The Truth About Unbiased News - Wisecrack Edition

30 avril 2020
405 211 Vues

Unbiased news, Fair News, Objective news - can such a thing exist?
Download Ground News for free ►
Thanks to Ground News for Sponsoring this video.
Ask anybody which news source they find most objective, and we'll find you someone else who says that source is totally biased. We thought it was worth asking: Is it even possible for news to be unbiased, and if so, is that something we'd even want? Let's find out in this Wisecrack Edition: Is "Fair News" A Myth?

Subscribe to Wisecrack! ►
Join WisecrackPLUS for EXCLUSIVE content! ►
FLAT EARTH: What Makes Real Science? ►
THE OFFICE: How Nonsense Covered the Workspace ►

=== Watch More Episodes! ===
ETERNAL SUNSHINE: Is It Deep or Dumb? ►
STAR WARS: The Rise of Skywalker: What Went Wrong? ►
The Meaning of Death: BOJACK HORSEMAN vs. THE GOOD PLACE ►
Joe Exotic: The Cult of TIGER KING ►
INCEPTION: A Game Changer? ►
How PANDEMICS Change Society ►

Store ...........
Twitter .........
Facebook ....

Written by: Michael Burns
Hosted by: Jared Bauer
Directed by: Michael Luxemburg
Motion Graphics by: Jackson Maher
Title Graphic by: Luke Gibson
Editing by: Andrew Nishimura
Produced by: Evan Yee

© 2020 Wisecrack / Omnia Media, Inc.

  • I'm not sure we get to any very satisfying new place via this analysis Wisecrack. Sure, there can be no purely "objective" news media. But framing the conclusion as: "So maybe we should all just give up on this fairytale of objective news"... doesn't really bring us to any different or better place. In fact it undercuts the will to demand and build a different type of media structure. The impossibilities of pure objectivity do not mean that we are left with only "purely subjective" biases when it comes to news analysis. The point of aiming at some kind of unacknowledged objectivity (that falls outside our usual takes on the world) is to hopefully lay the groundwork for building some kind of new subjectivity/identification/collectivity. To deny the very idea of an encounter with unacknowledged "objective" facts that disturb our subjective realities, is only to compound the direction that commercial news channels have been heading for some time. The proof lies, ironically, in John Stewart's counter-news comedy. Stewart never claimed to be offering just his "subjective" opinion on the news issues of the day - as is made out here. That would hardly explain the audience it created or the cultural phenomenon it became. He vehemently criticised the news for failing in its "objective duty" to hold authorities in power to account for their blatant hypocrisies (in other words: the way their words did not match with reality) by confronting them with sustained, focused and informed negations of their endless disregard for information that didn't fit with their point of view. If the Daily Show had merely been an expression of Stewart's own personal interests and opinions, then he too would have had little incentive to do anything except entertain for a cheap buck and offer up the usual comedic rants. But that was not what the Daily Show news stories aimed to be. Like Fox news, they aimed at synthesizing, articulating and activating latent social groupings whose understanding of objective realities fell outside the very limited subjective readings that the mainstream News channels shovelled out 24/7. The main difference being that John Stewart (claiming an even more objectively extreme "view from nowhere") made little or no claim that any currently existing political party or politician adequately addressed these current realities. The Daily Show issued their broadsides as pure outsider observations, as disinterested clowns... independent of any directed politics (however convincing/unconvincing that seemed). In this sense, the shift to a new form of "comedy news" was in fact a last gasp attempt to save objectivity before it disappeared completely. Admittedly, John Stewart had a very limited hope as to what their comedy news show could possibly achieve. But they did what they did by paying far more attention to the necessity of actual informed research and critical social analysis than even the News Channels (who can never settle their attention for more than 2 minutes on any one news story for fear of losing viewers). This is why the true heir to the Daily Show is John Oliver's deep dive "objective" comedy... which is a barely disguised 20 minute objective social research deep-dive in comedy drag. And yes, I know, this is a TLDR comment!

    Hic RhodusHic RhodusIl y a 2 jours
  • Did that Ground News App advert really just show "The Telegraph" as one of only two "left leaning" publication examples!? Ehhhh... Not a particularly reassuring start. I think there might be a gremlin in their computer programming.

