Balanced news reporting [@twisteddoodles]

Maybe this is more an issue with my regional news... but my issue is less about the idiots - it's when the news does a story where they interview some well-meaning but not media trained person (like a progressive activist at a protest), but then for "balance", they bring in the fucking CEO of Orphan Crushing Inc. to eloquently say why having morals is evil and why the oppressors are actually the victims here. And then give him 90% of the screen time because he's the "expert"
- Anybody else remember when fox news interviewed one of the moderators for /r/antiwork which went about as well as you would expect?

If that's how they introduced their guests, I'm okay with that.

I’ve always tried to explain it just like that too, but it’s always like leading a horse to water, you can’t make it drink.
Also can’t make that horse understand that people who have opinions about niche subjects that have advanced degrees and study said subject for a living are worth listening to over reactionary angry idiots, but no. Folks would rather be addicted to rage than apply critical thinking.
I lost my dad to conservative media for this very reason. Started with that sack of shit Rush Limbaugh everyday on the radio and god knows what it is captivating his attention now. Can’t even have a normal conversation with him, he finds a way to always steer conversation to political rage.
How tf do we even come back from this?
- god knows what it is captivating his attention now.
  If he's anything like my dad (and a bunch of other relatives) Rush was replaced by Fox News, the Epoch Times, and various garbage published by Hillsdale College.
  
  Im not sure how the epoch times decides to sent to people. My neighbor got one and im like ha ha and I made fun of him then one showed up with my name on it. I used to have this paper burning grill. Sorta wish I still did and then find some way to encourage these places to send me their crap.
- Great question. Traditionally a horse is shot when it keeps stalling progress. Not many people are okay with killing humans except in extremely rare circumstances. These folks and mindsets are far too common.
  How, indeed.
- We wait for them all to die off.
  
  They don't just die off naturally. The propaganda machine is always making new idiots.

In reality, they only talk to the idiot
- The idiot resonates with the idiots, and makes everyone else mad. Engagement goes up either way and more ad dollars are earned. It's stupid, but that's what it is.
- Two idiots, one slightly less idiotic to appear as if they know something.
- While the expert is there only to be present, always talked over

Except the US media usually skips the first part. When was the last time anyone saw someone with a PhD related to what they were talking about being asked something in the media? No they start with something Elon Musk tweeted about H1B visas and then cover what Laura Loomer said in response. The expert on H1B visas is nowhere to be found.

TBH I almost never see relevant experts in the hegemonic news. For example, NPR never interviews palestinians about their experience under the ongoing genocide. Or with AI there's almost never a respectable computer scientist but just con artists. You'll never see/hear an expert on marxism, etc. Etc.
This cartoon gives wayyyy too much credit to these corrupt propaganda outlets.

And that's how the bOtH pArTiEs ArE tHe SaMe LoL aMiRiTe narrative gets pushed and stoked and permeates weak minds everywhere, through sheer repetition.

Podcasts for "bros" in a nutshell.
Except they sometimes leave out the expert.

You don't have report "both sides" of an argument if one side of that argument is blithering bullshit.

Every story needs an Arthur Dent to ask dumb questions for the audience. It gives the author an excuse to worldbuild without pontificating. So, on the bright side, maybe our crumbling civilization has a lot of authors collaborating with mind-bogglingly panoply audiences, each of which needs their own lovable idiot hero to be a character in our world.
- we need more lovable and less idiot.

I heard it explained like this. If one person says it's raining outside, and another person says it's not. The job of the reporter is to look outside to see if it's raining or not. Their job is not putting them in the same room asking them to debate each other about whether or not it's raining.
- That only makes sense when the reporter can easily verify the central premise of the controversial issue. For something like climate change at best they can report that there is a very large academic consensus that greenhouse gases released due to human activity are causing an increase in average global temperatures. They can't themselves examine the very large body of data that leads to that conclusion. Public understanding of not only the scientific method but the scientific process is crucial, but the press themselves can't do that.
  
  the press themselves ~~can’t~~ won't do that.
  It is extremely possible to explain the evidence for and against an issue, if not for the phony standard of "balance" which doesn't exist in science. Scientists don't feel the need to "balance" overwhelming evidence against phony baloney. It's a completely reasonable expectation from anybody who's not in the propaganda business.
- The real job of a reporter is to ask the capitalist who owns the media (eg. rupert murdoch).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKZN-hBTBUE
A must watch on this topic

One of the biggest reasons nobody trusts the media is because of this stupid standard of objectivity. Not the journalists fault, might as well insist reporters can fly as be "objective".
Pretending to be objective is dishonest; making it an editorial standard guarantees you're lying to the audience.
So they just pretend to be objective, we all see though it; and nobody likes being bullshited.

The US used to have laws that required balanced reporting. Once they were removed, all reporting became 0 effort opinion-based.
There was some value in making them work to lie.