Considering it goes through a lot of filters: Primary sources>Staff Researchers>Editors>Reporter>You.
There's a lot of room in that sequence to basically change what the actually story was to something completely obtuse.
Even with this big opportunity for bias, there's still a good chance that what you are getting as coverage is fairly accurate.
But there is always a fundamental reason as to why programs like Fox News are far from accurate and it has a lot to do with the fact that they are privately owned and get a lot more leniency than say, PBS.
There are a lot less restrictions on private companies that use airways done by the FCC because people have to pay to watch these shows. For example, South park isn't freely available on the airways as is PBS which you can pick up from anywhere.
Because you came into an agreement with this particular company to purchase their product, it's basically like saying that you agree that whatever it is that you are watching is what you paid for.
It's not fair all in all but there's a price to be paid. I still think above all of that news coverage is still fairly accurate.
The base questions to every text, every study, every TV-documentary is: Who made it, and why? Who pays the person who made it? Which political parties does the maker or his employer approve? Who is behind it? And where came the money from?
Even science is not free from these influences. If there is any study - regardless of whether it is about the usage of a medicament or whether it is advocating a certain political decision: First of all, ask where the money came from.
You can do some Internet research about the owners of the Media you usually get your info from. Then you'll have a basic idea about who writes what. If I read a negative article about a certain politician, and I know that the owner of the newspaper is a close friend of the leader of a competitor political party, well I'll know what's up. But if I read a negative article about a politician, and I know that the owner of the newspaper is a close friend to the leader of the SAME party, that's a completely different story.
Hey. Brilliant answer :) I saw in the news not long ago that Obama openly criticized Fox News in one of the press conferences because of that same explanation you provided.
I personally believe that this is tragic because it means that we cannot simply believe what we see but must always question if what we are seeing is true or not. In order to know what is true we must look at the issue from all the different perspectives possible and from there use our own common sense and extrapolate what we think is the correct answer. hahah a bit radical but in my opinion we should not allow private companies to have control over the media.
lol, and let the government be in control of it? I think that would probably be the most disagreeable way to use money. I mean I would say just more regulation to the private companies :)
You know what? I think you're right if you put it that way. haha but who would actually want to motivate and encourage the private companies to do what's 'right'?