Quote from: Gyfts on December 12, 2020, 12:02:13 AM

Quote from: Cnut237 on December 11, 2020, 10:23:31 AM

Quote from: botija on November 06, 2020, 10:35:22 PM

Univision has a violent reaction, cuts away from him and starts calling him a liar

I can't watch the linked video (unless I start messing about with the VPN), but other channels have been doing similar. Some may be because they don't want to report on 'facts' that have been widely discredited, but I suspect a lot of channels are doing it purely for the drama so they can cause controversy and sensation by - gasp! - cutting away from the president!!! Look at this channel! So daring! So edgy! Watch us now! You never know what crazy/outrageous thing we'll do next!

The question of balance and accuracy in mainstream media is obviously a difficult one. You want people to be free to say what they want, but at the same time you don't want to give airtime to liars who mislead people with obvious untruths. Not talking about Trump at all here, it's a wider issue. We have this across all sorts of topics, where channels that are supposedly (or do even actually try to be) impartial are fastidious in giving airtime to opponents of any reported view. For example, despite near unanimity amongst climate scientists on the subject of human-caused climate change, many channels will allow a climate-skeptic equal airtime, even though they're representing a tiny minority view. But channels decide for themselves on what is 'too much', for example here in the UK if there is someone talking about evolution, the channels are unlikely to give airtime to creationists, because evolution has become established fact. I suspect in other countries this standard may be different. But the line is always drawn somewhere. If someone says a problem is 'global', then there aren't going to be many channels giving airtime to flat-earthers disputing the world 'globe'.

The question is where to draw the line, and what constitutes 'truth'. No easy answer.

I don't think inaccuracies in the media are as much of a problem as blatant bias, censorship, and activism. Activists are parading themselves as objective journalists when it's not the case. It's always been there, but Trump has made it obvious that "objective" news outlets aren't actually objective but use their air time to push a narrative, looking at you CNN, NYT (and more).

I'm reminded of NPR, a publicly funded entity, which literally refused to cover anything related to Hunter Biden for being "unsubstantiated" which was complete and utter horse shit - https://www.marketwatch.com/story/npr-explained-why-its-not-covering-the-hunter-biden-laptop-story-and-now-president-trumps-son-wants-to-defund-it-11603386611

They didn't want to cover it because it went against Joe Biden.

People forget alot of media bias comes from the ability to just not cover a story, compared to the regular thought narrative of the story being changed. A lot of news companies will just not cover a particular story in an attempt to shield it from public light.

In my own opinion though, the Hunter Biden story at first was NOT able to hold it's own weight. If you're unable to get any outlet besides the NY Post to push out your story then there is a problem. Why didn't FOX cover it as well? That's the issue there.

The second story now, about the whole email from one of his business partners about him having to amend his return is something else though. That's a real story with some legs on it.

Lot of people have to just stop WATCHING the news and instead READ the news, makes it a bit easier to cut through some of the garbage.