CDZ Do the masses know what journalism is?

[Dogmaphobe]

Whenever I see people talking about "the masses", they inevitably place themselves above such.

What is lost in attempts at elitism such as this is that there is an inverse relationship between journalistic integrity and attachment to an ideology. When extremely orthodox ideologues ridicule the masses in this fashion, they are simply attempting to posit their own rigid views as they only ones acceptable.

 

[Mac1958]

Whenever I see people talking about "the masses", they inevitably place themselves above such.

What is lost in attempts at elitism such as this is that there is an inverse relationship between journalistic integrity and attachment to an ideology. When extremely orthodox ideologues ridicule the masses in this fashion, they are simply attempting to posit their own rigid views as they only ones acceptable.

I was in the business for about 18 years, and what passes for "news" today is just an ongoing horror show to me. Just "reporting" on a story is no longer good enough; they now feel some kind of obligation to provide some degree of analysis, and of course, analysis will almost always include an angle. My guess is that this is a function of the hyper-competitive nature of the business - myriad "news" outlets, 24-hour "news" networks, and (of course) the internet.

And here's another thing I've noticed over the last few years - more of these people who claim that their job is to find and report "the truth". Really? And just whose "truth" would that be, precisely? When you have a personal political bias on any given story (and we all do), and you've bestowed upon yourself a responsibility to find "the truth", it's guaranteed that you're going to slant the story to your version of "the truth".

What a crock. The decay of objective reporting is causing this country great damage.
.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I was in the business for about 18 years, and what passes for "news" today is just an ongoing horror show to me. Just "reporting" on a story is no longer good enough; they now feel some kind of obligation to provide some degree of analysis, and of course, analysis will almost always include an angle. My guess is that this is a function of the hyper-competitive nature of the business - myriad "news" outlets, 24-hour "news" networks, and (of course) the internet.

And here's another thing I've noticed over the last few years - more of these people who claim that their job is to find and report "the truth". Really? And just whose "truth" would that be, precisely? When you have a personal political bias on any given story (and we all do), and you've bestowed upon yourself a responsibility to find "the truth", it's guaranteed that you're going to slant the story to your version of "the truth".

What a crock. The decay of objective reporting is causing this country great damage.
.

The very selection process when it comes to what is and is not considered news is part of the problem. Stories are selected in accordance to how they follow a certain narrative, with some being highlighted and some ignored.

In this era where identity politics has replaced any semblance of objectivity, the media plays a pivotal role in creating impressions accordingly.

 

[oldsoul]

Looks to me like you've exempted the media from the shortcomings of "the masses".

Judging from the slipshod and incomprehensibly biased nature of the reportage we've received from them, it would appear that, rather than being exempt, these shortcomings apply to them even more so.

Whereas the masses are simply ignorant, most of the media is malevolent in its efforts to manipulate public opinion. Among other things, the OP conveniently ignores the decisions of the MSM as to what stories they cover and what stories they intentionally ignore (a classic propaganda technique).

I don't actually think of the media as malicious in their intent. They are simply operators in the market we have set up for them. They NEED views / clicks in order to survive. If they do not get airtime or circulation, they are going to go out of business. The best way to do that is to cater to a (hopefully large) specific audience.

Spoiled Americans have shown that they are unwilling to hear things that they do not like...the easy point in case would be Trumpers' refusal to consume media sources from the left (CNN / NYT) even though they may offer a unique perspective not shown in their own media sources. (The reverse is also true where you rarely will find a liberal who regularly consumes Fox News). So, if you air things that people don't agree with, true or not, you are going to lose viewers / clicks. The only way to really get media to change their actions is to somehow change the environment in which they operate. The easiest answer, in my opinion, would be some sort of oversight body...although somebody may be able to create a way to take them out of the free market entirely...although I have no clue how that would work.

So, some clarification here. I still do not see how you are not advocating for state run media....

An oversight body could be a government agency. It also could be an independent agency (think of the better business bureau for businesses).

Given the danger that Trump clearly presents with his misinformation and attacks on truth, and that dictators such as Putin or Kim Jung Un are known to utilize media controlled by the state to send their message, I believe it is self-evident of the dangers that a government controlled agency would present. However, I am unwilling to totally discredit a government run agency, although not preferable, given the current environment that we live in. As it stands I would rather have a unified message being sent to Americans, which is not true...rather than messages sent to Americans which are still untrue, but divide the nation.

