The only "Transparency" you need is who is funding our various "Media Outlets". Once you know who's footing the bill, you'll know the Narrative they're shaping and the Agenda they're pushing.

Of course, if you should happen to notice any patterns in said ownership, the person who "investigates" and "reports" these demonstrable and undeniable facts will then be labeled an "-ist" of some sort by the vary people they're reporting.

It's the classic, 2-bit, Commie-character assassination techniques, and you'll find it all over our "Modern Media" in the form of "Heavily Moderated(Censored)" websites, that aim to create a "Safe Space" for all "ideas"......as long as they conform to the Corporately Sponsored Media.

[deleted]

AMEN!!!! Force state-sponsored propaganda and you have no other options. This is precisely why Orwell modeled Big Brother after the BBC where he worked for years. He knew from experience. They even have a statue up at BBD HQ mocking him with one of his own quotes.

"If Liberty means anything at all, it means telling the People what they don't want to hear."

Correct, the People do not "want to hear" the lie, propaganda and double-speak that the BBC produce for global consumption.

Statism is never the answer. The First Amendment to the US Constitution is. That's why they put it first, of course.

Forced State-Sponsored media....what could go wrong? I'm sure they'll be very rigorous on the folks paying their salaries, and if not they can always go to another, independent paper and get another job, right? Wrong. Statism is NEVER the answer ;) What sort of "study" could check the "efficiency"(wtf?) of State-Sponsored Propaganda? .....an equally biases State-Sponsored "study", no doubt.

If you were more skeptical and educated about the history of your own beloved "German" Press over the years, I don't think you would even consider this as a "solution" to the question at hand.

More government = Less Freedom; Less Government = More Freedom

Most of this started with the Telecom Act of 1996 which "Deregulated" media outlet laws that forbade any one person/entity from owning too many outlets in a given region here in the US. This allowed for and all but forced localities to make their own news, but once Newspapers and News Channels began to "merge" so did their outlooks. We've all seen the vid on YT of the "Local News Anchors" reading their Corporate Propaganda spiel from the single company that owns Dozens of "local news outlets".

Obama then put the nail in the coffin when he over turned a law forbidding the use of US State-Sponsored Propaganda here at home. We have to fight "Terrorism", remember, so we "have" to deploy Propaganda on the populace, or the Taliban wins, amirite? That's how we got amazing "Media Resources" like Reddit, Twitter and Tik-Tok that work hand-in-glove with the US Feds and various other "Foreign Entities" to "shape the media narrative".

See history of great folks like Ghislane Maxwell and her Daddy and their ties to very intellectually Liberal and level-headed outlets, like Reddit, which never use bots, mods, algorithms or literal paid brigades of "Commenters" to slide threads into oblivion.

Prove me wrong :)

If I read you right, you're saying the Globalist Corporate Media Cabals....I mean "Conglomerates", formerly known as "The Press", actively lie and shape the Public Narrative. Who could ever dream of such a thing? A profit-motivated Lying Press Sounds down right conspiratorial.....Also sounds incredibly accurate and like something we've all heard before. If only we had listened.

Pro Tip: You "Press" is just another person's "Propaganda".

Reddit's No. 1 Mod is Ghislane Maxwell, need I say more? Oh, sweet irony. Look into her very ethical "Media Mogul" Daddy. She's a chip off the ol' block. While you're at, see who else in our beloved "Modern Media" shares some of the same traits and values as the Maxwells. In the end, the answer is always the same. Follow. The. Money. Once you know who is paying "Producers" to create "Stories" for mass consumption, you'll understand their motives entirely.

Again, Reddit's No. 1 Mod is Ghislane Maxwell....entirely by "cohincidence", of course ;) Prove me wrong :)

Matiyasevich's theorem and Godel's incompleteness theorem state that there are mathematical truths that are exclusively true but cannot be proven true. I refuse to believe this. In any given axiomatic system, there is a reason why a statement is true or false. With the right axioms you can prove anything about reality.

Thanks so much! That’s great motivation to continue writing.

This was a great read! I have generally leaned towards moral relativism but this has certainly given me something to think about and was super digestible for someone like me who is entry level. I will definitely be checking out your other work and keeping up in future.

Thanks!

The BBC was widely lauded as a more reliable source of international news than US news outlets about a decade ago. I stopped watching broadcast news around that time, so I can't say if that's changed since.

I dont think that BBC is that biased (at least in comparison with other sources). Check a bias in media website to see. For instance,

https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-chart

Deutsche welle is quite good, and it is funded by this tax. Dont know abiut the other channels, since I am not a german speaker.

It's so funny to see media bias/manipulation when they report on a subject you know intimately/professionally.

When it happens quite a few time, you develop a good gauge of what's true in a story, what's exaggerated for the view/click and what's political/ideological agenda.

I don't know, how much economic factors play into this compared to the demographics of journalists. Like, in Germany we have two big public news stations wich are financed by an 18€ fee every (working) citizen has to pay, wether they watch/listen to it or not, so there is no need to be profitable. Yet those stations have a clear progressive bias.

So a reason for this might be, that - especially young - journalists often come from an urban, academic class, some sociologist called them "progressive left", but they are more like "woke capitalists" with values and a worldview that is highly different from the rest of the people, so many people don't feel represented by them but rather often patronised.

I do not buy into the idea of NPC humans.

Standard fascist ladies and gents. How did this happen to "Liberals"

No. A common working person someone who makes just enough to get by and does work with their hands, Work that actually helps us as a species and not some middle management office job for a company that offers no product.

That would be my assumption of what they ment.

You think Google employees making 200k a year doing literally nothing but eating getting massages and taking 5 meetings a day are "common working people" and everyone below them are just scum to you.

We have the tv license in the UK, 150 odd a year that funds the BBC who are the most bias news source in the world. Is the version you guys have over there working? Ours certainly isn't.

Well, here in Germany, every household pays a tv tax of 18 euros. This goes to media channels, including news. One of the purposes is to decrease bias.

Perhaps there are studies checking the efficiency of such a measure.

Local newspaper are either hyper local news (covering only the small town it’s published in) or in the case of larger cities print mostly news from national sources anyway. Reading Chicago Tribune or St. Louis Post-Dispatch is not much different than reading New York Times. Most national content comes from AP or Reuters, and most columns are syndicated nationally known figures.

I get support for local reporters, but above the county level, it’s all nationally syndicated news.

Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:

> Read the Post Before You Reply

> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

Unironically yes. My biases include things like "I've seen the news' brazen lies and refuse to trust them". Most people's don't, and therefore I can discard their news-informed opinions.

Well that was sad. So you don't have free will cause you have the will to live?

You could have made a different one; what are you saying?

It's a consequence of the "attention economy." Extremely low overhead to content creation led to both a saturation and dilution of content, and, at the same time, a shortening of attention spans. It's a race to the bottom in terms of quality reporting. There's a vicious cycle that goes something like, distracted populace is attracted by sensational content, creates an economic demand for pandering and sensationalism, populace comes to expect sensationalism and pandering and reject quality reporting.

What got branded as the post truth era is really more of the post nuance era. Every piece of journalism must fall to one side or the other of some ideological line of narrative, or it's like a 3rd football team that no one has ever heard of running onto the field and making a touchdown in the middle of a tie game; it merely confuses and enrages the fans.

We're to the point now where a large percentage of people can't even comprehend any information or point of view that can't be shoehorned into a recognizable narrative. You can watch them get stuck in a loop of, "so what you're trying to say is..." until they succeed in placing it securely into one camp or another, or finally decide in frustration that this new information is useless to them and therefore meaningless