59% of adults think the media should present the facts with no interpretation

[veehro]

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank...ampaign=buffer

This does not surprise me as i grew up in an age where "people forming their own opinion" was encouraged.
The role of the journalist was to present the facts as objectively as possible rather then to turn into an activist and try to shape public opinion.

What do you guys think?

[Deleted]

it's a nice sentiment but it tends to go out the window because at the end of the day the truth itself doesn't make you (as much) money.

[Deleted]

Been looking for objective news site for many years...no luck. It's all subjective, biased and influenced by politics and money.

[Trumpcat]

Yes, but the profit in journalism isn't about staying as neutral as possible. The profit is in influencing opinion so delicately you would seem neutral.

Now, this past year we saw the "delicately" part has completely evaporated. Medias are outright bluntly and directly doing untrue negative coverage, it is so blatant it's beyond disgusting. But they do it anyway, because it actually works on a lot of people.

It is so arrogant and insolent it actually turned many from the "liberal" standpoints to the "conservative" standpoints, just because people were so appalled.

[Alvito]

Been looking for objective news site for many years...no luck. It's all subjective, biased and influenced by politics and money.

It always has been. Even if it wasn't for the purpose of money, people interpret facts and information differently. You and I could both see the same thing and have two completely ideas of what just happened or where thing really get dragged into the mud why it happened.

[KrazyK923]

What a shock that the fairness doctrine went away under Reagan and our shit media skyrocketed into what we have now.

[Kasierith]

Went out the window when people started veering away from newspapers and such that spent decades building their reputations, and started suckling on main stream tv sources on both sides. People at this point are complaining because the grave they've dug for themselves has gotten too deep.

[Laerrus]

Yes, but the profit in journalism isn't about staying as neutral as possible. The profit is in influencing opinion so delicately you would seem neutral.

Now, this past year we saw the "delicately" part has completely evaporated. Medias are outright bluntly and directly doing untrue negative coverage, it is so blatant it's beyond disgusting. But they do it anyway, because it actually works on a lot of people.

It is so arrogant and insolent it actually turned many from the "liberal" standpoints to the "conservative" standpoints, just because people were so appalled.

I was especially disappointed with Erin Burnett and Anderson Cooper this past year. You used to be able to count on them to go middle of the road and ask tough questions of everyone, that doesn't seem to be the case any more.

I was pleasantly surprised by Chris Wallace though, he seemed to play a pretty clean game in the final debate.

[Bullettime]

Went out the window when people started veering away from newspapers and such that spent decades building their reputations, and started suckling on main stream tv sources on both sides. People at this point are complaining because the grave they've dug for themselves has gotten too deep.

The Fairness Doctrine was also killed under Reagan which led the way for conspiracy bullshit and fake news to begin its gestation period in the 90s, culminating in the shitshow that the media has become, especially in the last 8 years.

It simply makes more money and Obama winning the presidency was the final thing to make the bullshit flower bloom. Companies have seen just how much money they can make from said bullshit so there's no stopping it.

[Garnier Fructis]

What do you guys think?

There are some subjects where people a lot of people believe something that's factually false. So even if the media just presented facts, people would still be complaining about bias. This is a consequence of the fact that what is true and what is fair are not always the same.

I don't give a fuck about what's fair. I want what's true.

[Lady Dragonheart]

I don't know if posing completely factual, unchanging, unbiased evidence and stating it as news that will sell is entirely possible in the real world. There would be too much omitted content and the content would be boring to watch/read/review. It simply wouldn't work in today's (or any era's) world, people care way too much about being entertained, watching drama unfold, and following political agendas that there never will be room for such news to survive the media market, let alone exist in the first place. It is an unrealistic notion, it is far easier to come to your own conclusions and trusting your own understandings about what's going on in the world with your own research into the matter.

[Flextt]

This is from PEW... maybe these same adults should start paying for quality journalism from quality news outlets. Then these outlets wouldnt have to rely on clicks or other unsustainable business models.

[veehro]

I hope those people don't think "just the facts" mean it's necessarily free of slant or bias.

its still better then the alternative.

