Multiple local news stations say the same thing verbatim

* CBS has recently been caught fabricating lines at a drive through testing facility in Michigan * Nicholas Sandmann * “Experts generally agree that N95 masks have little value in the community.” * Local “news” stories that are effectively infomercials * this video * allegedly CNN removing the Larry King episode from Google Play with a call from Tara Reade’s mother * implicitly or explicitly suggesting unrelated archive footage represents the story being reported (Italian hospital footage in a story about New York hospitals, firing range footage presented as foreign conflict) * the my pillow guy, who retooled to support health workers being railroaded simply for standing next to Trump * the sudden and nearly universal admiration for GWB * NYT editing an article, without notice that originally claimed HRC implied the Russians were grooming Tulsi Gabbard. I have a terrible memory for specific details, so those just the ones I can think of recently. I primarily listen to NPR in the car. Their bias is staggering. They present opinion as fact frequently, often misrepresenting parties in opposition.

And there's the rub. What is "quality investigative reporting" in an objective sense, when most of the MSM outlets are owned by oligarchs, or simply "toe the line"? In theory I would gladly support the theory of "quality investigative reporting", but the reality is a propagandist machine where opinion pieces replaces actual unbiased, adjective-free objective news. Some examples of "oligarch news": link this video As a former developer who worked closely on Thomson Reuters News feed (in the 00's), I've seen how there is almost zero fact checking for the information that appears on news feeds. Instead, news outlets trust the 'upstream' feeds and then quote the reports verbatim. To be fair, there are those who are really awesome at doing research and releasing information that are part of the MSM. Unfortunately, there are plenty others who are not affiliated with MSM news outlets and hence aren't regarded as "reporters" per-se. These latter ones are regularly attacked via "fact checking" websites as a way to discredit them. An article on the latter is here: link In short, there's a bunch of information out there and without each and every news report clearly citing original sources, then MSM or not, it must be regarded as suspect. So for "quality investigative reporting", the actual reports must rigorously cite objective sources.

75% of those who identify as being on the right thought coverage of their views is unfair. This is interesting given how many local news outlets are owned by the conservative Sinclair Broadcast Group. I guess it doesn't help when they run segments like this, sowing more distrust: this video

This might be true except for the fact that news outlets follow a script to push a narrative (and CNN is not exempted from this): this video

Main problem with brexit was bubble. Even now, after so many years, you're saying that it's manipulation, simply because you don't personally know people who wanted it to happen. Who exist, I assure you. > What I mean is – well, take creationists. According to Gallup polls, about 46% of Americans are creationists. Not just in the sense of believing God helped guide evolution. I mean they think evolution is a vile atheist lie and God created humans exactly as they exist right now. That’s half the country. > And I don’t have a single one of those people in my social circle. It’s not because I’m deliberately avoiding them; I’m pretty live-and-let-live politically, I wouldn’t ostracize someone just for some weird beliefs. And yet, even though I probably know about a hundred fifty people, I am pretty confident that not one of them is creationist. Odds of this happening by chance? 1/2^150 = 1/10^45 = approximately the chance of picking a particular atom if you are randomly selecting among all the atoms on Earth. source: link ------- This being said, guarding my gps history like it's treasure does absolutely zilch to stop political manipulation, when you have stuff like corporate control over mainstream media and PR firms. See NYT's coverage of FTX, for a contemporary example. Or, well... this video

"One would have to assume that there was also a direct line to other social medial platforms. " I would say its not a huge leap to think that. I would even say its more than just other social media platforms. I would say it goes into main stream media on BOTH sides, Hollywood, sports, etc including global corporations. this video

> Most people are more interested in accuracy, context, analysis, and trustworthiness. Lol imagine thinking you get this from big monopoly news media almost all of which are owned by private equity media conglomerates. this video

I find it interesting that last week, we had a nationwide AT&T outage and one of the causes speculated on local news outlets (within a couple hours) was a solar flare [1]. Now, less than a week later, we have articles in the New Yorker priming thoughts about solar storms. Why is this relevant? Consider where that speculation started: local news networks [2]. It's worth reading Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars [3] if you haven't already to understand why it's worth me mentioning this. Easily dismissed as "conspiracy nonsense," but it's worth asking "why this, why now?" [1] link [2] this video [3] link

I find the opposite to be the case. The large news orgs with all the paywalls are now mostly used to push a narrative. This has been the case for years, best demonstrated by this clip: this video The free internet still exists, and is not paywalled.