    Hic RhodusHic RhodusIl y a 2 jours
  • We're stuck in subjectivity. We can only feign objectivity. Is that an objective opinion or yours? Nothing in here about Principles or values? When formulating an opinion therein, look at the Disparity of Wealth Chart. That's the scoreboard. Its been fucking the majority of us since the seventies, and it still is. It accelerates the 1% lot at a 45 degree angle US? WE'RE FLAT. since then and its still in force. Its where to turn to cut to the chase for honest intentions or not or answer the question; is your country predicated on honest intentions or are the leaders just hopeless.

    omegapointilomegapointilIl y a 6 jours
  • The Onion is the only reliable objective news source

    Daniyel MeDaniyel MeIl y a 9 jours
  • This is a dodge to justify opinion pieces on the front page and lizard brain hysteria throughout 24 news programming. I don't care to hear Rachel Maddow or Tucker Carlson rant about their boss's opinion on what is happening. It is still propaganda even if it is unmasked. Lippman was right. We need more scientific method and less opinion in the news. They all have offended me and I have now tuned out. My colleagues agree the news is just a shill for red-blue elitist factions vying for control in DC. Hear that advertisers. Fix. Now.

    Moosey1789Moosey1789Il y a 12 jours
  • I actually love the app. It's great.

    Hayan ImadiHayan ImadiIl y a 13 jours
  • I think it is some brilliant move on the government/media by making us SOOO reluctant to trust the news, that we are forced to find out the truth ourselves. --yes basically do their jobs, but hey that will wake us up to the reality.

    Team Kuuki Food & GamesTeam Kuuki Food & GamesIl y a 18 jours
  • Never watch any National news in India...all are propagating fascist propaganda...better read News paper as THE HINDHU if u wanna know indian news..or just search for journalist Ravish Kumar

    Work HolicWork HolicIl y a mois
  • Speaking for myself, I would much rather see something like; here is what the left is saying, here is what the right is saying, here is what we understand to be fact, based on what we know...and here's how we learned "what we know". If that can be done, I'm all over it.

    Donn UrbanDonn UrbanIl y a mois
  • Do we want objective news? What kind of bullshit question is that?? Corporate sponsorship much? Who paid you to fart that out? Disgusting!

    Jose Elías PallaresJose Elías PallaresIl y a mois
  • 16shots

    Piratha PirathaPiratha PirathaIl y a mois
  • The early scientists didn't do science without bring "tethered" to God; instead, they used the worldview offered by Christianity but rejected common understandings if their evidence didn't line up with those understandings.

    runcandy3runcandy3Il y a mois
  • A big problem is that most people can't tell the difference between a statement of fact and a statement of opinion.

    mdiemmdiemIl y a mois
  • It seems to me like your confusing objectivity in media to corporate consolidation of media. Your argument against objectivity is that it is a method of creating mass appeal, in order to sell more products. Current trends would more accurately suggest that subjective media allows for more targeted advertising causing greater corporate influence. A subjective media landscape also make it easier for corporations to masquerade subliminal advertisement as legitimate media coverage.

    victor wilsonvictor wilsonIl y a mois
  • I just hate right wing news. Period.

    Montana BananaMontana BananaIl y a mois
  • I want objective news because I don't care about your opinion. I care about facts and my ability to make my own conclusions

    James HernandezJames HernandezIl y a mois
  • Ground news is actually really good app you’re easily able to compare contrast

    Ryan JansenRyan JansenIl y a mois
  • So...gravity being a universal truth should elicit passion, as a distant example?

    U Cannot Defeat My ShmeetU Cannot Defeat My ShmeetIl y a mois
  • God it’s painful to see my parents watch fox everyday

    U Cannot Defeat My ShmeetU Cannot Defeat My ShmeetIl y a mois
  • The people who talk loudly a lot and are critically thought-inept don’t have as much critical thinking skills as people who think too much but have quiet mouths.