It would seem as though this "agency" would have no real power, as anything they would do would be in direct violation of the 1st, unless of course they were "independent" of the government, in which case, what power would they have anyway?

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

Do the "journalists" know what journalism is?

 

[jwoodie]

I don't actually think of the media as malicious in their intent. They are simply operators in the market we have set up for them. They NEED views / clicks in order to survive. If they do not get airtime or circulation, they are going to go out of business. The best way to do that is to cater to a (hopefully large) specific audience.

What you are missing is that "news" programming is not a money maker for TV networks, it is required by the FCC. They, in turn, rely on "news" sources from the NYT and WP for their material. As a result, a relatively small number of people have been able to control what information is provided to the American public.

 

[OldLady]

What strikes me as the biggest problems, however, are:

1. The masses these days have this notion that whatever and all information comes their way is opinion. It seems they cannot tell when a speaker/writer is sharing an opinion and when they are sharing facts and findings.
2. The masses these days appear unable to tell what information is credibly supported. If they don't like the information that comes their way, they declare and discount it as "just an opinion." That wouldn't be a problem except for the fact that opinions supported by the preponderance of evidence rightly must take precedence over less profoundly substantiated ones. Sadly, however, it seems that the opinion that gets the most "likes" is the one that prevails. That's a dangerous way to run a society.
3. The masses aren't well schooled in the processes and techniques of rigorous reasoning. The list of logical fallacies is long, but many folks seem familiar with even half of the fallacious approaches to argument, to say nothing of the other half. That rational naivete leave people vulnerable to all sorts of manipulation. Again, not a good thing.

Looks to me like you've exempted the media from the shortcomings of "the masses".

Judging from the slipshod and incomprehensibly biased nature of the reportage we've received from them, it would appear that, rather than being exempt, these shortcomings apply to them even more so.

Same as with Trump's blanket judgment that NBC is the Enemy of the American People and that the "media" are liars pumping out "fake news," it would be far more effective a criticism if he/you would supply actual examples of the "fake news," even if only one.
So cough up an example.

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

Same as with Trump's blanket judgment that NBC is the Enemy of the American People and that the "media" are liars pumping out "fake news," it would be far more effective a criticism if he/you would supply actual examples of the "fake news," even if only one.
So cough up an example.

Trump is right.

If you need me to give you examples, you're living under a rock.

 

[OldLady]

What strikes me as the biggest problems, however, are:

1. The masses these days have this notion that whatever and all information comes their way is opinion. It seems they cannot tell when a speaker/writer is sharing an opinion and when they are sharing facts and findings.
2. The masses these days appear unable to tell what information is credibly supported. If they don't like the information that comes their way, they declare and discount it as "just an opinion." That wouldn't be a problem except for the fact that opinions supported by the preponderance of evidence rightly must take precedence over less profoundly substantiated ones. Sadly, however, it seems that the opinion that gets the most "likes" is the one that prevails. That's a dangerous way to run a society.
3. The masses aren't well schooled in the processes and techniques of rigorous reasoning. The list of logical fallacies is long, but many folks seem familiar with even half of the fallacious approaches to argument, to say nothing of the other half. That rational naivete leave people vulnerable to all sorts of manipulation. Again, not a good thing.

Looks to me like you've exempted the media from the shortcomings of "the masses".

Judging from the slipshod and incomprehensibly biased nature of the reportage we've received from them, it would appear that, rather than being exempt, these shortcomings apply to them even more so.

I would generally agree that our media is not what it should, in theory, be.

However, "the masses" actually adhere to what the media feeds them pretty closely. The issue is that we have so many media sources that "the masses" are allowed to pick and choose their information sources so they choose the ones that support their worldview and disregard any others. People are always going to have to get their information from somewhere. Our media environment today has allowed for the right to adhere to the dogma of Fox News, Conservative talk show hosts, and a couple of radical news aggregators like Brietbart or InfoWars. The left get their media from CNN, MSNBC, and online sources like the HuffPost.

We need a central agency to vet the news sources because the huge pool of media sources has allowed for people to operate off of information that may not even be picked up by their opposition media sources.

Couldn't we just reinstate the Fairness Doctrine? Update it a bit?

