|
|
|
|
|
by MichaelGG
3376 days ago
|
|
Just printing facts isn't unbiased -- starting with the selection of which facts to print. Facts alone also lack context. You might factually state "radiation from Fukushima has been detected in the US". That sounds quite alarming! So you need to add some context like "This is because detection tech is very advanced. The levels are very low and pose no cause for concern." But then someone will criticise you for downplaying things. So the newspaper could very well be biased and skewed, just in how they present or don't present certain facts, which context they provide, etc. |
|
An obvious example was Fox News vs. CNN during the weeks leading up to the election. Neither company outright lied about anything (for the most part), but both published headlines emphasizing an entirely different set of facts. Fox News was constantly blasting headlines about the FBI investigating Hillary's email, while CNN was constantly blasting headlines about Trump's sexual misconduct allegations, etc. Neither were really lying in any sense - but they both painted completely different pictures designed to elicit differing opinions/reactions from their readers.
Of course, if you want real fake news - that exists as well and always has before it became a buzz word. The National Enquirer has been publishing fake news for decades, and nobody cares.