Agreed, though I can't tell if it's for the same reason. Try adding some basic substance to your post.

All I can say, is that you have lot to learn.

For starter, you can educate yourself on different international groups who check media agents for trustworthyness and political alignment. One does not need to be a genius to know its possible to judge these things.

For instance, biased media channels will use loaded words and frame situations in a specific way. And you can count these situations, and score it. It is all a matter of methodology.

If you dont believe this can be done at all, by no person or machine, then you can not even trust yourself to judge the media you consume by yourself.

Since, what methodology are you applying that is better? You should introduce it to the world, and help us out.

There is always some truth even in lies, but liars do not know that because they can no longer make the difference.

Because "anti-liberal" is literally "kill Mike Pence and burn down the capitol." Both sides don't deserve equal consideration.

Edit: Name a single conservative stance I should give a shit about.

But any form of regulation is, arguably, the censorship. Is it not? So no, I'm not saying that nothing should be done. I actually think that today media is free as never before, and thanks to the internet everyone can be one. But being biased is a human nature. I can feel it myself, that it is impossible for me to stay unbiased in every topic. And could it be that most people want information to be biased, and to hear only things they like? Maybe not always, but mostly.

I discuss what I mean by freedom here Freedom is being able to act in accordance with higher level principles, not being free from all biological and social forces. To the extent that these higher level principles includes reason and morality, the concept of freedom is coherent.

I would say that the human's ontology is not free as it is biologically constricted and so one would need an ontological system in which a person can become free of this constraint to be able to then have a moral system in which freedom is a predicate. Otherwise, there is no morality at all, only force.

Most importantly, your concept of public reason is a form of ontology by role or relationship, given by association with a certain public body, which completely obliterates the concept of freedom.

I'm not stating any preference, but the US supreme court is getting ready to hear all about democratized information and whether it will be allowed or not.

The EU is also considering a clamp-down.

Yes, there were always "Muck Rackers" and "Yellow Journalists", but you also had hundreds more outlets at every level with a truly "diverse" array of ownership and viewpoints.

The money was also much smaller and the tech didn't exist to physically control so many outlets at once. There were also laws in place, here in the US, that limited media ownership in a given region, but that was overturned by the 1996 Telecom Act, which "deregulated" media ownership and allowed for the creation of the uber-double-mega-media Corps we have today.

The same Fox that "produces" their "stories" for the "News" is the same Fox that produces stories for their movies, is the same Fox that own dozens and dozens of major, online magazines. "local news" channels, and other press outlets that you would never think are connected, but are all owned by the same few folks at the end of the day.

Of course, simply saying "Welp, it's always been done, so what can you do?" is no argument at all either. After all, "Two wrongs don't make a right.", amirite?

I think the benefit of following BBC or Al Jazeera, as an American, is that our national news sources overemphasize the importance of America on the international stage. Even if a news source is incredibly biased, access to alternative news sources can induce cognitive dissonance. This can be uncomfortable, but allow us to objectively engage with our own internal biases.

There is a lot of truth to that. But it doesn't explain the publicly funded broadcasters - BBC and ARD for example. Those also have a editorial stance based on certain values, and will choose to not run some stories even if they are factually correct. Why?

>Anarcho-Stoic

We really are living in a Monty Python skit, aren't we?

Weren't news media always biased? I think, I remember reading such remarks in Adventures of Sherlock Holmes, and that book is 140 years old. And I wouldn't vouch for all countries and every year in the history, but the further we go back in time, the more censored and biased media we see. At least that's what I know from history professors.

Ouch! I just cut myself on that edge. When will you be moving to an "Anarchist Utopia", and who will be paying for your internet so you can play on Plebbit? Those fiber optic cables and 5G towers don't install themselves.

"...permitted to continue", by whom, Dear? Who is issuing these "permits", exactly? Surely, you don't want the Govt. coming in to "fix" things?

The "News" is far MORE concentrated and LESS democratic than ever. The body count of journalists proves it. Don't ever mistake reeeeeee posts on Reddit and Twitter for actual objectivity, or a true "diversity" of viewpoints. It has never been easier in the history of Humanity to silence your fellow humans and "shape the Narrative" as you see fit. Things are and have only been getting worse and by no means "better". Now, I have to scrub my Corporately-Funded "Social Media" posts lest my Government-Funded "Social Credit Score" be tarnished. After all, there are consequences for "harmful" WrongTweet and they should not be permitted to continue...

That's like saying Jack the Ripper was slightly better than Jeffrey Dahmer. Define "better" :/

Again, anonymously Double-Downvoted without a pithy retort insight, or s single bit of contradictory evidence. I would've thought my fellow Philosophers would know how to construct a more cogent counter-argument, but alas not. Then again, look who runs the joint past and present :)

"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" <---- Look that up. It's a rather famous "Philosophical" axiom, which is more than applicable to the current topic at hand. Wouldn't you agree?

Again, double-downvoted by Anons with no rational retort. EXACTLY as I predicted ;) ONLY the TRUTH hurts and Reddit do be hatin' the Truth :) It's not always conducive to creating a "Safe Space"....for liars.

Look up the Laws yourself my fellow Americans and "Philosophers". I 100% guarantee I am 100% correct.

Prove me wrong :)

Downvoted by an Anonymous coward with no rational retort. EXACTLY as I predicted ;)

Facts and figures don't sell subs, or get people to click on bait. ALL that matters is making profit. They never have and never will care about the "Truth", or the "Facts" both of which are both clearly just "Social Constructs", obviously. Besides, the Truth hurts, and "causes harm" to "Modern Readers" and the "Community" writ large, and we musn't have that. They don't care one bit about the "oppressed" it's just a bit of virtue signaling that they can use to justify their silence an biases. "Think of the Children....I mean the Environment.....I mean muh Feelings......I mean, ....."

Thinking about the philosophy of war, is opening with aggression always the safest choice? It seems like opting for peace and then being betrayed is too dangerous of a possibility.

Delete this if it’s not appropriate. Thanks

There is no trust with old time media. It is there own fault. They lie so much they don't even see it. The new media they go after gets more support every time they go after them. But they cant even see this. Jest because you make a boat load of money it don't make you right. As we all know. The numbers show they are loosing with the thoughts of the people.

The posts about the money driven nature of news are correct.

But beyond that, there is also a divide between news media along the lines of values. And it is not clear to me how that could be easily resolved, or even if it can be resolved.

Today there is more of a focus on values and seeing things subjectively and inter-subjectively. Previously there was an overall philosophy of that saw an objective ideal, that was never realized but was nevertheless the ideal. Today ideals tend to be very much value driven, not objective.

What I would like to see is major news organizations starting a fact checking section that is as values free as possible. Ignore whether the thing in question makes the world a better or worse place. Simply focus on whether it is a fact or not.

[deleted]

Yes, that's entirely the point of Propaganda. Seems to be working.