a dispute, and most importantly tries to see past and acknowledge the very real bias and blind spots of journalists themselves.
Truth is not objective when you tell a story. Are drug users destroying themself, or are they live there live to the fullest. This is a question of values, not truth.
We rely on journalists to sift through information and give us the truth, period. I don't want a balanced story, and such 'balance' tends to be struck between reality and what appears to be lunacy.