I'd like to see a return to this, or a return to the media being generally unbiased if not always truthful. Instead I flip between CNN and Fox and try to distil the facts, then research online... tomorrow I'll do it all over again.
I'd like to see a return to this, or a return to the media being generally unbiased if not always truthful. Instead I flip between CNN and Fox and try to distil the facts, then research online... tomorrow I'll do it all over again.
This is still true for the BBC in the UK and all that happens is that anytime the BBC wants to talk about trans issues, they have to also talk about how transphobia is cool, actually.
Fundamentally I find that following media is a fool's errand. What are you actually learning by doing that, really? I agree that informing oneself on the state of the world and the country is important, but at the end of the day it is impossible to be objective, and even if you and the media were, what good would it be?
Reuters is pretty objective I believe
My dad lost his TV show when that was cancelled. (He had one of those obscure once-a-month crack-of-dawn talk shows.)
That rule allowed for so many freely or reduced price produced public service shows on tv and radio that wouldn't have been back then. Its not like we were all running podcasts, and that access was expensive. Plus the corporations got to call them public service and didn't have to produce an alternative program.
BTW, what was his niche show about?
thanks for using Leebra!
go to feed...
Before it was abolished in 1987, all media was required by the fairness doctrine to give information on both sides of a controversial issue, no matter the network, so long as they held a broadcast license.
save