This is extremely dangerous to our democracy.The press should always be trusted.

https://www.instagram.com/thejrecompanion/reel/DEKN46zRB_u/?...

I'd rephrase that... The press should always be worthy of our trust, but unfortunately has a history of being driven by ideology, money, and the desire to build an audience.

I think there's a distinction to be made between different scales of media. I find my local news sources fairly reliable and trustworthy; if they say some new statewide laws are coming into effect or that there's a big traffic jam due to a water main break, that's something you can hang your hat on.

National-level news, however, is a steaming pile of poo. There's always a juicy story happening somewhere, and national outlets lean heavily into superficial entertainment/shock value instead of "boring but very relevant" kinds of coverage you'd find locally. You can see this on cable news where they parade nutjobs in front of cameras from places that don't matter to most Americans. Why is it so important for non-leadership House reps from local districts in Georgia or New York to regularly have a national audience?

I've watched a fair amount of local news, and I don't trust TV news at all.

The local TV news is nearly completely sanitized against anything that threatens anyone in power and anything that makes anyone think a little.

A major portion of the news every night is a "superficial entertainment/shock value" covering of all the petty crimes and murders that happened.

The point of news is to threaten or speak truth to power. It's to report when people are using their power for their own self interest at the cost of others. It's to inform us of the things we should know about so we can potentially take action or make informed political decisions.

The most powerful person in America throwing a Sieg Heil should have been the fore front of every major media platform, but it wasn't. Later, at least 4 prominent people in that person's party threw Sieg Heil's and there was more silence. Stories around immigration are covered over stories about the hollowing out of social services or compromise of positions of enforcement which is a prelude to breaking the law. The legal system is being dismantled, but immigrants are the main focus of the story...

Reddit is an absolutely low bar, but frankly, a person who consumes the default Reddit front page and their local subreddit is much more informed with facts about what matters than a person who consumes local (tv) news.

Sinclair, Tegna, or other major companies own many stations, and if they own a station, you are getting oligarch news, you aren't going to get news that challenges oligarchic power. Immigrants fundamentally empower oligarchs. In the good times they aren't able to practice solidarity (which is why they left their country to begin with), which helps them suppress the costs of labor. In the bad times they are a scapegoat, to both distract from narratives that might harm them, and as a target to point a finger at so angry mobs chase the immigrants, rather than the oligarchs who stole their wealth.

Modern news in almost all forms serves power rather than challenges it.

That is what happens when the press is owned by a few billionaires or a couple of large media companies.

As I mentioned before, no 1 entity (includes all subsidizes, immediate family) should own no more than 3 Media Outlets. Media includes all kinds of Social Media, Broadcasting (Radio, TV Streaming) and Entertainment creation companies (like Fox, CBS).

This was pretty much forecasted when the fairness doctrine was eliminated.

We used to have half-decent media-reach ownership rules, but those have been greatly relaxed this century, and desperately need to be strengthened and extended to the Web.

A big leap was when the then-independent big three TV networks sold themselves to conglomerates. I think all three sold in the 1980s.

I agree that we need to break up large conglomerates and corporations, but I don’t think this is what caused the decline in media trust. The media breathlessly reporting fake stories and denying true ones did.

As it should be, because they only keep getting less and less reliable and trustworthy. They might say something true and factful, then 20 minutes later spew out another story that is 90% lies and/or ignorance. You can't just read the news and be informed, you need to pick apart each and every topic and article in order to discern truth from a jumble of lies, omissions, and opinionated slants. The only common denominator is they like the most inflammatory views as possible to push engagement.

Headline 1: Spins a Trump campaign speech that sounded like a skipping record and contained at least three separate insane statements any one of which would have instantly ended a campaign 20 years ago, including vague and apropos-nothing praise for Hannibal Lecter and the suggestions that he’s a real person, as normal

Headline 2: “Biden acts senile again”

Yeah, they suck. Of course, I’ve thought that about them since the run-up to Iraq War II, so.

When the ownership of nearly all press consumed by the Population (especially if you go by viewership/subscribers) is controlled by conservative billionaires it is no surprise that the “left wing” media (also largely controlled by billionaires) is only liberal on issues that have little chance of making a difference in order to maintain the vague illusion of even having a liberal media.

When it came down to important conservative issues those media platforms can then be used to influence opinion on the issues that do matter (like the election).

Turley is a gaslighter and should not receive any attention.

I've never heard of him, but just reading the short bio at the end of this strongly suggests he's not exactly an objective observer either:

> Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”

The bio left out the part mentioning he's a regular Fox News contributor.

He also was a regular MSNBC contributor, what is your point?