 

[OldLady]

Same as with Trump's blanket judgment that NBC is the Enemy of the American People and that the "media" are liars pumping out "fake news," it would be far more effective a criticism if he/you would supply actual examples of the "fake news," even if only one.
So cough up an example.

Trump is right.

If you need me to give you examples, you're living under a rock.

Like him, you probably can't give examples because you don't actually know of any.

 

[OldLady]

Whenever I see people talking about "the masses", they inevitably place themselves above such.

What is lost in attempts at elitism such as this is that there is an inverse relationship between journalistic integrity and attachment to an ideology. When extremely orthodox ideologues ridicule the masses in this fashion, they are simply attempting to posit their own rigid views as they only ones acceptable.

That's the fanciest 100% flame I've seen in a while.
How's about speaking English and telling us what YOU think of the current state of affairs in journalism. I agree with whichever poster said we've got such a lot of biased sites on both sides right now that people can huddle in their own bubble without being exposed to the alternate viewpoints. That is not good for democracy or conducive to a dialogue that allows for compromise and agreement where possible.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Looks to me like you've exempted the media from the shortcomings of "the masses".

Judging from the slipshod and incomprehensibly biased nature of the reportage we've received from them, it would appear that, rather than being exempt, these shortcomings apply to them even more so.

Whereas the masses are simply ignorant, most of the media is malevolent in its efforts to manipulate public opinion. Among other things, the OP conveniently ignores the decisions of the MSM as to what stories they cover and what stories they intentionally ignore (a classic propaganda technique).

I don't actually think of the media as malicious in their intent. They are simply operators in the market we have set up for them. They NEED views / clicks in order to survive. If they do not get airtime or circulation, they are going to go out of business. The best way to do that is to cater to a (hopefully large) specific audience.

Spoiled Americans have shown that they are unwilling to hear things that they do not like...the easy point in case would be Trumpers' refusal to consume media sources from the left (CNN / NYT) even though they may offer a unique perspective not shown in their own media sources. (The reverse is also true where you rarely will find a liberal who regularly consumes Fox News). So, if you air things that people don't agree with, true or not, you are going to lose viewers / clicks. The only way to really get media to change their actions is to somehow change the environment in which they operate. The easiest answer, in my opinion, would be some sort of oversight body...although somebody may be able to create a way to take them out of the free market entirely...although I have no clue how that would work.

I disagree, the "easiest answer" would be to promote more independent sources. Perhaps the government may be needed to bust up some media monopolies, though. Also there should be financial penalties for deliberately publishing falsehoods.

The FCC was already doing that years ago. The AP needs disbanded as well. They are the source of all "news" The networks just take what the AP gives them and puts more spin on it.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Whenever I see people talking about "the masses", they inevitably place themselves above such....

Whenever I see people talking derisively about "elitism," eventually, assuming I interact with them long enough, it becomes clear they have some sort of inferiority issue. Moreover, what I have observed is that people who are elite in some way tend to be more about giving of themselves than about taking from others; they tend to focus on how they can contribute to something rather than on what they can get from it. Their comments and thoughts of similar -- either explicitly or implicitly -- in nature to the following:

• "This" is what's being done right, well, etc., and "here's" an idea about how we can build on it to make it better still.
• "This" is what's being done poorly, and "here's" an idea about how we can modify it to make it better still.

The contribution may or may not be "earth shaking," but it nonetheless is actionable and improves upon the current state of things.

That "above and below" thing you mention, well, I don't see that nearly as often, though, sure, I have seen it, but generally from people who wish they were something they are not and won't be. I've seen instances of elites exercising efficiency in the use of their resources and, with varying degrees of patience, refuse to indulge recalcitrance, but actually engaging in snobbery, which is what it seems you are describing, to boost themselves by demeaning others, not so much. What would be the point? When one is already elite, how is being snobbish toward someone who isn't doing one any good? It's not. And let's not kid...People who are elite know they are, and people who aren't elite know they are not; neither has cause for shame about whichever they be, but neither need they deny it. Polecats know they stink, and birds of paradise know they're pretty.

Just "reporting" on a story is no longer good enough; they now feel some kind of obligation to provide some degree of analysis, and of course, analysis will almost always include an angle.

I think objectively reporting on a topic is still good enough. I think news organizations think that too for they publish lots of "hard" news stories. What seems more the matter to me is that the increase in the quantity of editorial journalism makes it appear as though there is now a dearth of news reporting.