The reason we have journalists is because i as a person cannot be everywhere at once to see what goes on in the world. Hence why you have the journalist doing that for you and that every morning you have the info of what happened in the country.

At least that used to be the job of journalists. Now a days most journalists are tought from university that they have to be activists that they have a duty to make the people think "the right way".

Whenever you see a story in the news about X was accused of rape Y was accused of being a racist etc.
How many times do they actually contact X or Y to get his side of the story and hear a statement from that person?

[Independent voter]

Associated Press and Reuters present just the facts, usually. Both of these news outlets sell their stories to hundreds or thousands of newspapers and to do that they have to remain very neutral.

[Noradin]

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank...ampaign=buffer

This does not surprise me as i grew up in an age where "people forming their own opinion" was encouraged.
The role of the journalist was to present the facts as objectively as possible rather then to turn into an activist and try to shape public opinion.

What do you guys think?

Some interpretation is required for almost all topics, but it should be clearly marked what are facts and what are interpretations and/or opinions of the journalists.

[OperationFerret]

That sounds nice on paper but in reality when people go to a news source they go there specifically because they already have a certain bias in mind - they're looking for a certain tone or angle and a journalist will exploit that to stay in business.

In the end everyone wants their favorite source to be a bastion of objectivity but interpretation doesn't have to be a bad thing. As the reader I need to care about the information being presented if I'm going to read the whole article.

[Deleted]

It always has been. Even if it wasn't for the purpose of money, people interpret facts and information differently. You and I could both see the same thing and have two completely ideas of what just happened or where thing really get dragged into the mud why it happened.

Objective facts is the only thing I want to hear. I don't mind what opinion will other people form after that, but what I hate is that someone is forcing their opinion on me and media is doing just that.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't know if posing completely factual, unchanging, unbiased evidence and stating it as news that will sell is entirely possible in the real world. There would be too much omitted content and the content would be boring to watch/read/review. It simply wouldn't work in today's (or any era's) world, people care way too much about being entertained, watching drama unfold, and following political agendas that there never will be room for such news to survive the media market, let alone exist in the first place. It is an unrealistic notion, it is far easier to come to your own conclusions and trusting your own understandings about what's going on in the world with your own research into the matter.

It has never been tried. Some tried to fake it with "fact checks" but it all turned out to be just counter propaganda.
Why don't we at least give it a try?

[downnola]

From the article:

One thing the public does approve of to encourage clarity in presenting the news: fact-checking. The vast majority of registered voters say that fact-checking is a responsibility of the news media.

The public doesn't want bias or interpretation added to news, but they feel that fact checking is a responsibility of the media? Who are the numbskulls they surveyed for this? They don't have a clue what they're asking for, and like always, they want their hands held instead of thinking for themselves.

Pew should've asked those people to explain in plain English what an editorial and op-ed are. I doubt less than half would be able to do so.

[LilSaihah]

It has never been tried. Some tried to fake it with "fact checks" but it all turned out to be just counter propaganda.
Why don't we at least give it a try?

It has been tried. A 'true news' channel on youtube pops up every now and then; they have a lot of difficulty getting traction so they lean one way or the other with an ideological slant to accelerate their growth. Really boring, but it's true. Still usable, though, if you have a varied online diet and understand that Alex Jones is more entertainment than news.

Government broadcasting is supposed to be available to avoid the partisanship but that's still dependent on government funding.

All this said, the free exchange of information is still going to provide the best news possible. Self-reporting makes it more difficult to spin the news and provides facts both in a more timely and in a more accurate fashion. Web news compilers aren't perfect, but they are both as sensitive to their consumers as they were prior to the internet and more competitive in delivering what people want. Beyond that, it's just making more intelligent people who are better able to fish through the various spins of media.

[belfpala]

Which facts a person or entity chooses to present is a matter of opinion and interpretation.

Headline story could be: "Cop shoots highschool student in front of classmates." (was on my TV a minute ago)
Or it could be: "Johnny Depp is the most overpaid actor." (Also on my TV a minute ago)