I think it's a problem that in an effort to appear unbiased news shows will often put someone knowledgeable up against just whoever disagrees. Then we get stuff like a respected climate scientist arguing against someone who just digs their heels in and says "this is all make believe" and it is presented as if these are two equally informed opinions when they are not at all.
That seems true to me, but I think that conservatives haven't taken the important next step of trying to explain where that bias comes from and why it exists.
I think media (especially in the US) has a corporate hegemony bias because they are all largely funded and owned by the same few conglomerates. How can I expect to get an unbiased report from experts in the field on issues that these conglomerates want to keep quiet on? Why would the individuals who sit on the boards of Chevron and NBC (pretty much all the same people btw) allow NBC to run stories that might make fossil fuels look bad?
A 2012 Media Matters study of oil think tanks impact on the public’s understanding of climate change concluded that the reason 66% of Americans incorrectly believe that scientists have no consensus on the causes of climate change results from the corporate media “distorting scientific research, hyping faux-scandals, and giving voice to groups funded by industries that have a financial interest in blocking action on climate change.”
2 in 3 Americans believe something which is breathtakingly wrong
(there absolutely is a consensus on climate change) but of course they think that because many of the guest spots and and hosts on news shows are directly funded by groups friendly to the fossil fuel industry.
Sinclair Broadcast Group is the largest owner of television stations in the United States, currently owning or operating a total of 193 outlets across the country in nearly 80 markets, ranging from markets as large as Washington, D.C. to as small as Steubenville, Ohio.
The stations are affiliates of various television networks, including ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox as well as numerous specialty channels.
Then they force all their stations (national to local) to read stories from the same script.
Back from 2004 so they have since gained more stations but for example stuff like:
Sinclair has ordered its 62 television stations to run the 40-minute film "Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal," in which former U.S. prisoners of war criticize Kerry's role in the Vietnam-era antiwar movement.
Leiberman told CNN he had raised objections within the company to airing the film as a news program, and "just basically said, 'I don't want to be a part of it.'" He said he was warned not to go public with his objections and was canned when he did.
They're all the same. A handful of billionaires control all the news media outlets in the USA. Six corporations control 90% of media in the USA - not just news media, *all* media. Everything you watch, listen to, read. The Koch Brothers have their tendrils in everything. There's no ideological battle between "liberal" and "conservative" billionaires that own the media. There's just different flavors of the same product.
That's why I gotta go read some random nobody news source or tiny specialty journal (or RT ffs) to find out that the fracking industry dumped 3 b
illion gallons of fracking wastewater into California's drinking water and agriculture aquifers in 2014, or that American Petroleum together with the largest oil companies figured out they were negatively impacting the global environment back in the 1970s
and covered it up like they did with leaded gasoline. It definitely gets 0 airtime on the mainstream media.
The USA is in the midst of investigating the largest price fixing cartel in US history
and I hear basically nothing at all about it on the mainstream news. WaPo gave it some scant coverage in December in a couple online articles (would link but they are paywalled. Easy enough to search up, though).
An antitrust lawsuit that started two years ago and involved just two companies has expanded to include 16 companies and more than 300 generic drugs.
“This is most likely the largest cartel in the history of the United States,” Joseph Nielsen, an assistant attorney general and antitrust investigator in Connecticut who has been a leading force in the probe, said in an interview with The Washington Post, citing the volume of drugs in the schemes and the total number of companies and individuals involved.
This should be story #1. They are gouging prices on things like insulin!!! Asthma inhalers!!! Meanwhile we have people begging on Patreon for insulin money (that guy died
) or rationing their supply while the federal gov't doesn't pay them. Also, in case you're less empathetic, that directly translates to higher costs and higher insurance premiums for everyone involved. It's money out of all our pockets.
But somehow the conversation, assuming there is one at all, on all the mainstream news channels ('liberal' to 'conservative') is all about how "well we pay more per capita here in the USA for healthcare with worse results because we foot all the R&D dontcha know!" Oh yeah definitely. That's definitely why we pay way more for a worse result. All that R&D. Just ignore that at least half of that is footed by the gov't in the first place but hey. Oh, most of your board also sits on the board of big pharma companies? Cool. Nothing weird there at all probably.
For me the problem then is that it takes the average person a lot of time and effort to wade through all the crap and check a dozen different sources and analyze the various perspectives and get a glean on what might actually be happening. People don't have the time for that, definitely not on every issue. Just trying to be an informed citizen is itself becoming a full time job.
e: there's my periodic effort post for this thread!!