Interests of subscribers, or Very Important Sources? (What would a DC media outlet do if they got shut out of all White House staff contact?)
Then there's the "objectivity" of journalism, which only rarely means fact-checking. All too often, it just means giving opposing lies equal time.
"I have to wonder about these scientists always saying the world is round. I look out the window and can see the world is flat!"
On the news: "Democrats denied White House assertions that the world is flat today...."
A month later: "The White House proudly claimed victory in today's successful launch of the Creator satellite into an orbit, which scientists said would be possible only if the Earth were round."
A year later: "Democrats went on the offensive today with a new campaign claiming that the Earth is not flat, but is indeed round. Whether they can sell this message to the American public remains to be seen."
Yes, that's what we get today from the news media. Fair and balanced, but not true.
Interests of subscribers, or Very Important Sources? (What would a DC media outlet do if they got shut out of all White House staff contact?)
Then there's the "objectivity" of journalism, which only rarely means fact-checking. All too often, it just means giving opposing lies equal time.
Yes, that's what we get today from the news media. Fair and balanced, but not true.