Comments by "Laurence Fraser" (@laurencefraser) on "Why News Was So Neutral in the '50s u0026 '60s" video.

@SvendleBerries Sure, he'd be chased out of the school for being far right (well, depending on the school in question. Some universities in the US have been as thoroughly hijacked by the lunatic radical left as the Republican party has by the lunatic radical right, others not so much)... and then out of large portions of the modern media industry for being too progressive, or 'not a team player (AKA neither corrupt nor a door mat)' or whatever spin they want to put on 'not compromising journalistic integrity by pandering to the advertisers and scandle-mongering that bring in the big bucks'. And get it in the neck from all sides on the internet. Also note: Unbiased means 'honest and truthful regardless of who is favoured by that honesty and truth'. This is Not At All the same as 'presenting the propaganda of all sides as being equally valid'... but it is also not at all the same as 'picking a side and presenting their propaganda as correct and all contrary information as incorrect by default'. And it can actually be better to be up front about your biases (such that the reader can compare what you have to say with those of other, known, biases and thus arrive at the truth), so long as you are also correctly and honestly reporting the facts, as all that actively Hiding said biases does is make it harder for the reader to spot them in order to filter them out when attempting to attain true and useful information. Still, there's a difference between 'not attempting to hide bias' and 'writing a propaganda piece'.
1
@MindForgedManacle Do keep in mind that Fox News was founded for the explicit purpose of spreading intentionally false information to undermine trust in the news media in General after honest and effective reporting lead to the downfall of it's founder's preferred President. It has maintained this policy to this day. It's not even the usual policy of trying to spread a message to the benefit of their interests, it's an active campaign to undermine the public's ability to even evaluate the truthfulness of a given report. ... They actively don't care if you believe their narrative (they'll flip it around and contradict themselves all over the place), only that you don't trust Anyone Else Either. If you just give up and declare all media sources equally dishonest and thus all facts unknowable, Fox (and Murdoch's 'news' empire in general) has achieved it's goals. Other sources have their biases, but they are generally interested in truthful reporting outside of those biases, and generally actually trying to push a specific line within those biases, so you can aggregate them and determine, to some extent, truth and falsehood by simply comparing sources with different biases and accounting for those biases. Not so with Fox. It actively and intentionally spreads (ALMOST! Occasionally an actual fact will be sufficiently useful to be incorporated into a given nonsense narrative, after all) exclusively junk data at every opportunity. Which is to say that Fox News is actively and intentionally Anti-News... Fake news, one might say.
1