Anyone who simply collects facts and sets them down is not a reporter. Unless one also weighs the evidence, one is not a journalist; one is a stenographer. News organizations have an obligation to explain complex policy issues, and it was painfully clear in the 2008 election cycle that amidst the obvious nature of our economic distress at the time, the media demanded precisely nothing of substance on the subject from McCain or Obama. This failure has become a persistent gap in subsequent news coverage of the Affordable Care Act, sequestration, the Federal Reserve’s “quantitative easing,” and unemployment.

Partisans and pueriles aide and abet the collapse of objectivity as a journalistic standard when they promote arguments based on the sophomoric notion that objectivity isn’t attainable. Of course it isn’t attainable if there’s no interest in attaining it, but it’s not like objectivity is a Zen koan or some such. What’s required is editors who are smarter and tougher and more fair-minded than the reporters who work for them, and owners who care about the editorial product itself and not just the ads the editorial product attracts. Equally necessary is the audience recognizing when news content is "mere" opinion and when it's sound inductive reasoning.

what passes for "news" today

What is news today is the same thing as it was 50 years ago. What's changed is that news organizations deliver news in the same programs in which they deliver editorial content, and some audience members think the editorial content is presented as news.

The decay of objective reporting is causing this country great damage.

I would sooner argue the decay derives from audience members failure or inability to distinguish among the types of journalism noted in this thread's OP.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Do the masses know what journalism is? My answer is that by and large, I don't think so. Moreover, I don't think Donald Trump and his supporters do. Of if they do, they're deliberately ignoring their awareness of what it is.

Donald Trump has since last year been on a tirade about "the media." He recently declared unilaterally from his "bully pulpit" that the Fourth Estate is an enemy of the American people. Every day we hear the phrase "fake news." Frankly I don't buy any of that crap, and here's why.

Just because information is shared via a news outlet does not in any way in any way make the information be news, nor is the publisher asserting that all the information it shares is news, although all of it is journalism. Journalism is a discipline whereof its practitioners -- journalists -- perform five categories of journalistic activity (journalism):

1. Investigative reporting/journalism (not editorial)
   • Investigative journalism aims to uncover the truth about a particular subject, person, or event. While investigative journalism is based on the basic principle underlying all journalism-verification and accurate presentation of facts-investigative reporters must often work with uncooperative or recalcitrant sources who do not wish to divulge information. Renowned investigative journalism, such as Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein’s uncovering of the Watergate scandal, can upend major institutions and significantly influence public life.
2. News reporting/journalism (not editorial, except when they sneak in some opinion or conjecture)
   • News journalism is straightforward. Facts are relayed without flourishes or interpretation. A typical news story often constitutes a headline with just enough explanation to orient the reader. News stories lack the depth of a feature story, or the questioning approach of an investigative story. Rather, they relay facts, events and information to society in a straightforward, accurate and unbiased manner.
3. Reviews (editorial)
   • Reviews are partly opinion and partly fact based. The review needs to accomplish two things: one, accurately describe or identify the subject being reviewed, and two, provide an intelligent and informed opinion of the subject, based on research and experience.
4. Columns (editorial)
   • Columns are based primarily on the personality of the author, allowing him or her to write about subjects in a personal style. Column writers can take a humorous approach, or specialise in a particular subject area or topic. It’s important for columnists to develop their own voice that is recognisable by their readership. Columnists can interpret events or issues or write about their own personal experiences or thoughts. Columns are usually published weekly.
5. Feature reporting/writing (can be a mix of news and editorial writing)
   • Feature writing provides scope, depth, and interpretation of trends, events, topics or people. Features aim not only to thoroughly explore a topic by conducting interviews with numerous experts or the key people involved, but to offer a previously unseen perspective on an event, issue, or person. Feature writing commonly wins prestigious awards when it manages to achieve this goal. Features usually have the highest word count of all journalism types.

When I watch the news, read a paper or magazine, a journal paper or lecture transcript, I have to consider whether I'm reading an opinion piece or a news piece. I imagine everyone must do the same, but if one doesn't know what are the various types of journalism, one can't make that assessment.

Donald Trump seems among the people who don't actually know the differences between the types of journalism, for he has not, to my knowledge, identified any specific news stories that he considers to be "fake news." Instead, in complete disregard of the fact that they produce pieces of all five genres, he brands entire outlets as "fake news." Alternatively, he declares an entire topic of discussion as "fake news." There's no telling, however, what "fake news" specifically means to Trump and Trumpkins, unless, of course, they expressly define the term. I have yet to see such a definition. Maybe it exists.

