[zteppenwolf]

You can't justify the lack of commitment to truth with "its the bias of the population". First of all: its not. Its the bias of the media itself; however, the population often manifests much richer judgement than simply reducing this complicated struggle to "good vs evil".

And even if it was: the media should impartially cover events. It should not manipulate numbers in favor of cherry picked narratives.

edit replying your edit: But then; again, we should not create media based in wishful thinking. Instead, media should be based in facts. It disappoints me very much that so many people just accepts this blatant propaganda and sell these as if they are true.

[cmrdporcupine]

I'm sorry about it's almost become a joke, anybody who uses this phrase: "The Media".

It used to be my fellow travelers on the radical left. Now it's nutcases on the far right. It betrays a simplistic propagandistic desire to create a singular "enemy" narrative to which one is righteously opposed, without having to get deep into the weeds to pick things apart.

It's pathetic and elitist "analysis". There is no singular "media". There is no singular narrative. People pick the poison that fits their ideological biases. In general the ideological biases they have are the ones that fill their stomachs and keep a roof over their head.

But be my guest, rant all you want about the western or "mainstream media". It won't help you convince anybody.

[lm28469]

Good luck impartially covering world events, the mere action of choosing to talk about an event is already biased. There are more "events" in a day than you could cover in a year worth of journalism