[Aunche]

You're overestimating the number of people who trust scientific concensus. More people believe in creationism than evolution by purely natural selection. What's your alternative to treating both sides with equal weight without making the unscientific side feel disenfranchised?

https://news.gallup.com/poll/647594/majority-credits-god-hum...

[BeFlatXIII]

Make them disenfranchised write-offs.

[naIak]

And when they outvote you, cry "how did this happen"

[BobaFloutist]

News isn't supposed to be a democracy, it's supposed to be a hunt for truth and accuracy. If news is intentionally subjecting itself to systemic bias in the hopes of attracting people with firmly held patently absurd beliefs, they shouldn't cry "how did this happen" when people who financially supported them in the hunt for truth and accuracy stop doing so.

[Aunche]

The news is democratic in the sense that news targeted towards the general public needs to be catered towards the general public, just like any other product. What good does framing an issue as one sided if nobody is going to watch it except people who agree with it already?

[BobaFloutist]

It sounds like we're talking about different products. I want to buy information, not reassurance. Maybe the purchasing power of people like me has gone down relative to the general population, but news organizations shouldn't be surprised then when people like me are less interested in the product they modified to be more palatable for a different target audience.

[BeFlatXIII]

I've never had much respect for democracy in the first place. Teachers letting the class vote in elementary school made sure of that.