If we assume the media is biased, then naturally it will single out and focus on the most entertaining loons and "SJW" style of detractor. So essentially I don't see the media's reporting of such such "news" as any way relevant. Such journalism does not rule out the possibility that a regime could use a pandemic to serve a political end.

China for example, did get some respite from the damaging civil disorder in Hong Kong due to covid.

Why does anyone even act surprised that media is biased? What's more important is that "it" isn't biased in just one way. It is not a singular entity. Just look around here. If every one of us here had their own media company, wouldn't they be just as diverse as our posts? What makes anyone think it would be or is any different on a larger scale? It seems to me that at the extremes there are rabbit holes for any persuasion/perversion. The whole gamut is represented.

Here's a really grisly piece of news. As you probably know, Denmark culled all its farmed mink because they were believed to be harbouring a variant form of covid. There were mass burials, often in rather unsuitable locations. Now the dead mink have blown up like balloons with the gases of decomposition and are rising to the surface like zombies.

You don't have to assume that. That's easily proven.

Thank for being an informed person. Political action groups are what they are. Brazen, bold, without character, shame on us for allowing them to use our airwave frequencies.

I don't see how they could unless they are 13, or the bias supports "their" political ideology, so they pretend that they don't understand.

Yes, the different "media" companies are biased in one direction. I can't name too many "media" companies that deliver facts/info without the slanting/twisting. Some are better than others.

Great to see more and more folks who see this. Or at least entertain the idea that watching "media" is like watching a political rally.

If everyone had their own media company, yes.

If you limited media companies to those above a certain level of wealth, you would be cutting large parts of that representation away - the higher that barrier the less diversity.

That's where the Internet has the potential be an equalizer - by massively reducing barriers and allowing everyone freedom of expression - except that a depressingly large chunk of people appear content to cripple that by giving editorial control over to Mark Zuckerberg and chums.

And if it is...?

In the UK, the overwhelming majority of media leans towards the Conservative party / right wing in general.

That's just how it is, because big media corporations are better represented / reflected by that party. There is no way to balance that out - hence I think boughtonp is spot on in that this imbalance (i.e. the wealthy and privileged, via their media assets, disseminating their views, to the not so wealthy and privileged) can be addressed via the web, but only if the web is not firmly in the clutches of global tech giants who happen to be based in the US and subject to the US law...

I'm not a facebook member but their problems of trying to control "misinformation" is in part due to how the secret algorithms work and their own fault of which Zukerberg wholly admits. Instead of being a potential equalizer it steers members to like content which creates echo chambers and amplifies ones own misbeliefs. Influencers with millions of followers on both twitter and Facebook can post or retweet a fake video or some fake information and just because of their influence it is taken at face value as being fact in a matter of seconds. Take pizza gate or our Presidents legal team trying to use a fake video that was made several years as verification of voter fraud. You have what would be supposedly somewhat intelligent people in high ranking government positions retweeting QANON conspiracy theories without evening realizing what they were retweeting. A little white lying in politics is normal but you have Senator Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz basically saying that flagrant lying and spreading misinformation is necessary to winning elections.

If you don't like Facebook go to one of the others like Parler which does not sensor misinformation but will also normalize beliefs like Holocaust denial, antisemitism and racism.

In addition the US 1st amendment does not protect hate speech that promotes violence, libel, slander or "false factual connotation"

Can I see some proof for that?

The modern day invention of Hate Speech means, You said something that I don't like so I will cry hate speech to make you not speak. Another words silencing of free speech.

If I say that I don't like the **** party, or the **** religion, and you punch me, you are the one that broke the law, not me.
Does not say anything about declaring something to be hate speech. It says that the law makers can't prohibit free speech.

Hate speech is no more valid than saying I like vanilla ice cream the best. Just means that you like it or not.

Edit:
If you can tell me what I can and can't say, then can I tell you what you can and can't say? If not them it's pure double standard hypocrisy.

Hate speech simply means I am going to shove my political/religious ideology down your throat whether you like it or not. Ok, can I shove mine down yours?

I guess it depends...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bus...ct-0129234/amp

People do strange things. This makes me remember the time that we had a scandal when airport personnel had to deal with illegally imported small animals of endangered species. The bureaucracy stated that these animals could not be imported, could not be shipped back, sold or anything else. So after a discussion they decided the best thing to do was to turn on a 747 engine and get it over with..

I guess "wait and see" to give the minks life any purpose later on did not cross the Danish minds..

This is quite a point of discussion over here. And I am happy to see a lot of people stand up to the censorship that social media companies try to impose on people. If you're minimalistic you could argue that those companies are private companies that can do with their platform whatever they want. However if your platform happens to play an important role in society such a platform carries more responsability. And because truth is in the eye of the beholder the owner of such a platform should inform people how and why they present information to their users. "Fake news" is only fake to people that deem it to be fake. And then again, why would it be sensible to try and combat it - because some will believe fake news? What are you trying to accomplish? There have always been mad people around.

I was only just too happy to see my kids of 9 and 12 years old avoiding Facebook and Twitter (that they call "libraries") and even TikTok had to go as well only to see them going for Youtube as their primary social media interaction. Oh well it could be worse..

Journalism is not dead.
It's an ethical concept, a job description with vocational training, and bound by law.
Maybe not in the US of NA, but definitely in the majority of countries around the globe.

Saying "media is biased anyhow and only serves $demographic because money" (badly paraphrased) means to superimpose one's own pessimistic world view on everybody else.
This egocentric behaviour usually originates from inhabitants of the divided states of North America.
Maybe the DS of NA have never really known independent journalism...

What people are stating in so many different ways, is that love based on principle is sadly lacking in this world. That kind of love looks for each other's good and inclines you to show love to someone you don't like, such as by helping him in a fix. Whatever way you look at it, it's still the game of robbing the poor to pay the rich, although fortunes and faces may change around. I also would be glad of a Compulsory IQ & maturity test for influencers, but I would never hope to see that; It's the lack of those qualities that make them influencers in the 1st place. Otherwise, why waste the best years of you life online?

I was not referring to the "fake news" bollocks that has been in vogue over the past few years.

Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook prioritizes which of your contact's posts/actions you see, when you see it, and in what context (including which adverts display).

You can scroll down and end up with a message which equates to "no more content, give us more data", and then go direct to a friend or family member's wall and see a bunch of posts you were not shown, (whilst a random person you barely know gets automatically "followed" so you see almost every piece of crap they post).

That is far more insidious than people posting incorrect information.



Could it? When was the last time you tried reading comments on YouTube...? :P

Can't do that, it's racist, don't you know that? We gave IQ tests to people in the US years ago, Conclusion...not that some people are smarter than others, no, IQ tests are racist.

So, instead of trying to identify the lesser IQ people and bring those people up to the standards of the better IQ people, lets bring everyone down to the lowest common denominator so that it's fair. And Viola. Ever see the dumb little movie called "Idiocracy"?

That show wasn't suppose to be a documentary on Modern day America.