> To contrast your Fox/WSJ/WaPo list of egregious terrible media, consider BBC, CNN, TYT, HuffPo, Slate (I'll stop there, but I could list 50 more).
I agree that much is bad in that it's sensationalism, which provided Trump with free media and made them useful idiots (the technical term, not a pejorative) for his campaign.
But I don't agree:
1) That it's the same as ideological news; CNN has some real journalistic standards and tries not to lie.
2) That the NY Times in particular, or the BBC, belong in that category. They were neither sensational nor ideological, IMO. (I wouldn't have listed Slate, but I don't know them well enough.)
Certainly the serious journalism outlets are flawed, being human institutions, but I think they do a pretty good job. It's too easy to say, 'it's all bad' - it saves us having to carefully discern and accept imperfection.
I agree that much is bad in that it's sensationalism, which provided Trump with free media and made them useful idiots (the technical term, not a pejorative) for his campaign.
But I don't agree:
1) That it's the same as ideological news; CNN has some real journalistic standards and tries not to lie.
2) That the NY Times in particular, or the BBC, belong in that category. They were neither sensational nor ideological, IMO. (I wouldn't have listed Slate, but I don't know them well enough.)
Certainly the serious journalism outlets are flawed, being human institutions, but I think they do a pretty good job. It's too easy to say, 'it's all bad' - it saves us having to carefully discern and accept imperfection.