[hearsathought]

> We lived for a while in a world where reporters cared about the truth about the events they were reporting on.

Who is we? I nor anyone I know never lived in such a world. Maybe there was a time when I was naive and brainwashed enough to believe we lived in such a world. But such a world never really existed.

> Now we live in a world where reporters care about their ability to mold what they report on to fit their preferred narrative.

It's always been that way. The oldest newspaper in the US ( NY Post ) was created by Alexander Hamilton to push his political agenda. Nothing has changed since. Newspapers exist to push the narrative of the elites who control them.

> Those two worlds are not equivalent.

Agreed. One of those world is a fantasy and the other is reality.

[AnimalMuppet]

In the US, from at least 1950 through at least the 1970s, there was such a thing.

You had, for example, the editor of the New York Times who, knowing that his reporters leaned left, deliberately steering the editorial policy to the right, trying to have the net result be unbiased. He literally had them put on his tombstone "He kept the paper straight."

Was it perfect? No. But it tried.

I have lived through it ending. As I have said, the difference matters. You see that in the distrust for the media. You see it in our civic discourse, where the two sides can't agree on basic facts because they can't trust anyone to tell them something that is not just one side's narrative.

But to all those who have replied, claiming that unbiased reporting is a fantasy, that everybody is pushing a narrative: When you say that, are you sure that you haven't bought someone's narrative? Or is that a narrative that you are deliberately trying to create?

[hearsathought]

> In the US, from at least 1950 through at least the 1970s, there was such a thing.

Is this a joke?

> You had, for example, the editor of the New York Times who, knowing that his reporters leaned left, deliberately steering the editorial policy to the right, trying to have the net result be unbiased.

Who is talking about editorial policy. We were talking about news. Right?

> He literally had them put on his tombstone "He kept the paper straight."

Wow that must mean it is true. That reeks of overcompensation. Doesn't it? But you are right, the NYT is not biased at all. Never has been... Fox News said they were "fair and balanced". If they said it, it must be true right? Believe the branding. Hey, the Truth Social platform has the word "truth" in it. So that must mean it was created to push truth to the public. Right?

> You see that in the distrust for the media.

There have been many periods of deep distrust of media.

"Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day." -- Thomas Jefferson

Through the yellow journalism years. To the ww1 and ww2 years. And beyond.

> When you say that, are you sure that you haven't bought someone's narrative?

I'm sure.

> Or is that a narrative that you are deliberately trying to create?

It's not a "narrative". It's the truth. It's basic history and reality. What do you think newspapers and media were created for? What do you think they exist to do? Do you think Rupert Murdoch created fox news to push "truth"? Do you think a banker created the NYTimes to inform the public of "truth"? Do you think politicians created the nypost and washington post to expose "truth"?

You are trying to push a narrative. I'm just telling you what the news industry is. It's an obvious fact anyone could see if they just took off their politically driven blinders.