Peter Doocy is a tool. Even tools with an agenda can pose interesting questions. Any good scientist will tell you there is no such thing as bad information because even the wrong answer is useful as long as you understand it is the wrong answer.
Who is the most neutral, unbiased reporter?
- Thread starter kmiklas
- Start date
Peter Doocy is a tool. Even tools with an agenda can pose interesting questions. Any good scientist will tell you there is no such thing as bad information because even the wrong answer is useful as long as you understand it is the wrong answer.
What we don't see in this thread, yet, is anyone from the left throwing out a name of a trusted reporter they support. Why is that?
In most network news and major papers nearly all the reporters follow the bias of the media outlet. Especially the well known reporters whose names you remember and are constantly in the spotlight. These folks (on T.V. at least) have reached the point where they are more entertainers (pundits) rather than reporters.
The most neutral news sources are Reuters and AP -- who try to simply report the facts in their stories. They don't promote their reporters to be well-known pundits, nor do this outlets have a bias. Due to this Reuters and AP should be considered the most "trusted" neutral, unbiased news sources.
It was explained earlier in this thread, that the notion is flawed.
That said, The Left is less likely to form attachments to 'a person' wrt politics/truth/reporters etc, imo.
The Left respects truth (more so than The Right), and not necessarily a particular person. A person can be truthful previously, but lie or misspeak later.
Even so, when there is an impasse as to which data or opinion to accept, then reputation/credibility comes into play. In that case, a 'who would you listen to' question would depend on the subject-matter, and who the two disagreeing reporters are.
Your question reminds me of a 'who do you think the most powerful superhero ever is' type of question.
I qualify as “left” and don’t “trust” any single reporter and neither should anyone else.
Every name thrown out by the right is a fucktarded FOX OAN clown so people in glass houses should not throw stones.
Also, I ..among many others have already said a reporter is not unbiased if their bosses dictate the message that gets out or what they can report on. There is no unbiased media and anyone here who put forth a name of someone they claimed is unbiased just shows the brainwashing worked
.
The reporters that I mentioned are unbiased and fair. Go boil your head.Every name thrown out by the right is a FOX OAN clown so people in glass houses should not throw stones.
Also, I ..among many others have already said a reporter is not unbiased if their bosses dictate the message that gets out or what they can report on. There is no unbiased media and anyone here who put forth a name of someone they claimed is unbiased just shows the brainwashing worked
Thanks for leading the way.
Matt Taibbi and Greenwald are as far from what you're describing as a reporter can get. Neither has any loyalty to either party and skewer them all regularly.Every name thrown out by the right is a fucktarded FOX OAN clown so people in glass houses should not throw stones.
Also, I ..among many others have already said a reporter is not unbiased if their bosses dictate the message that gets out or what they can report on. There is no unbiased media and anyone here who put forth a name of someone they claimed is unbiased just shows the brainwashing worked
Yes, the corporate networks are bought and paid for. Cable outlets the same. Every print rag coast to coast, all in bed with one or the other, but there are independents that just call it as they see it without regard to who will like it. Taibbi and Greenwald fit that bill.