Shot in the dark, but are there any real journalists left.
No news outlet is without a political agenda. Every single outlet has there own slant and none are honest.

There has never been a journalist without personal views.  Yes, a lot of journalists do try to separate their views from what they report.  But doing so is not by any means all of journalism.  What stories are covered and which ones aren't are very important as well.  No news organization makes choices about what to cover based on some sort of purely objective standard.  There are objective reasons to know that this story or that one is important; there are lots of times when what you cover is based on what you believe is important. 

If you are antilabor, you may not cover a strike from the aspect of why workers are striking to a significant extent.  You may not cover much about what it is like to be a worker on strike.  You may cover it largely from the perspective of how the strike is affecting the business. 

If you believe the earth is being visited by UFOs, and you are a publisher, you may give much more coverage to such stories than if you don't, unless you just want clicks.

Gene

Shot in the dark, but are there any real journalists left.
No news outlet is without a political agenda. Every single outlet has there own slant and none are honest.

Hey.



While this is very true, and while I have occasionally expressed a litle
impatience with the kind of “hwere are all the unbiased journalists/sources”
queries I see around nowadays, I have been thinking about this a little
latelya dn it’s an interesting topic for sure.

There is an argument to be made about how and why news is more biased than
it used to be before the 1960s, for instance, and I’ts worth consideration.

This is probably way outside the normal purview of the list…however, this
guy’s videos do a good and I think, quite fair and even-handed job of
explaining many things about today’s political climate. This video he did on
the news is actually good food for thought, I think:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgZPJpdmw3A





From: chat@nvda.groups.io <chat@nvda.groups.io> On Behalf Of Gene
Sent: July 30, 2022 07:52 PM
To: chat@nvda.groups.io
Subject: Re: [chat] NVDA Chat honest news



There has never been a journalist without personal views. Yes, a lot of
journalists do try to separate their views from what they report. But doing
so is not by any means all of journalism. What stories are covered and
which ones aren't are very important as well. No news organization makes
choices about what to cover based on some sort of purely objective standard.
There are objective reasons to know that this story or that one is
important; there are lots of times when what you cover is based on what you
believe is important.

If you are antilabor, you may not cover a strike from the aspect of why
workers are striking to a significant extent. You may not cover much about
what it is like to be a worker on strike. You may cover it largely from the
perspective of how the strike is affecting the business.

If you believe the earth is being visited by UFOs, and you are a publisher,
you may give much more coverage to such stories than if you don't, unless
you just want clicks.

Gene

On 7/30/2022 6:31 PM, Chris Shook wrote:

Shot in the dark, but are there any real journalists left.
No news outlet is without a political agenda. Every single outlet has there
own slant and none are honest.

Hmmmm my answer to that is who knows.
Refer badck to my message.
The company monster controls all and when you get to that level the
game changes.
To become big you have to become one of those beepstards and once you
become that powerfull you end fighting others like yourself so the
little guys like us may not factor at all.
I think though as we as a people have grown a lot of stuff has changed.
Look at job or other support services.
When I initially did my employment service application before the net
in 1995 I got someone that gave me encouragement, and ideas.
In 2005 I went back for some more ideas and got thrown suggested
places to go to to find a job which didn't have what I wanted.
The creative bits of what was normal seem to have gone.
A lot of news is pulled from the net itself.
As we know the net itself which is a really good resource at the same
time shouldn't be trusted.
At least half of it is someone's opinion and shouldn't be taken with
more than what its worth.
This includes me.
On the net you are not right or wrong, you just are.
Text which I found out and preprofiling is a really unstable and
dangerous way of running things.
The net is another world and its got its bad and its good and well it
all depends where you are in that world.
The only thing is it never sleeps, its always up when you are not.
There are a lot of ai bots to which well who knows.
And a lot of older bits not handled right.
Nothing including what I am saying is actually true.
I mean its true to me but I wouldn't say its true to the entire thing.
Some old world concepts like news well we would like everything to be
this and that, but its probably more that than this.
As on the subject of the last mail I posted today thats not the answer
but a shade of an answer I have pieced together.
Its probably not true, its probably not fake but it is because I think
it is but there is probably more thant I can ever think of currently.
Sadly a lot of the newer generations are not like the older ones.
I am inbetween, my dad is having a lot of issues with the way thngs
are run and probably sees more of the rough edges of the matrix as it
were.
I notice them but am adapting to the new borg.
Those born into it though having never been disconnected probably don't notice.
And of course us humans post a lot of what we get back so take that as you will.

On 31/07/2022, JM Casey <jmcasey@...> wrote:

Hey.



While this is very true, and while I have occasionally expressed a litle
impatience with the kind of “hwere are all the unbiased journalists/sources”
queries I see around nowadays, I have been thinking about this a little
latelya dn it’s an interesting topic for sure.

There is an argument to be made about how and why news is more biased than
it used to be before the 1960s, for instance, and I’ts worth consideration.