By my gleaning, Trump and Trumpkins consider as "fake news" anything not expressly adulatory of Trump and his policies. If a journalist accurately and completely reports a set of events, facts or statements, it's declared "fake news" if it has the potential to harm Trump's presidency/Administration. If a journalist reports information that shows the inaccuracy and/or imprecision of a Trump or Trump Admin. employee's statement, it's declared "fake news." I'm sorry, but such declarations fly in the face of integrity.

Sure, news organizations also have commentators whom they pay to editorialize. Often, their columns aren't news at all, and neither are they trying to be news. Whether it's "fake news" or not isn't even something to consider in such cases as it's a given from the outset that the writer is editorializing, opining.

When a news and information outlet publishes what is meant to be a news piece, audience members yet must receive the information with a critical ear/eye. (Not a criticizing one, but a critical one.) There are clearly instances of wholly made up information and that is rightly called "fake news." A good deal farther down on the spectrum of mischaracterizations in news reporting, yet more insidious because it's so subtle, is the introduction of "coloring" terms into a news piece that "word by word" diminish the story's objectivity. One can see that displayed in the following excerpt from a legitimate news report.

"Perhaps no nation on Earth is more committed to accepting foreign migrants and refugees than Sweden. In 2016 alone, the country accepted more than 160K asylum seekers, despite having a population of less than 10M people. Only 500 of these migrants were able to get jobs in Sweden, but if these arrivals aren't able to work, they're at least able to commit crimes."
​

The narrative above isn't grossly slanted, but it's not purely objective. The statements create an impression that goes beyond the mere telling of events. Do you see the words that do that? It takes very good listening/reading skills to pick up on them, but they are there and they work as intended, which is to say they add connotation to the statements in which they appear. Indeed, that is the very purpose of those words existence in the English language.

The one type of journalism, more than any other, that nobody likes to be the subject of, or even materially connected to, is investigative journalism. This is the type of journalism that the public most needs because it's what informs them of gross misconduct by the people in whom society has placed its greatest degrees of trust. This is the type of news that Trump will call "fake" the instant he gets whiff that such a news story about him is about to break. The public, however, need to know that this type of journalism isn't produced to ruin its object and that it is produced to inform the public and let them decide whether they care about the malfeasance the journalist has uncovered. Care or don't care, but we deserve to know the full story. The only people, aside from law enforcement and they aren't exactly neutral seeing as their goal is to prosecute rather than merely "find out," in our society who have the means to uncover the information.

What strikes me as the biggest problems, however, are:

1. The masses these days have this notion that whatever and all information comes their way is opinion. It seems they cannot tell when a speaker/writer is sharing an opinion and when they are sharing facts and findings.
2. The masses these days appear unable to tell what information is credibly supported. If they don't like the information that comes their way, they declare and discount it as "just an opinion." That wouldn't be a problem except for the fact that opinions supported by the preponderance of evidence rightly must take precedence over less profoundly substantiated ones. Sadly, however, it seems that the opinion that gets the most "likes" is the one that prevails. That's a dangerous way to run a society.
3. The masses aren't well schooled in the processes and techniques of rigorous reasoning. The list of logical fallacies is long, but many folks seem familiar with even half of the fallacious approaches to argument, to say nothing of the other half. That rational naivete leave people vulnerable to all sorts of manipulation. Again, not a good thing.

Almost all "news" stories these days have too much opinion mixed with the facts. A thinking people does not need that.


Also, your disdain for "the masses" is duly noted.

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

Like him, you probably can't give examples because you don't actually know of any.

They're in front of your face, yet you refuse to accept them because they don't play into your far left confirmation bias.

There's nothing I can do for you.

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

Whenever I see people talking derisively about "elitism," eventually, assuming I interact with them long enough, it becomes clear they have some sort of inferiority issue. Moreover, what I have observed is that people who are elite in some way tend to be more about giving of themselves than about taking from others; they tend to focus on how they can contribute to something rather than on what they can get from it. Their comments and thoughts of similar -- either explicitly or implicitly -- in nature to the following:

• "This" is what's being done right, well, etc., and "here's" an idea about how we can build on it to make it better still.
• "This" is what's being done poorly, and "here's" an idea about how we can modify it to make it better still.

