[oezi]

This seems to be a core problem of a lot of people. The inability to discern that not everything has an agenda and is propaganda.

Most western media (Murdock/Berlusconi type oligarch media aside) is fairly factual. It doesn't have 'spin' or 'agenda' in the sense that the journalists conspire to mislead (they don't have time for this).

[Beldin]

In my experience, most news nowadays has an agenda: selling itself. Newspapers and the main tv news have become far more clickbaity and far less informative. These used to be fairly decent sources of news; nowadays, you'll learn what some folks in your country are shouting on twitter, how b-rank celebrities are messing up their lives, and what's happening in the nation and in the US. Perhaps 2-3 tidbits of big international news.

You'll have next to no clue what's happening in middle nor South America, Africa, China, India, the rest of Asia, or the Arab peninsula.

In short: a lot of news nowadays has the agenda of selling itself and takes time to select stories and spin headlines for this. It has become genuinely harder to stay reasonably informed about what's going on in the world.

[mdp2021]

Freer circulation of information has caused a funding crisis for costly enterprises like investigative journalism,

but on the other hand, there /is/ a «freer circulation of information».

It now has to be managed - the scenario is more complex.

[smeagull]

Are you high? Murdoch has a massive agenda. They have persistently chosen governments to favour in multiple countries. Honestly just have a read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Murdoch

[SanjayMehta]

Well, for months Russia has been losing, and yet they have taken over what, 20% of Ukraine's territory and today I heard The Telegraph say that they have knocked out 40% of Ukraine's energy system.

So pardon me for being confused.

[KptMarchewa]

That's because you're using the wrong measures. They have taken way more during first week than they have now.

Hitler's empire was far greater than just Germany at the beginning of 1945 and he was still sending V-2s to London and Antwerp at the end of March that year.

[cudgy]

Why does it take time to mislead?

I am envious of your faith in western media in much the same way I am envious of highly religious people that are certain what happens upon death: seems comfortable and reassuring, but it is likely not true.

[illuminerdy]

> "Most western media (Murdock/Berlusconi type oligarch media aside) is fairly factual. It doesn't have 'spin' or 'agenda' in the sense that the journalists conspire to mislead..."

I have a hard time believing that anyone can be this naive. We're you paying attention the last two years?

When journalists lied, suppressed and told everyone that Hunter Biden's laptop from hell was 'Russian disinformation" and refused to even investigate whether the claims that it had been verified by people with actual knowledge of Biden's dealings were true, how is that not journalists conspiring to mislead?

[oezi]

Hunter Biden's laptop isn't news. It is a US-centric celebrity story.

Thus all reporting on it was tabloid style sensationalism.

[illuminerdy]

> "Hunter Biden's laptop isn't news. It is a US-centric celebrity story."

Hunter Biden's businesses dealings are not "U.S. centric" and Hunter Biden is not a celebrity (except maybe in addiction recover centers). They involve allegations that the son of a sitting VP (at the time), who had absolutely no experience in the energy sector, used his father's influence to obtain hundreds of millions of dollars in business dealings with Chinese and Ukrainian energy firms. That involves allegations of international corruption. Including having a prosecutor removed who was investigating one of the businesses tied to Hunter Biden (you know, the famous Joe Biden story about how he told Ukraine to fire the prosecutor or they would not receive a billion dollars in U.S. aid).

> "Thus all reporting on it was tabloid style sensationalism."

Except the reporting was not tabloid style sensationalism. It was actual investigative reporting that the media tried to CONVINCE people was "tabloid style sensationalism".

If you'd like to see how the media worked to convince you that the whole story was just "sensationalism", take a look at how the NY Times repeatedly dismissed everything that was being said before the election (when they called the laptop "unsubstantiated"), but then earlier this year (when it could no longer hurt Biden's chances) finally admitted that at least some of the allegations are likely to be true: https://nypost.com/2022/03/17/the-times-finally-admits-hunte...

But my suspicion is, you really wouldn't care in the slightest if Joe and Hunter Biden are actually corrupt.