Former White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders blasted the media for opinionated reporting during a Wednesday appearance on Fox Business Network.
Sanders, who debuted as a Fox News contributor earlier this month, was on the show to discuss a litany of examples involving Trump and his allies' relationship with the media.
She and anchor David Asman discussed how the New York Times botched a story about Justice Brett Kavanaugh, publishing another allegation of sexual misconduct against him but failing to mention the alleged victim has no recollection of the incident.
More
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
14 comments:
I hope irony of a Fox news contributor imploring the media to remove it's opinion out of the news isn't lost on everyone. I see she listed the New York Times, Politico, and CNN... but... come on.
Does anyone anywhere think that Fox News isn't skewed and biased and opinionated either?
Her point is true, and I wish the same as she does.
I don't think there will be any change unless the business model changes. It's not news anymore, it's news "entertainment"... specifically designed to stroke confirmation biases to keep eyes affixed to it, in turn accomplishing the REAL goal... selling advertising.
It's about advertising.
Like it or not... sources like NPR or the BBC are most likely to have the best most credible news.. EVEN when it is recognized to have a slight liberal bend... because they have a decidedly different business model.
This "news entertainment" is what happens when capitalism and consumers run the show. It's OUR fault. Not the media's fault. They simply give to us what we want, in turn it sells ads. Period. Hard Stop.
Like it or not, if you want better news... public funding to news sources will have to happen. Call it what you want, pretend that it's socialism... but this problem will not change unless there is a robust public news source.
The problem just isn't the national news outlets. All across the country the local newspapers and TV stations have become more liberal and opinionated in their stories.
815, so you think once news agencies are funded BY the government, they won't have a pro-government, big government agenda? You either have to be a former Soviet, or a Millennial who doesn't remember Pravda.
8:15,
NPR or the BBC? NPR is a load of crap! I can't listen to it for very long anymore. Every other story is a bleeding heart piece about the unfair treatment or hardship of being a single mother or an LGBTQ or an immigrant.
I lean right, but get my news from a wide variety of sources. Since it takes more effort than most people are willing to give it, I believe there's still a large market for unbiased news. I think the leadership of the country and the news media are far more polarized than the vast majority of the people. Most people just want to know what is happening and make up their own minds.
Sarah Sanders is right. Maybe someone in the news business will wake up and see it.
BBC and NPR ran the kavanah impeachment story and have not apologized for being totally wrong. also with out taking breath ran Russia Collision story for 3 years. BBC is currently doing a segment on teaching kids that their are 100 genders and if you disagree you are typical talking points. NPR has run climate crisis for 4 DECADES and refusing illegals is racist per 700 articles. I could go on all day.. thank you.
In my day the media weren't supposed to have an opinion and never give it just report the news. Wish we could go back to those days, but then again we know once you open that barn door well it'll never close.
The media does exactly what it is instructed to do by its owners. There are 5 companies that control US media. They are owned by our masters.
The media tells the people how to think about matters important to our masters. That is how it works.
The Sanders family knows this fact and any efforts to say otherwise is a lie.
@ September 19, 2019 at 9:01 AM
I don't understand this argument at all.
Which media do you think will be more biased? One that is focused on selling advertising, and and advertising dollars form large corporations are the source of their income? Or a news organization not beholden to anyone but themselves, independent to operate as journalists, funded by tax payers.
Which one of these will deliver the most unbiased news? The question was rhetorical as the answer is obvious.
Tax payer funded NPR news is not The Government News. This is not the argument being made and it is a misrepresentation to suggest it. It is an independent journalistic organization that is not beholden to interest groups funding it, in turn it is free to exercise true journalism.
I too consume news through many sources, and while I recognize as with all media it is impossible to be completely neutral, and NPR can be skewed left a bit, it is consistently the most newsworthy and un-skewed news source.
First step is listen with intent to separate fact from opinion. Second is anyone interviewed other than a police spokesman(remember Joe Friday, just the facts) is being ask there opinion. Third work on these skills because like tele-marketers and non live human callers its is getting harder to tell.
And the revered Cronkite is the one that opened that barn door by speaking out against the Vietnam war.
OMG 1010. What do you think "funded by tax payers" means? It means it gets it's money from the government. How do you think it keeps those funds flowing? By reporting that which pleases those who provide the funding.
You can thank Reagan for the babbling commentary we see today. It is not news. It is mostly commentary.
@ September 19, 2019 at 11:57 AM
This is why the organization is independent yet funded by tax payers. It doesn't answer to, nor is it held accountable by, nor is it's funding contingent upon directives of the Government.
Unlike other media sources who are at the mercy of their owners, their investors, and mostly their advertisers.
If you have any other options for creating a mostly unbiased news source believe me I'm all ears... I'm just not seeing that it is possible.
Just know that your characterization of a public media source funded by the government is wholly inaccurate.
132, you're naivety to the influence of government over those it funds is boundless, or you're a mouthpiece for big government bureaucracy. Either way, it's frightening.
Post a Comment