    Slapstick GeniusSlapstick GeniusIl y a mois
  • I think people tend to say they want unbiased media when what they mean is less sensationalized, fear mongering, and polarizing. We are exhausted by the media screaming urgency about things we have little say in.

    Layne MartinLayne MartinIl y a 2 mois
  • Impossible to be unbiased. When info Is chosen or selected it is by definition bias. Any algorithm that does the selection is also bias as it was designed by humans who choose and select its design parameters. Even then bias seeps in. Knowledge only exist for humans and no human can obtain all of knowledge to be able to present it unbiased. I'd love any counter examples to test my biased view of the world tho

    Josh ThurmanJosh ThurmanIl y a 2 mois
  • News should be objective. Journalists should stride towards it.

    A. FilakiewiczA. FilakiewiczIl y a 2 mois
  • I'm all in favor to an impartial and less opinionated press. It's impossible for news outlets to be unbiased, but it must do all it can to balance itself and show less favoritism. I cannot stand American News Network as for the most part the commentators express their feelings and opinions. If I were to consider someone's opinions, I'd rather sit at a bar and have a drink with my friends. And as for the Daily Show, it shouldn't be considered a news outlet, since they provide a comedic approach to the news media. Stephen Colbert, Jon Oliver and Seth Meyer have said that. And finally, I disagree that unbiased opinion will only create observers as many news network around the world provide a more informative approach and we still have bias opinion among the public.

    Luan RochaLuan RochaIl y a 2 mois
  • That's an Ad.

    The6thMessengerThe6thMessengerIl y a 2 mois

    Dj LukasDj LukasIl y a 2 mois

    Dj LukasDj LukasIl y a 2 mois
  • A friend show me this channel, the guy talks too much about anything, and you guys need to see the real deal, compare the difference with Abby Martin United State of Distraction and the video that this guy did

    Dj LukasDj LukasIl y a 2 mois

    Dj LukasDj LukasIl y a 2 mois
  • "Conservative outlets, like Fox Mews, and liberal outlets, like CNN." *Ahem*, I think you mean "Conservative outlets, like Fox News, and slightly less conservative outlets, like CNN."

    ThatGamerDude9000ThatGamerDude9000Il y a 2 mois
  • well philly d

    Surya MohanSurya MohanIl y a 2 mois
  • I love how the conclusion is 'we don't want objevtive news, we just want it to be accurate, complete, and trustworthy'. Like objective news would be.

    Michael JurneyMichael JurneyIl y a 2 mois
  • Another terrible video. Fails to understand the simple fact that if a news source does criticize a certain political party, that doesn't necessarily mean it's coming out in support of the opposing party. Truly objective news acts impartial not by avoiding criticizing both sides of the aisle, but rather by criticizing everybody. The ad-men don't love objective reporting, they love toothless reporting. There's a huge difference between the 2.

    Ishaan GovardhanIshaan GovardhanIl y a 2 mois
  • they should start moving to youtube

    Wase eWase eIl y a 2 mois
  • Idk, the truth is a bit slippery when in a society that allows me to say I can be a man/woman/etc. just because I feel like it, making my identity, “my truth”

    Jonah [no last name needed]Jonah [no last name needed]Il y a 2 mois
  • Unbiased news? Well what about the fairness act - after they demolish it 1987, the distance between the democrats and republicans has been growing in USA - so maybe bring it back, for example. Should bring a bit of nuance and view of other side to discussion. But maybe the averag attention span of current year is too short...

    Velipaju88 _Velipaju88 _Il y a 3 mois
  • So what I want in a news organization is effectively for it to do two things, Inform me and call bullshit. A certain degree of objectivism is required to do that effectively. knowing when a reporter should take themselves out of the equation and just present the facts, and when a reporter knows, the facts here don't tell the whole story, or there is no other side to present, for it do to that too. The best example I can think of is Automobile magazine comparison tests Vs. Car and Driver Magazine comparison tests. Automobile had this habit, at least when I was reading it, to very rarely pick a winner. They would say things like "if you want a hard core drivers car get the lotus, if you want a great all rounder get the porsche", which is way too objective. yes both cars could be better to different audiences, but the vast majority of buyers went for the Porsche for a reason. Contrast this with Car and Driver who will always pick a winner and tell you why they picked a winner. If a car is objectively terrible they will say it, and in some cases be burtal about it. but, as is often the case, if the choice between 1st, and 2nd is subjective they will say so, allowing you to make the choice of "okay, the Mazda won because they think it's a better drivers car, but I don't care about that and the Nissan's relaxed ride fits my preferences better, so I'll take that" just an an example. Right now the news seems to be heavily towards the "Automobile magazine" set up, or worse the Chevy ad disguised as an article in some cases, and less the car and driver set up.

