Why is the right wing media less trustworthy then the left?

[XDurionX]

Once right wingers stop dubbing every outlet they disagree with as "left" no matter how objective it is, the better media outlets will become centrist again.

[anyaka21]

I'd probably rank MSNBC about the equivalent of Fox News in terms of bias, but at least they sort of pretend to be neutral compared to say.. Sean Hannity at Fox News -
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b0ffa5937e6cd2

I'd actually probably rank CNN about in the middle with a slight liberal bias, regardless of what Trump supporters think.

Like I said in my previous post. Consume everything with the knowledge of the biases they're projecting.

I would definitely disagree with this. CNN or the Clinton News Network (as it has become to be known) is definitely biased. Just look at the video clips where when someone even mentions wikileaks, esp repub senators, they somehow lose the connection... It's a joke.

[Ghier]

I'd actually probably rank CNN about in the middle with a slight liberal bias

You have got to be kidding.

[faithbane]

This is exactly my point. They are both bad. yet the right wing media is viewed as allways bad while people still believe crap the left is throwing

Well you are missing the real point. Both right wing and left wing media had been extremely subjective in their point of view and never claimed otherwise. They are both extremely biased on MANY issues but right wing media was actually caught flat out lying, falsifying facts and deliberately publishing misinformation on numerous occasions. That is the main difference why right wing media is at a different kind of low then left.

[TwoNineMarine]

Both sides suck ass.

They really do.

But people in this country are so ready to blow Clinton that they could not care less what she does or what's reported etc.

[Enthusiastic Steward]

Its not. News has become a business with vested corporate interest. Fox News saw a market and tailored their product to tap into it, just as the 'liberal media' does the other way.
Does your news interrupt any genuine reporting to bring you a pointless uninformed twitter post from Dude McGuy from Fuckknows where? Then its not news. Its product.

[unbound]

Every time I post an article from BreitBart FoxNews or dailymail allot of people wrinkle their noes and go "oh its from that place..."

How ever what wikileaks...

Which has already been caught manipulating content to support the Russian government (who would really like the guy in their pocket, Trump, to win). So, not really a great source either...

One of the problems you are likely encountering is understanding the origin of the sources. New York Times has a long history of being largely reliable. Huffington Post is not quite as questionable as Breitbart or FoxNews, but I tend to avoid that site as much as possible myself as it is distinctly left-leaning and isn't reliable enough for my taste. Fox News was started by Roger Ailes who was a former Republican media consultant (for Richard Nixon in 1968, Ronald Reagan in 1984, and George H. W. Bush in 1988) and was known for producing Rush Limbaugh’s television show long before Fox News was started, so the RW bent has been there since the beginning and Fox News has been caught time and time and time again (ad nauseam) twisting facts and outright lying with little journalistic integrity. Breitbart is a more extreme cousin of Fox News with no journalistic integrity whatsoever.

The other problem you are likely encountering is understanding that the world is not black and white. It is not composed of just left wing news and right wing news. New York Times and Washington Post are, in fact, mildly right-leaning...they only appear left-leaning when compared to the extreme right wing sites like Fox News and Breitbart. Huffington Post is moderately left-leaning while a news site like Mother Jones (who you've probably not heard of) would be strongly left-leaning (although tends to have at least a bit more journalistic integrity than Fox News). As mentioned Fox News is strongly right-leaning, but Breitbart is extremist right-leaning.

The role of the journalist should be to inform the public, to present the facts at they are, and for the reader to make up his own mind. It shouldn't be to present half truths or to make up stories and become propaganda mouth pieces for a presidential candidate.

In addition to that, they need to make sure that they present the facts in proper context...something that true left and true right media typically fail to do. It is funny that you mention half-truths, something that Fox News is regularly guilty of...so much so that The Daily Show pretty much exists because of the constant streams of lies and half-truths that are easily debunked.

[antelope591]

You have got to be kidding.

Every time I turn CNN on they have one of his blonde surrogates on or that douche Jeffrey Lord trying to spin Trump's latest blunder into oblivion....so yeah I'd say CNN is pretty balanced, but of course anything to the left of Fox News is LIBRUL PROPAGANDA to the cons.

[Forgettable]

They are all equally not trustworthy. All of them. You're never going to get the full, accurate, and unbiased story anywhere. Not even on "alternative" news sites. Everyone has an agenda. None of them actually benefit humanity in a positive way.

Well said.

[kaelleria]

You have got to be kidding.

Actually read or watch their content and not random cherry picked videos. They've covered a fair amount of both sides in most of their segments. Just because Trump supporters want to pivot to WikiLeaks whenever they're on the air even if the segment is on something unrelated and the hosts won't let them doesn't mean the same stuff doesn't happen to Clinton supporters.

Almost all of their shows have a balance of Trump supporters and Clinton supporters. For fucks sake they literally had Kellyanne Conway on yesterday.

