|
Fortunately, the twist from reporting to projecting also already reflects in the Public's trust in the mainstream media, that's constantly declining.
I've personally worked with perhaps 100 mainstream media outlets during my time with Big Sister, was lucky enough to get some good positive press, even if it was quite an edgy topic.
I would trust that a part of it was maybe that they found a sensible counterpart for an interview in me plus I was also careful about what to say so it can't be twisted easily.
But also experienced a couple examples of twisting and selectively picking the facts to fit one's agenda. If I dismiss a completely fake article by a certain British magazine, the other one that really did not act all that kosher was NY Times. They selectively picked quotations and information in order to put a negative bias in, and employed some projecting in their article.
On the other hand, it made us money - maybe 20 k worth in new mainstream extra sign ups. It generated a lot of interest, it's not like it would affect how the world works so who cares. Glad it was not a political issue though.
But yes, if you simply compare about how two news outlets select completely different facts and angle for reporting about the very same issue, there can be very little doubt about the institutionalized bias.
Also one of the reasons I practically quit reading any "news" - if there is any issue I need to educate myself on, then I look up and listen to or read the authentic (aka original) speeches, documents, or educate myself about the facts, mainly from actual books or non-political sources (which are rare).
|