| > Every reputable news organization follows the journalistic code of ethics that puts institutional barriers in the way to counteract bias. What about editorial policy: who decides what item is taking the front page and what is published on page 11? Apparently that also has some importance. Has every journalist the opportunity to embark onto several months of research without editorial oversight? I am not sure about that. > Instead of labelling all news media as generically biased and therefore not to be trusted, Red herring, labeling: I haven't labeled anything, why is my question received in such a hostile way? > It is the news media's job to TRY to be as unbiased as possible. It is the news reader's job to TRY and be as informed as possible by reading varied news from different sources. I can agree with that. Can we agree that journalistic output cannot be trusted blindly? > And if you do not agree with what I have said here, I have a follow up question for you... if the current news organizations are so terrible and inherently biased, what alternative would you propose I think that journalism is currently searching for ways to adjust to the realities of the net: on the one hand established journalists don't quite like the loss of authority and fact checking that does occur, on the other hand established journalists have some codes of conduct that are lacking in the online world. I hope the net result will be more transparency and a higher quality of writing, and a more informed public: the current state of the art is far from an ideal state. However i think that nobody should be exempt from critical questions. |