How Much Can We Trust The Media?

How much do editors and producers bias their articles?
Newspaper editors and TV producers decide what to broadcast on TV and what to print in newspapers.

So I’ve been wondering how much of what we see and read is influenced by their personal opinions and beliefs, and also by advertising revenues etc.

I used to more or unless accept what I saw on my favorite TV channel or read in my regular newspaper and magazine but I’ve recently become far more skeptical because of what I read about Obama.

It’s easy to believe that different people are being talked about when I read articles about Obama or if I see him being talked about on NBC or Fox for example.

Is there really some way to get balanced news, to get the truth?

This entry was posted in internet, Misconceptions, MSM, news, TV. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

You can add images to your comment by clicking here.

[+] Zaazu Emoticons Zaazu.com

4 Responses to How Much Can We Trust The Media?

  1. knopfman says:

    The influence that advertising now has on any media that allows advertising has reached the point where editors select and shape articles not only on the basis of their expected interest for readers but for their influence on advertisements.

    Serious articles are not always the best support for ads and an article that puts the reader in an analytical frame of mind won’t generally encourage the reader to take seriously an ad that depends on fantasy or promotes a trivial product, and an article on genuine social suffering might well interrupt the “buying” mood on which most ads for luxuries depend.

    I like this quote ..

    “Advertising is the art of arresting the human intelligence just long enough to get money from it”.
    — Chuck Blore

    The only way that I know of that will allow you to get even a little bit close to the “truth” is to read several different newspapers that have different slants and to watch different news channels, although Fox is the only major one that isn’t to some extent in the administration’s pocket.

  2. divka says:

    It’s not just the information that we get from the MSM that needs to be questioned, because what is known as SWAG now affects blogsites and most celebrities too.

    What is SWAG?

    SWAG is perks, “Stuff We All Get”, and a whole host of people get it.

    A blogsite might slant an article in order to get a free plug on a very big website and most celebrities accept gifts such as iPods, trips to Hawaii, digital cameras and silk kimonos etc. and the issue is so prevalent that the Internal Revenue Service had now become involved.

    Associating products with famous people is good advertising and almost always results in a rise in sales, so, when an international star like Nicole Kidman, for example sporting a Prada bag that she got in a swag basket, it’s great advertising for Prada.

    Magazines, television stations and newspapers are all sent SWAG and its effects are generally only known by the sender and the recipient.

    The bottom line is that you must now question and double check all information, compare what you read and then consider the sources.

  3. Richard says:

    In the words of Heath Ledgers Joker “Not. . . One. . . BIT!”

  4. mercy says:

    The only way that I know of that will allow you to get even a little bit close to the “truth” is to read several different newspapers that have different slants and to watch different news channels.