PG&E Bankruptcy coverage: I love getting different point of views

72SBC

Doesn't really care
From different sources. Really helps form an opinion by looking at all the fair and balanced coverages.
 

Attachments

  • 886ACBE8-90EB-4C1E-A62F-20E65661474F.jpg
    886ACBE8-90EB-4C1E-A62F-20E65661474F.jpg
    107.2 KB · Views: 27

Reli

Well-known member
I agree, I enjoy balanced coverage. Like this front-page ad, printed in every paper owned by PostMedia, which is more than HALF of all the major papers in Canada.
 

Attachments

  • seriosuly.png
    seriosuly.png
    225.2 KB · Views: 31

DucatiHoney

Administrator
Staff member
Off to the political sub-forum we go!

Probably not just yet, but I would strongly encourage y'all to keep the partisan talk under wraps in here. I'm gonna edit the title to encourage more fitting dialogue.
 
Last edited:

Brokenlink

Banned
I agree with Kevin. If you want different points of view, then look to different sources.

I read CNN AND FoxNews. I don't expect two papers owned by the same company to give me two different views. That's just lazy on your part.
 

Kestrel

Well-known member
Probably not just yet, but I would strongly encourage y'all to keep the partisan talk under wraps in here. I'm gonna edit the title to encourage more fitting dialogue.

You can't fight the inevitable :laughing

aitncyQl.jpg


SBC - sadly, all media in this country is owned by a select few companies. You'll find this wikipedia page enlightening and sad. While it isn't necessarily referring to print media, I'm sure the situation is similar.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_cross-ownership_in_the_United_States

Over time the amount of media merging has increased and the number of media outlets have increased. That translates to fewer companies owning more media outlets, increasing the concentration of ownership.[1] In 1983, 90% of US media was controlled by 50 companies; today, 90% is controlled by just 6 companies.[2]
 
Last edited:

mlm

Contrarian
This is the real topic of the thread and is well worth discussing.

As it relates to media bias maybe, but there was no real bias in headline called out in the OP. I think the larger issue is people's inability to separate fact from fiction, or even identify bias and propaganda.
 

byke

Well-known member
NO U!

But I'm really happy with how I feel about the media. It's like caring about what some ant colony down the street is doing, don't really care much about it. It strikes me as odd how people get worked up about fake news. Why would that make someone angry? I know people get angry when they're fooled by someone/something because it makes them feel stupid. Maybe people tirelessly working in the industry trying to do the right thing while others make them look bad, would be frustrating. Why else might someone get worked up about shitty media?
 

CoorsLight

Well-known member
NO U!

But I'm really happy with how I feel about the media. It's like caring about what some ant colony down the street is doing, don't really care much about it. It strikes me as odd how people get worked up about fake news. Why would that make someone angry? I know people get angry when they're fooled by someone/something because it makes them feel stupid. Maybe people tirelessly working in the industry trying to do the right thing while others make them look bad, would be frustrating. Why else might someone get worked up about shitty media?

Because having a reliable and unbiased media is a requirement for democracy to work?

Shitty media has shitty, real-world consequences.
 

byke

Well-known member
It's entertainment that we're asking for and receiving and nobody is making us watch it.
 

CoorsLight

Well-known member
It's entertainment that we're asking for and receiving and nobody is making us watch it.

True, but is there no reliable media? If so, then there is no democracy, only population exploitation and control with an illusion of democracy.
 

byke

Well-known member
I honestly couldn't tell you if there's any reliable media, but if it's either run by the gov't, or by private for-profit corps, or by humams...how could there be? Already agree our democracy is a lie, or at least a big chunk of it is a lie.
 

mlm

Contrarian
True, but is there no reliable media? If so, then there is no democracy, only population exploitation and control with an illusion of democracy.

I think that is taking it to extremes. All media has been, is, and always will contain an element of bias. The biggest way this manifests itself is in selection of topics, but even this has always been the case (if it bleeds it leads). Ironically the biggest driver for propaganda and misinformation is delivered under the guise of exposing the "fake" media.

People are the weak link. And the internet has empowered the stupid ones.
 

afm199

Well-known member
I honestly couldn't tell you if there's any reliable media, but if it's either run by the gov't, or by private for-profit corps, or by humams...how could there be? Already agree our democracy is a lie, or at least a big chunk of it is a lie.

I kinda believe in reading as much as possible. The Wall Street Journal and the New York Times. The Economist, the Christian Science Monitor.

We have seen for decades that money owns and runs America.
 

CoorsLight

Well-known member
I honestly couldn't tell you if there's any reliable media, but if it's either run by the gov't, or by private for-profit corps, or by humams...how could there be? Already agree our democracy is a lie, or at least a big chunk of it is a lie.

Few mainstream sources are independent, unfortunately. The Guardian is the only one I know of, but it's a good news source. Some smaller outfits like The Intercept are good. There is real news out there, and we should support it.
 
Top