If one guy says two plus two is four and the other guy says two plus two is five, they will just report both sides and call that "balanced". Pointing out that one is objectively right and one is objectively wrong would have the wrong side screech about "bias" incessantly.
You're still too kind to them. Even if they did this they'd be giving equal attention to different parties and apply critical thinking equally to them. In reality studies have shown they spend disproportionate time on Reform at the expense of the Lib Dems and Greens, and tend to be less critical towards Reform's messaging than other parties, often simply reading out Reform's statements while being critical of the other parties.
So, I have to admit, if there's a crazy guy on one street corner yelling "2 + 2 = 4," and another down the street yelling "2 + 2 = elephant," I will be more interested in elephant dude. More curious to figure our what's wrong with him, how he's managed to stay alive for so long, etc. More curious to know his opinion of 2 * 2 and 2 + 3. Definitely not going argue or push back much on the elephant claim, though.
I can imagine that political reporters, inundated with the same bland, boilerplate statements over the past two decades, would be fascinated by people spouting obvious sociopathic garbage. It does seem irresponsible to entertain that fascination, when you know that a certain part of the population can't recognize it as obvious sociopathic garbage.
6 Comments
CompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.de · 18 pts · 16d
“We have to show all sides” and when one side is complete lunacy, I suppose any fair reporting would count towards the “other side”.
But in reality, some opinions need at the very least editorial context, or perhaps don’t need to be aired.
geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml · 22 pts · 16d
They need to show all sides besides the left side
Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world · 15 pts · 16d
If one guy says two plus two is four and the other guy says two plus two is five, they will just report both sides and call that "balanced". Pointing out that one is objectively right and one is objectively wrong would have the wrong side screech about "bias" incessantly.
floofloof@lemmy.ca · 10 pts · 16d
You're still too kind to them. Even if they did this they'd be giving equal attention to different parties and apply critical thinking equally to them. In reality studies have shown they spend disproportionate time on Reform at the expense of the Lib Dems and Greens, and tend to be less critical towards Reform's messaging than other parties, often simply reading out Reform's statements while being critical of the other parties.
tburkhol@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 16d
So, I have to admit, if there's a crazy guy on one street corner yelling "2 + 2 = 4," and another down the street yelling "2 + 2 = elephant," I will be more interested in elephant dude. More curious to figure our what's wrong with him, how he's managed to stay alive for so long, etc. More curious to know his opinion of 2 * 2 and 2 + 3. Definitely not going argue or push back much on the elephant claim, though.
I can imagine that political reporters, inundated with the same bland, boilerplate statements over the past two decades, would be fascinated by people spouting obvious sociopathic garbage. It does seem irresponsible to entertain that fascination, when you know that a certain part of the population can't recognize it as obvious sociopathic garbage.
homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 16d
It worked for trump.
CNN would leave a camera on an empty mic side-by-side with the newsreader while a Clinton rally was in progress and never show the Clinton rally.
Only one of many ways they enabled and supported trump - as we should all be incredibly aware of, and yet, are not.
ordnance_qf_17_pounder@reddthat.com · 7 pts · 16d