Message from @Dr.Wol
Discord ID: 430479465022488576
But news agencies have taken political stances before, and tried to send political messages before.
This exact message and this exact video, maybe not, but it's still indictative of the structure that's in place.
political would be "gun control is bad" for example
not "we are trustworthy"
I would say it is given the 'fake news is bad' message, especially when you take into account that by 'fake news' they typically mean alternative media.
and yes the structure in place could be abused... but not really that much more than any nationwide channel
so, if Hillary Clinton would say "Don't listen to other candidates, listen to me, i'm trustworthy",
that would constitute non-political to you?
activist news is bad?
politicians are inherently political
so is news
it shouldn't be
any news story will affect your view on society
but that's not politics
news is somethign happened
news inherently is not
and who and where
any and all news,
affects your view on society
Since when does the MSM report on 'just the facts' without a political slant?
even hearing that a litter of kittens is born,
it gives you positivity, makes you feel like the world is doing better
which then can be turned on you if you're told others are not as fortunate and you start to feel bad
And that's assuming the best.
And don't forget that even the lack of the presentation of a story can be a political stance in and of itself. Even picking and choosing which stories they present, even if they did it 'without a political slant', will itself push a particular political message or agenda.
The Parkland shooting was all over the MSM for days, and is now leading into the gun control discussion again; however, another school shooting which took place only about a week later, one in which the shooter was taken out by a security officer with a gun before he could do any real damage, was barely even mentioned in anything other than that county's local news.
And even afterward, they continue to push the Parkland story.
I wonder why that is, exactly?
And even within the Parkland shooting itself. How many MSM outlets were reporting about not only one, but *four* Sherif's deputies were standing outside of the school doing absolutely nothing while the shooter went on his rampage?
You can use news to further an political agenda, that is not in question. But the news itself is first and foremost something that happened.
In theory, that's how it is supposed to work.
That is what i mean when i say that news in inherently not political while a politician is.
the point of it all is,
Even though the message reported might not be intended to mean anything than promotion,
It tells you that A, these medias are all a mouthpiece for the same goal.
And if they all publish the same "narrative" the people will be inclined to believe the message because "look, they all say it"
and B, the content of their message is an attempt to get you to tune out other sources in favor of theirs, which can as they say themselves, be dangerous to a democracy, when people only get 1 account of things
The news isn't supposed to be political, but right now it's just a mouthpiece for a particular political agenda.
And we're not talking about the idea of news, but the practical reality as it exists right now.
also news "SHOULD" be inherently not political,
Modern news is factiosn telling their take on an incident, rather than report the incident itself
And back to the spot... yes i see the potential for abuse (mainly because the stations run under different banners) but the spot itself is not different to other spots.
Too many journalists see their work as an opportunity to promote their own pet political notions, rather than a responsibility to inform the public and let their readers and viewers decide for themselves.
I know of very few people i would call journalists.
Writer/Activist/Idiot is a lot more common.
haha
That is funny.