My point is that he's biased off to the right

In the last few years, I learned how even if the media is truthful in its reporting, and fact checked, it can still be propaganda. It's what the media isn't reporting, that also matters.

For example, according to the mainstream media, nothing good ever happens in China. 1.4 billion people and not a single good thing happens there. It seems like it's 95% negative stories about China, 4% neutral, and 1% positive. Americans don't even know the daily lives and how people in China live. The typical HN commenter is just as clueless which shows how united the mainstream media is on China. No objectivity at all. Pure propaganda.

Maybe it's just because people are finally developing critical thinking? Trusting anything you are being told in public was a very bad idea ever since the Catholic Church was formed.

I really don’t understand what in 2025 lead you to possibly believe that people are suddenly developing critical thinking skills.

The US just essentially voted a pro qanon party into power who is currently in the process of destroying the world.

Certain right wing figures have spent decades coordinating an alternative media infrastructure whose only goal was to sow doubt about truths that were inconvenient to their political aims.

Any discussion of public media trust that doesn’t include this as a component of analysis is immediately suspect.

An analysis that claims that public mistrust in media is because the media did not create more space for right wing obfuscation and disinformation is at best misguided. In practice, it is more likely another element of the campaign that created the problem in the first place.

There are many valid criticisms of the modern press. “They didn’t conform to the right wing’s warped presentation of reality” is not one of them.

This comment's absolutely and completely misguided and nakedly partisan/tribal viewpoint almost perfectly describes the issue with the media: A complete and utter lack of understanding that perhaps some opposing viewpoints are also valid and worthy of discussion, which then leads to completely biased and untrustworthy activist reporting.

> how journalists and journalism schools have destroyed their own profession by rejecting objectivity and engaging in open advocacy journalism

I think there is a modern problem where subjective truths, that is truths believed but open to challenge, are seen as weakness and are presented as objective. I started that last sentence with "I think". Today those two words would be omitted by many writers.

What do people think of ground.news? And what about:

- The Economist

- Reuters

- The Associated Press

It seems many people trust sources on Facebook and TikTok that report objective lies and spoon-feed black/white takes. But classic once-credible news sources (albeit better) also have inaccuracies and bad opinions.

What's "unbiased"? Even reporting objective facts introduces bias. If I say "X has a good relationship to his family, volunteers, and tips well" it presents X as kind, but some murderers who fit that description. If I have the income of every American, I can't present that data, but whether I report mean or median (and mention assets, inflation, etc.), it changes how well the "average" American's finances appear to be. For niche subjects, layman can't understand the significance of plain facts, so you must introduce opinions to present them. The BBC article on LIGO's 2016 discovery has the subheading "Scientists are claiming a stunning discovery in their quest to fully understand gravity."[0]; this introduces bias, but the alternative is that a layman has to read the entire article, perhaps research black holes and special relativity, only to almost certainly conclude the discovery is "stunning" themselves.

Should news try to be "unbiased"? I believe in nuance but not centrism: not every issue is black and white, but some are. I also believe in some cases, news should explicitly state what to think, because many people don't form conclusions; if the well-intentioned don't indoctrinate those people, the bad-intentioned ones will. Specifically, when the opinion is "obviously moral" (e.g. don't murder, don't steal), and it should be clearly marked and distinguished from facts; those with critical thinking will look at the facts and form their own conclusion, and they'll understand the exceptions (e.g. murder is OK in self-defense) that you can't explain to stupid people without confusing them.

[0] https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35524440

I dont think you specifically mentioned it, but people under the age of 40 get a staggering amount of their "news" from TikTok and social media. I forget the figure off the top of my head but it's near or over 50% of people under the age of 40 get the bulk of their "news" from social media.

It's an alarming stat.

A problem is some sources is sometimes the lack of bias. Where reporters try to be objective and by doing so give a heavily unbiased view of things. Like the joke about the new york times reporting on flat earthers as "Shape of world? Opinions differ". Or that Elon did a "unfortunate arm gesture" at the inauguration.

The first example calls a fact an opinion, and implies (and is biased by not reporting) that one of the “opinions” has far more supporters (among other things).

The second leaves out that the “unfortunate arm gesture” very closely resembles a Nazi salute. A more unbiased source would most importantly post the full video; then videos of Nazi salutes, a history of Nazism and “dog-whistles”, but also Elon’s autism and past gaffes and the full videos of others who made gestures that very vaguely resembled Elon’s. But there’s no such thing as “completely unbiased”, as all information adds bias, and perhaps this is a case where reporters should (above the full details) outright state what to think, for those who only think what they're clearly told.

Aaron Sorkin (writing for the MC in The Newsroom) called this "a bias toward fairness."