    roguedogxroguedogxIl y a 3 mois
  • If you’re looking for truly objective News and reporting with depth, check out Newsy

    Jeb JimsonJeb JimsonIl y a 3 mois
  • The fact that critical thinking isn't explicitly taught in American schools every year from k-12 is profoundly negligent and totally intentional.

    Whiskey CanWhiskey CanIl y a 3 mois
  • This is why I prefer smaller youtube channels for news and current events. They often have less suits to appease if any. I still pay attention to who funds them and what sources they list though. I mean if they're just parroting CNN or Fox then they're not any better.

    TimTimIl y a 3 mois
  • I don't get your points. Of course news should be objective!

    Seth DuganSeth DuganIl y a 3 mois
  • This is why it's important to follow multiple news sources. Including ones from outside the country.

    Sophie JonesSophie JonesIl y a 3 mois
  • That was the first time in my life that I went back to rewatch the ad.

    Ryan ChanRyan ChanIl y a 3 mois
  • I love how the Chinese government has gotten off the hook for the Pandemic, brutal tactics during the Hong Kong protests, and mobilizing its Navy around Taiwan.

    andrewandrewIl y a 3 mois
  • Money talks. I stopped watching network tv 10 years ago. I prefer ones own opinion. In other words- if you don’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything.

    Randy ClarkRandy ClarkIl y a 3 mois
    • FRworld talking heads also require scrutinizing almost as much as the msm does nowadays. Their slants and approach determine how much money they make. Still that's better than having one of the 6 or so companies that control basically all of media feeding you garbage.

      EclipseMercXEclipseMercXIl y a 3 mois
  • The term "fake news" is just a mantra to censor independent media. Major new outlets tell lies all the time.

    Anon BAnon BIl y a 3 mois
  • Why is Hannity the ONLY one who at least admits he is openly conservative and a GOP supporter? NONE of the others admit they are democrats liberals.

    Mike KosakMike KosakIl y a 3 mois
  • Shout out to my boy Noam Chomsky

    Grant CottinghamGrant CottinghamIl y a 3 mois
  • We need objectivity, at least some, otherwise the influence in elections and the risk of brainwashing are damaging.

    RodrigoCLRodrigoCLIl y a 3 mois
  • South Park is the best news media.

    Cam RushCam RushIl y a 3 mois
  • Wonderful, really enjoyed this.

    5kollar# 7%of25kollar# 7%of2Il y a 3 mois
  • All I heard was “unchecked capitalism and democracy aren’t comparable”

    Amelia AugustAmelia AugustIl y a 3 mois
  • People think of news outlets as being super biased, but it seems like so many of them think that is a synonym for lying. The biggest danger from any individual news source is not in what they report, but what they choose not to. What they deem to be "newsworthy" can be a bias that is impossible to escape.

    James OakesJames OakesIl y a 4 mois
  • I enjoy Tim Pool because no one owns him and he is very unfront about any bias he has.

    Jason BurnellJason BurnellIl y a 4 mois
  • It doesn’t matter if the sentiment is naive, the fact is unbiased news is the only true news. News is meant to inform, not entertain. It is meant to make people smarter, not richer. Period. And everyone from the janitor, to the public, to the CEO are born with a moral obligation to FORCE it to be that way in every instance that it fails to do so. Weakness is not an excuse, profits are not an excuse, and in every instance that we choose to ignore that fact is just one more instance in which an injustice has been rendered. Anyone who thinks there are exceptions is f-ing delusional.

