![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
luzribeiro posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsCan you name at least one or two?
I'd say there either aren't any (which of course shouldn't stop you from getting information anyway, all you'd have to do is filter out the bias and the bullshit - I know, that's the hard part but still) - or I could at least list two: C-SPAN and AP News.
But let's face it. ollectively, the networks compete for news. If they make stuff up while competing, it will hurt them. 2000 Mules comes to mind. Fox's snd MSNBC obvious biases limit them also. Yet, the more of it you watch, the more of a "neutral" view you can form. If you think you're being buffaloed, they lose you. And if you only listen to one or two and take them as gospel, they have you. But there's always a choice. Maybe an even better question would be, what mix of news services are needed to provide a "neutral" view? Assuming "neutrality" is the goal. I say at least seven.
I'd say there either aren't any (which of course shouldn't stop you from getting information anyway, all you'd have to do is filter out the bias and the bullshit - I know, that's the hard part but still) - or I could at least list two: C-SPAN and AP News.
But let's face it. ollectively, the networks compete for news. If they make stuff up while competing, it will hurt them. 2000 Mules comes to mind. Fox's snd MSNBC obvious biases limit them also. Yet, the more of it you watch, the more of a "neutral" view you can form. If you think you're being buffaloed, they lose you. And if you only listen to one or two and take them as gospel, they have you. But there's always a choice. Maybe an even better question would be, what mix of news services are needed to provide a "neutral" view? Assuming "neutrality" is the goal. I say at least seven.