The contribution may or may not be "earth shaking," but it nonetheless is actionable and improves upon the current state of things.

That "above and below" thing you mention, well, I don't see that nearly as often, though, sure, I have seen it, but generally from people who wish they were something they are not and won't be. I've seen instances of elites exercising efficiency in the use of their resources and, with varying degrees of patience, refuse to indulge recalcitrance, but actually engaging in snobbery, which is what it seems you are describing, to boost themselves by demeaning others, not so much. What would be the point? When one is already elite, how is being snobbish toward someone who isn't doing one any good? It's not. And let's not kid...People who are elite know they are, and people who aren't elite know they are not; neither has cause for shame about whichever they be, but neither need they deny it. Polecats know they stink, and birds of paradise know they're pretty.

Your dime store psychoanalysis is quite droll, and your belief in altruism is amusingly naïve.

But that rather haughty text brick is instructive, in that you do in fact hold yourself hold yourself exempt from the shortcomings and foibles of "the masses".

Believe me, you're not. Get over yourself.

 

[OldLady]

Like him, you probably can't give examples because you don't actually know of any.

They're in front of your face, yet you refuse to accept them because they don't play into your far left confirmation bias.

There's nothing I can do for you.

Sure there is. You can give me an example.

 

[jwoodie]

you probably can't give examples because you don't actually know of any.

OK, I watched CBS Evening News last night. Lead story was Families Brace for Sudden Deportation, implying that the Trump administration was swooping down to deport entire families solely on the basis of one family member not being a legal resident. No mention was made of criminal activity being the principle criterion, nor that this is a continuation of the previous administration's policy.

Also featured was a report on how well armed ISIS has become and how difficult it will be to evict them from Mosul. This is in obvious contrast to how, just prior to the election, Obama had ISIS on the run and "coalition" forces were sweeping through Mosul with little opposition.

This type of slanted news coverage is on display every night on every major network.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Same as with Trump's blanket judgment that NBC is the Enemy of the American People and that the "media" are liars pumping out "fake news," it would be far more effective a criticism if he/you would supply actual examples of the "fake news," even if only one.
So cough up an example.

Well, let's consider this:

• Fox News anchor apologizes for false report of 'likely' Clinton indictment
  
  • Anchor of 'Special Report' apologizes for using term "indictment." -- The Fox anchor, Bret Baier, in addition to apologizing for asserting that an indictment would likely ensue, when there was no evidence that was in fact so, also notes expressly "every word matters."

I called attention to that retraction/correction because it illustrates that in its actual news reporting, Fox, like CNN, ABC, and the rest of the mainstream media, adheres to high standards of integrity, accuracy and precision. It's really the same standard to which literally everyone should adhere when making public remarks. Private conversations between friends, family and acquaintances is a different matter. Sadly, however, far too often people communicate with others, strangers, as though they are interacting with people whom they know well and have for decades. Doing so foments animosity and is rudely and arrogantly presumptive.

I can point to an instance on USMB of someone's not giving due consideration to all of what they read. It didn't turn into a "big deal," and the member handled the matter maturely. It is nonetheless an illustration of how every word matters.

When it comes to news and content published by news organizations, every word matters. News and editorial authors routinely, though not infallibly or universally, take great pains to carefully choose their words. That only goes so far, however. Readers and viewers have the responsibility to make sure they understand what they've read or heard, as it was presented, before they remark upon it.

 

[Marion Morrison]

you probably can't give examples because you don't actually know of any.

OK, I watched CBS Evening News last night. Lead story was Families Brace for Sudden Deportation, implying that the Trump administration was swooping down to deport entire families solely on the basis of one family member not being a legal resident. No mention was made of criminal activity being the principle criterion, nor that this is a continuation of the previous administration's policy.

Also featured was a report on how well armed ISIS has become and how difficult it will be to evict them from Mosul. This is in obvious contrast to how, just prior to the election, Obama had ISIS on the run and "coalition" forces were sweeping through Mosul with little opposition.

This type of slanted news coverage is on display every night on every major network.

^ And right there is a prime example. I'm sure they gave some time to the Presidents Day "Not my President" protests and attempted to make them seem larger than what they were as well. (That's the only news I watched yesterday.)


I think the problem is in the schools. The schools aren't teaching the children to recognize slanted reporting.