    LetMe ReviewAppsLetMe ReviewAppsIl y a 4 mois
  • I'm sad that my brain can't turn all the shit you're telling me that I already knew into something productive or helpful. Really.... people needed to be told how this works?

    VirjuniorVirjuniorIl y a 4 mois
  • CNN is not liberal news. CNN is centrist. MSNBC is more progressive.

    JayLandon64JayLandon64Il y a 4 mois
  • I love how the AD in FRworld comes right after "... most famous pastime -- Advertising"

    高驰高驰Il y a 4 mois
  • I know that the history of print publication wasn't really the focus of this video, but as a Historian who has just finished two degrees focusing on 17th century print, I can confirm that the opening historical setting is completely inaccurate. Both the 16th and 17th century was full of print media that was not associated with The Church or the aristocracy. The Gutenberg press was only invented in 1450, and popular unaffiliated content was around by 1580's at the very latest, so that hardly consists of 'for most of western history'. Its simplistic to assume that any form of media only expressed the self interested one dimensional views of one group of people, but its even more simplistic when dealing with a form of media that made communication exceedly cheap! By the mid 1500's the newspapers of the day cost the same as a loaf of bread, and were often resold and recycled at cheaper prices. This is a video about politics, so of course this isn't really too big an issue, but safe to say the history is all a bit more complicated than you suggest.

    Conor DavisConor DavisIl y a 4 mois
  • Another important problem with objective news is that reporters and us, the public, are not experts. For example, some government commitee decides on a series of amendments to improve a law about the process of entry to higher education. There usually is a lot of technical legal detail and the issues themselves are complex. Just learning about the issue requires weeks of work. The result is if this was reported as a matter of fact, we wouldn't know what's really happening! And interpet it subjectively. Usually very wrongly! So the news deliver us an _interpretation_ of the fact. And as Wisecrack shown, to the benefit of an agenda. Also, reporters have to produce many articles per day. There's not enough time for them to learn about an issue in-depth.

    Almantas ŠukelisAlmantas ŠukelisIl y a 4 mois
  • ground news is actually really refreshing

  • What about non-for-profit publicly funded news channels? Where does this analysis leave them?

    mgobbertmgobbertIl y a 4 mois
  • In light of Tucker Carlson losing ad revenue, but Rupert Murdoch stating ad revenue doesn't matter, how does this video reflect the reality of the current media environment?

    OuijaXIIIOuijaXIIIIl y a 4 mois
  • Good to see wisecrack went off the Left Deep End. I was just thinking there aren’t enough lefty commie shows to watch. UnSub

    Derek NebelDerek NebelIl y a 4 mois
  • I don't get the criticism of the news outlets when people say "well cnn is also kind of right leaning" like, you're telling me that american politics as a whole is right leaning? WHAT??

    empty-ohsempty-ohsIl y a 4 mois
  • Stunningly in a video about media bias wisecracker uses a bunch of communists as sources

    jacobjacobIl y a 4 mois
  • Things have changed from bad to even worse. Now the internet manufactures consent and does it even more effectively. People have a false understanding of what independent thinking is all about. They are fed with misinformation disguised as the truth. They share it not even knowing they were manipulated. You can buy bots and actual people to boost the view count and to multiply the thumbs up count. Bad people can inject good people with hate and misunderstanding of the subject and they do it effectively.

    Adam KowalczykAdam KowalczykIl y a 4 mois
  • "they won't just sell you things, they will sell you things that sell you things" - Thabang Maabane Sun 07 June 2020

    P H A R A O HP H A R A O HIl y a 4 mois
  • So you're telling me that a news organization's content's objectivity, or lack thereof, is predicated upon their business model? In other news, water is wet. Seriously, this video was mostly just a lame history lesson. Disappointed. 7/2 rating.

    hashtag underscorehashtag underscoreIl y a 4 mois
  • Calling CNN a 'liberal' outlet is a joke right? Cause I can't take you seriously if you actually believe that. Fox News peddles conspiracy theories and shit they just make up while CNN doesn't really have any journalistic standards at all, does mentioning objective reality make you a Liberal? Have we seriously got the the level of political discourse where we label reality as Liberal for not including "alternative facts?"

