(05-04-2023 01:45 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(05-04-2023 01:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-04-2023 12:55 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(05-04-2023 12:50 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-04-2023 11:20 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  The only reason the Thomas story became news at all was because it was politically expedient for the left-biased media to report on it. We all agree that on any given day the media could report similar stories on any of the nine justices. They pick one and go at him, and for political reasons. They would not have done so otherwise. This scoop has been available for years - the media didn't follow up.

The Sotomayor story comes out as retaliation for the reporting on Thomas, but with a tiny fraction of the coverage.

You would never have known about these reporting rules loopholes, and the real or potential conficts of interest, any of it - if the media had not exposed it for political reasons.

You would never have heard about Sotomayor at all, had it not been for the Thomas story - and maybe not even then if not for the link on Parliament, unless you read the Daily Wire.

The media is the informed voter's primary source of information. We're getting to a point where political loyalties drive what the media tells you, not any concern for truth or even a rush to get the scoop before another media outlet gets it.

You say you're concerned about potential conflicts of interest, etc. on the Supreme Court. You wouldn't even know about that if there hadn't been a political motive to report it. Thus, you are concerned about what the media wants you to be concerned about, with concern applied to the persons the media wants you to apply it to; and you are unconcerned about what the media doesn't want you to be concerned about, because you can't know about it if they don't tell you.

And I would rather the Fourth Estate tell me these issues exist than to be uninformed of them. At least now I can, if I want, write my Senator as you suggest.

What an odd take above, which boils down to it being problematic that media uncovers potential conflicts of interest. Imagine if Watergate wasn’t uncovered because everyone said “that’s just what the media wants you to hear!” There are countless scandals of great importance that have been uncovered by journalists willing to ask questions, political bias or not.

Whoosh!

*sigh*

Maybe I did miss your point - if so, can you make it more succinct?

The inherent nature of news is that they report on what they think is newsworthy. And the reporting, especially investigative reporting, takes time and effort. I don’t find this surprising, or really, noteworthy. If the story presents facts, and those facts are damning, that is what I care about. Not whether or not there is another story out there that might be equally, or more, damning.

It's all in how they decide what is "newsworthy." If you genuinely don't care if political ideology is driving what facts they present and what facts they withhold, then I guess there's nothing more to talk about.

I do care if the media lies or intentionally misrepresents the truth - see my regular gripes with Project Veritas who has done that multiple times.

Since there’s no way to know what was held back or wasn’t investigated, I take the information provided and the bias of the organization into consideration. To do otherwise, IMO, renders news moot and leaves one in a place where they can’t use news to make an informed opinion.