This is probably way outside the normal purview of the list…however, this
guy’s videos do a good and I think, quite fair and even-handed job of
explaining many things about today’s political climate. This video he did on
the news is actually good food for thought, I think:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgZPJpdmw3A





From: chat@nvda.groups.io <chat@nvda.groups.io> On Behalf Of Gene
Sent: July 30, 2022 07:52 PM
To: chat@nvda.groups.io
Subject: Re: [chat] NVDA Chat honest news



There has never been a journalist without personal views.  Yes, a lot of
journalists do try to separate their views from what they report.  But doing
so is not by any means all of journalism.  What stories are covered and
which ones aren't are very important as well.  No news organization makes
choices about what to cover based on some sort of purely objective standard.
 There are objective reasons to know that this story or that one is
important; there are lots of times when what you cover is based on what you
believe is important.

If you are antilabor, you may not cover a strike from the aspect of why
workers are striking to a significant extent.  You may not cover much about
what it is like to be a worker on strike.  You may cover it largely from the
perspective of how the strike is affecting the business.

If you believe the earth is being visited by UFOs, and you are a publisher,
you may give much more coverage to such stories than if you don't, unless
you just want clicks.

Gene

On 7/30/2022 6:31 PM, Chris Shook wrote:

Shot in the dark, but are there any real journalists left.
No news outlet is without a political agenda. Every single outlet has there
own slant and none are honest.

There are not different standards for determining if something is true.
There is not an Internet logic or way to evaluate the truthfulness of a
statement and the not Internet way.

Often, you may need to be more careful when evaluating the reliability
of a source, but what is true is true or not true, regardless of whether
you get information from the Internet or a neighbor's gossip.

Gene

On 7/30/2022 11:05 PM, Shaun Everiss wrote:

Hmmmm my answer to that is who knows.
Refer badck to my message.
The company monster controls all and when you get to that level the
game changes.
To become big you have to become one of those beepstards and once you
become that powerfull you end fighting others like yourself so the
little guys like us may not factor at all.
I think though as we as a people have grown a lot of stuff has changed.
Look at job or other support services.
When I initially did my employment service application before the net
in 1995 I got someone that gave me encouragement, and ideas.
In 2005 I went back for some more ideas and got thrown suggested
places to go to to find a job which didn't have what I wanted.
The creative bits of what was normal seem to have gone.
A lot of news is pulled from the net itself.
As we know the net itself which is a really good resource at the same
time shouldn't be trusted.
At least half of it is someone's opinion and shouldn't be taken with
more than what its worth.
This includes me.
On the net you are not right or wrong, you just are.
Text which I found out and preprofiling is a really unstable and
dangerous way of running things.
The net is another world and its got its bad and its good and well it
all depends where you are in that world.
The only thing is it never sleeps, its always up when you are not.
There are a lot of ai bots to which well who knows.
And a lot of older bits not handled right.
Nothing including what I am saying is actually true.
I mean its true to me but I wouldn't say its true to the entire thing.
Some old world concepts like news well we would like everything to be
this and that, but its probably more that than this.
As on the subject of the last mail I posted today thats not the answer
but a shade of an answer I have pieced together.
Its probably not true, its probably not fake but it is because I think
it is but there is probably more thant I can ever think of currently.
Sadly a lot of the newer generations are not like the older ones.
I am inbetween, my dad is having a lot of issues with the way thngs
are run and probably sees more of the rough edges of the matrix as it
were.
I notice them but am adapting to the new borg.
Those born into it though having never been disconnected probably don't
notice.
And of course us humans post a lot of what we get back so take that as you
will.

On 31/07/2022, JM Casey <jmcasey@...> wrote:

Hey.



While this is very true, and while I have occasionally expressed a litle
impatience with the kind of “hwere are all the unbiased
journalists/sources”
queries I see around nowadays, I have been thinking about this a little
latelya dn it’s an interesting topic for sure.

There is an argument to be made about how and why news is more biased
than
it used to be before the 1960s, for instance, and I’ts worth
consideration.

This is probably way outside the normal purview of the list…however,
this
guy’s videos do a good and I think, quite fair and even-handed job of
explaining many things about today’s political climate. This video he did
on
the news is actually good food for thought, I think:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgZPJpdmw3A





From: chat@nvda.groups.io <chat@nvda.groups.io> On Behalf Of Gene
Sent: July 30, 2022 07:52 PM
To: chat@nvda.groups.io
Subject: Re: [chat] NVDA Chat honest news



There has never been a journalist without personal views. Yes, a lot of
journalists do try to separate their views from what they report. But
doing
so is not by any means all of journalism. What stories are covered and
which ones aren't are very important as well. No news organization
makes
choices about what to cover based on some sort of purely objective
standard.
There are objective reasons to know that this story or that one is
important; there are lots of times when what you cover is based on what
you
believe is important.

If you are antilabor, you may not cover a strike from the aspect of why
workers are striking to a significant extent. You may not cover much
about
what it is like to be a worker on strike. You may cover it largely from
the
perspective of how the strike is affecting the business.

If you believe the earth is being visited by UFOs, and you are a
publisher,
you may give much more coverage to such stories than if you don't,
unless
you just want clicks.

Gene

On 7/30/2022 6:31 PM, Chris Shook wrote:

Shot in the dark, but are there any real journalists left.
No news outlet is without a political agenda. Every single outlet has
there
own slant and none are honest.