Yup. Opinion piece is not necessarily factual to the nth. There are Reporters, Journalists, Newscasters,Correspondents,Contributors, Columnists, Analysts, and Anchors. Then of course there was Walter Cronkite.
It requires reading many papers from different lands. I cannot accept the idea that NYT or WaPo completely reliable. Those two have picked up a few AP stories and ran with them as "facts", from the 100,000 national guard troops being mobilized to guard the border, to Hamas, to Trump's earpiece, etc. Then there is the problem with the so-called "fact" checkers. How can a fact checker be considered reliable, when they are constantly reviewing and revising their "ratings"? How can you rate something true or false early on and then reverse course? Nearly every story is being spun.
It's sure not like it used to be years ago for sure. Then when you read or watched the News you knew you were being told the truth and a good journalist managed to report the News while staying neutral on the subject. At least that's how it was to me. There was integrity in those who wrote or reported the News....except for the "gossip and rag" papers, etc. I don't know why it has changed so much...but the change definitely isn't for the better.
For some reason I doubt what was reported back then was all true. The big media back then walked in lock step with their corporate advertisers, same as now. Back then I "accepted" things as truth and now I don't. Another difference is the constant bombardment.
There's truth in that statement for sure @Harold Hayden. They sure didn't tell us the truth about JFK's assassination, but then maybe the News Anchors back then didn't know what they were saying wasn't the truth or even if they had their doubts they still didn't know what the real truth was. The constant bombardment now days is definitely something I agree with you on. And with that constant bombardment with so many different things being said as truth....it often takes alot of "digging" to find the real truth...and then that just may be what we feel is the real truth often. And sometimes having to go to all that trouble just isn't worth it to me anymore.
Alternative facts were around in 1963. Joe McCarthy was such a media darling, his hearings were broadcast on TV. The common myth being that he was brought down by Edward R. Murrow. The timeline doesn't support that myth. When he began attacking the clergy... his days were numbered. Our history is filled with instances where the media went with the "official" narrative until the public began questioning their credibility, at which time the media suddenly became the voice of the people.
I'm sure it was @Harold Hayden. I just was a lot more naive than I am now back then and didn't even question most things back then either. Now I may still be naive about some things...but not to many! We thought our Government Officials were being true to us voicing what we wanted too, but they handed us a bunch of lies and now look at the mess we are in. Even we wanted to "we the people" can't know everything...but I'm glad to see alot of the lies coming out now and many of our voices saying "enough is enough". To bad there's not much chance of America really being turned around at this point but even though I believe this is true, I still have to try in the ways I can to to try to do just that. And when it's something I feel strongly about I will stand up for what I believe in. The bombardment of lies and truth that assaults us on a daily basis in the News and from News people just makes me sick and has also made me just not want to read or watch any of it much anymore. I limit myself to actually watching the News on TV maybe once or twice a week now. And I read the News online a little more often because I have more of a choice in picking what I want to read about... but still I have my doubts about what is really true and what is not. I know as long as I live on this earth there will be good and evil, lies and truth, etc., but I don't have to like it and I don't have to spend anymore time listening to it or reading about it than I want to now days. Or for that matter even talking about it.
@Babs Hunt, here is another example from this morning... http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...n-after-comey-statement-contradicts-reporting Of course, ABC is in that article as well. Woodward and Bernstein's Watergate reporting is often used as examples of what journalism should be. If that were the bar, then relative to that bar... where does everyone else fall? Media around the world, is hesitant to grapple the issues of their own government, but seem delighted to publish negative articles about other countries. It's safe and diverts the public's attention from their own issues. The truth generally lies somewhere between what our media puts forth and the media from foreign entities, imo.
Much of our media today is owned and controlled by the powerful elite who have an Agenda for America and indeed for the whole world and since they own it they control much of what is said or not said too and who says it.
Either have I but I read all the news online, even my local one. I look at most of the big name ones wether liberal or conservative and a few UK ones and I still don't know what's true.
That's why I don't bother Chrissy I look, I listen at the person, rather than read about them Anyhoo - depressing stuff are newspapers