    RadicalEdward37RadicalEdward37Il y a 4 mois
    • Pervert

      Non ApplicableNon ApplicableIl y a 3 mois
  • Does anyone know the source for Kierkegaard's opinion?

    Gregory EfsGregory EfsIl y a 4 mois
  • No 1 can agree on a unbiased?? TYT funding is inherently based on their fact ratio being high as their independent and lies will lead to cancelled membership. Politifacts JUST shows accuracy level so idk how you would view that. Epoch times uses hidden sources but wants to be in a TYT like situation of uncovering hidden things so their sources are naturally hidden as well. And then there's the sponsor of this video. It's a little bit depressing but North American news being truthful is almost at a premium you practically have to pay to get objectivity.

    eyonexeyonexIl y a 4 mois
  • I don't agree with you, that advertisements bring objectivity (a certain degree of objectivity). in India most of our news is Pro-Government the reason simply being, the government(state or Union) is the sole or major advertiser fo many channels, newspapers, magazines, etc. This directly affects the quality of journalism that most news organizations report. Even corporate news advertisements don't care about what news organizations report. They won't pull their ads if the news is fear or hate-mongering. Hence, most news is controlled by the government. only those supported by consumers/readers is objective to a certain degree.

    Savind ChowdharySavind ChowdharyIl y a 4 mois
  • If they didn't do adverts at the start of the videos I would subscribe

    S MS MIl y a 4 mois
  • With anything objective (including scientific journals) there is always the problem of cherry picking. You can't consider yourself an informed reader unless you have ways to guess at what information has been left out. It's not an easy task since there are many reasons a fact could be omitted. too boring too uncertain censored political liability self selection of interview sources too hard to explain succinctly etc

    edwardinchinaedwardinchinaIl y a 4 mois
  • Ah. Trying to justify the Left-wing agenda. Typical.

    Johnny WestJohnny WestIl y a 4 mois
  • This video makes me very nervous, not because of the content, but because Wisecrack's answer to "do we want objective news" is apparently "no, because it's boring and unprofitable. And also it doesn't exist, because humans are biased and somehow incapable of mitigating that bias." There is no attempt at discussion that truthfulness is a spectrum, and pretends that outlets from Breitbart to Fox News to Reuters to the BBC are all equal, because they are all not 100% objective, and therefore the initial question is pointless. Nobody is asserting that "objective news" must completely and totally objective, rather that it must be fair and equal, presenting all sides of a discussion and not conclusions about those discussions. There is a clear correlation between how polarized a news source is and how factually accurate it is, and this is the thing that is referenced when people discuss the phrase "objective news." This video should more accurately be titled "can we fit the entire world into two pigeonholes? We'll certainly try."

    Marshall CMarshall CIl y a 4 mois
  • This video is very America centric. Everything in America is beholden to corporate interests. Just because objectivity in America means "objectivity as long as it serves the corporate interests" doesn't mean that's what it's like in the rest of the world. In my country we have state funded media organisation that every citizen also have to pay for. It's not controlled by the ruling parties, but rather by the whole of parliament. It's also controlled by several laws and oversight organisations that make sure it's transparent, protects freedom of speech etc. In my opinion it has among the best news coverage of all news media in my country. And I know a lot of other countries have similar state funded media organisations. So, just because you failed with objectivity in the US doesn't mean the rest of the world did.

    Metal GamerMetal GamerIl y a 4 mois
  • You said “plenty of journalists do amazing and important work” and you DIDN’T cut to shot of yourself? Dude, opportunity missed.

    Study ZenStudy ZenIl y a 4 mois
  • The BBC is about as close as we can get

    Christian RoundChristian RoundIl y a 4 mois
    • Christian Round is BBC unbiased or the majority of that news unbiased?