Lets think about this for a second... Random incendiary thing that Trump says vs relatively benign WikiLeaks dump. What are most outlets going to cover more? If Trump could get out of his own way, WikiLeaks probably would have gotten a lot more coverage this cycle.

[Wildtree]

Every time I post an article from BreitBart FoxNews or dailymail allot of people wrinkle their noes and go "oh its from that place..."

How ever what wikileaks showed us recently is journalists from renowned papers like the new york time and Huffington post colaborating with Hillarys campaign manager , throwing objectivity out the window

1. WikiLeaks showed us actually nothing.
Fact: WikiLeaks released batches of emails. Those must be discarded, if nothing else, then for the circumstance that they can be ( and many likely are) altered and severely faked. That's just the nature of the material.
One could sneak an email in that claims how your mother had a threesome with Bill Clinton and Putin, while Trump was watching.
While that's hopelessly exaggerated, it still showcases the fact. Emails can be faked, since they're nothing more than some ASCII code in a large file.
In order to validate their originality one needs access to the hardware involved. The one from the recipient as well as that of the senders.
Now, are all the emails released by WikiLeaks fake? Likely not. But, which ones are altered, which ones are complete fake, and which are original, cannot be said with certainty, hence why the entire batch of emails is worthless crap.
If we consider how they were obtained, it's even a whole pile of horseshit.

2. Breitbart...
Breitbart is not a news outlet, as such. It's a far right fringe platform that makes 90% of its news outright up.
It creates such enlightening "news" like Michelle Obama ain't a woman, or Chelsea Clinton isn't Bill's daughter, since he only shoots blanks, and Hillary is a sex addicted lesbian.
Sorry, such outlets are not news outlets.

3. Daily Mail
That's a boulevard paper. It's value is in line with the New York Post (US), The Sun (UK), National Enquirer (US), Bild (GER).
Every country has such outlets which aren't even worth the paper to wipe ones ass with in case of an emergency...

[IntellectuallyChallenged]

I'll just add that even in high school journalism class (in 1987), one of the first things we were taught is that slander, libel, and yellow journalism were huge no-nos and just were not done. Now, it's all you see. There is nothing fair, honest, or respectable about any news media of any kind these days.

[Draco-Onis]

I am still waiting for the left conspiracy theory equivalent of Obama is a secret, gay, lizard man, Muslim.

[Underverse]

Some media outlets shift to the left or right with greater magnitude. Breitbart and Fox are hard-right. CNN is center-left. Why would anyone treat these the same? There are hard-left 'news' sources that no one takes seriously. Left-minded folk just don't cite them very often because they recognize that they're basically propaganda promulgatists.

[Mstermeg]

The media isn't there to imform you, it is there to control you. The media and different news channels will write or talk about whatever the person paying them wants them to. There is no "Left Wing" or "Right Wing", this is an idea the elite came up with to get the commoners to squabble amongst themselves while the rich continue to rob them blind. You really think there is any difference between Trump or Hillary? They both aim to enrich themselves and laugh all the way to the bank while you argue over pointless stuff like "elections".

[Deleted]

Generally from self admittance from people who use the right media that it's bad, but it's okay because the left media is just as bad because why not?

You always appear in this circlejerk threads trying to prove that right-wing stuff isn't bad. But I don't know man, you are starting to sound hollow. Like, right-wing media sites can't pass factcheck but you can't give me one example of left-wing news that fails in similar way.

[Mad_Murdock]

So my question is. How are the left media any more credible?! How are they respectable then the right?!

Who said the left is more credible, The left? Ask anyone on the right, who is a Fox news fan and they'll argue that the Fox news is more credible.

I'm fine with a news source being slightly biased. My issues come in, when either side goes full on bias to the point painfully obvious that they are full on bias. Personally, I think everyone would benefit from watching and reading both sides. Don't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and scream "He's an idiot" work out why he he is an idiot and at the same time, ponder if anything he says is true.

It also helps if everyone keeps in mind what others have posted. News is now a product. Strife, fear, conflict sells! Don't let the NEWS outlets play you for chumps. I personally think a touch of distrust is good when reading the news, assume they aren't telling you everything.

[Wildtree]

I'll just add that even in high school journalism class (in 1987), one of the first things we were taught is that slander, libel, and yellow journalism were huge no-nos and just were not done. Now, it's all you see. There is nothing fair, honest, or respectable about any news media of any kind these days.

Libel and Slander are pretty much only in the US a problem.
It's a side effect of the first amendment, which is in some parts simply too generous.
The rest of the free world is just as free, and can express itself just as much as Americans can and do, sans the out of line insults and libel/slandering.

[Darkeon]

Both and all are equally bad.

And do note, less trustworthy doesn't mean that they don't publish truth once in a while. So remember, criticize the content, not the source.

[Cerilis]

On the other hand, why is wikileaks fully trustworthy anyway?