      ツHappyツHappyIl y a 4 mois
  • To gain perspective and balance it is better if one can stand to hear both sides of the story, the left and the right. As well other international/cultural sources.👍

    Boris BabaevBoris BabaevIl y a 4 mois

    Matthew RoseMatthew RoseIl y a 4 mois

    Dawn-Marie LangloisDawn-Marie LangloisIl y a 4 mois
  • I wish you mentioned online "News" on Facebook and Twitter as well as online media like The Young Turks, which is transparent about where they get their funding, Democracy Niw, The Hill, and others. Almost all large television mainstream media hides behind the fact that they are owned by wealthy corporations which have wealthy board members that control what they talk about and what they can cover. Cenk, one of the founders of TYT, was offered a lot of money to stay at a large mainstream media corporation but because they were going to control what he talked about he quit. Fox and a huge amount of conservative media is given a large sums of money from conservative and wealthy corporations, such as Mr. Koch, etc. If people understood who was supporting their media, and influencing their media I guarantee you their would be a lot less viewers of Fox News and CNBC, but unfortunately people don't know, which is really sad, but it's very exciting that more and more of the younger generation is getting their news other ways than the television but scary that many people are getting their news off Facebook and Twitter, as we've switched from one devil to another, it seems. Hopefully more people wake up and smell the tea.

    Krafty KreatorKrafty KreatorIl y a 4 mois
  • the video's great. but there's a missing question: "does objectivity exist?"

    chusty93chusty93Il y a 4 mois
  • Tbf it's interesting that you didn't mention the BBC when talking about a news broadcaster being objective. They are meant to be the objective news, yet are often ridiculed here in England by the public, one side calling them too left-wing and the other saying they're too right-wing, so even in trying to be objective you will still have a large crowd damning the news for not presenting the news in their opinion.

    Josh BrownJosh BrownIl y a 4 mois
  • The News can be objective. But bias is what sells.

    World According to TiJWorld According to TiJIl y a 4 mois
  • Philosophy. White guys sniffing their own butt.

    Auld GoatAuld GoatIl y a 4 mois
  • U seem to be attempting to make the best of a bad situation, which is of course admirable but I believe we would be better served by rectifying the bad situation. Capitalism sucks and no amount of silver lining will remove the toxic black cloud that envelops our world. We need a better solution than capitalism offers and anyone who denies this is simply not paying attention....

    Edward BruggemanEdward BruggemanIl y a 4 mois
  • What’s the name of the song that is used at 5:32

    AliAliIl y a 4 mois
  • Accepts money from news source then talks about objective news...nice

    Blake BarnBlake BarnIl y a 4 mois
  • When you need media to know the difference between facts and fantasies maybe it’s time to go back to school. But some even don’t trust hight learning. The real difference it’s between ignorance or facts just cause facts don’t fit with your vision. It only means you are ignorant and need to learn some new stuff.

    D & TD & TIl y a 4 mois
  • Maybe your Perspectiv is little too american. I mean that in the sense that there are just two sides of a spectrum and your media oulets are organised along those lines. Also they are much more dependend on the money they receive from the private sector. There is an approximation of objectivity a news outlet can achieve, while at the same time providing different viewpoints (that can come from all over the political spectrum)

    Felix BernshausenFelix BernshausenIl y a 4 mois
  • for what it's worth - I have always felt the way you should deal with news is to follow right-wight new as well as left-wing news [neither in extreme] and assume truth will lay between the two.

    TheFireMonkeyTheFireMonkeyIl y a 4 mois
  • Apt sponsor, Wisecrack...

    Daniel JamesDaniel JamesIl y a 4 mois
  • A Twin Peaks quilt? I don't get it.

    Zachary ZoetZachary ZoetIl y a 4 mois
  • IMO, I have no issue with news agencies taking sides..but they need to just come out and say it..Fox news for example, just needs to come out and admit what we all have known for years.....that they primary focus are Conservatives and their viewpoints will be from a Conservative angle...they dont need to lie and say they are unbiased when clearly they are biased...

    Craig CarsonCraig CarsonIl y a 4 mois
  • Watch listening post on al Jazeera

    Chukwudi EzeukwuChukwudi EzeukwuIl y a 4 mois
  • VERY good video. It actually changed my thinking. Thank you!

    Mokuto MediaMokuto MediaIl y a 4 mois
  • This video is only valid in America. News in Norway doesn't commercialize.

    DaveDaveIl y a 5 mois